KI_KILITIIN_KITA (KKK)

POST 0018

2010-08-04T06:34:00.000-07:00

SAME TIME & PLACE AS POST 0017

ABBAS commented on the then upcoming PHILIPPINE ELECTIONS 2010:

-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE/COMMENTARY-------
September 2, 2009
Noynoy, the Anointed and the Philippine political class | Current

events, Media Studies, Socio-Political, Philipine Elections

jamalashley @ 3:17 pm

The media, especially the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN, made sure that all

Filipinos would read about, listen and/or watch the Cory Aquino

wake and funeral rites. While watching the seemingly endless media

coverage of the affair, I realized that there are only TWO groups

in the Philippine political class today - the Marcos group and the

Aquino group. All of them were "made" either by Marcos or Aquino or

their cronies. Those who (or whose family) came before Marcos time

re-entered the political class through either Marcos or Cory.

There were, of course, exceptions. They came from nowhere. Manny

Villar came to the political scene by way of becoming a

billionaire. Noli de Castro came via the TV/radio media.

AGENDA-SETTING

The unheard of news coverage (which is still on-going) of Cory's

death evidently points to an agenda by media.

The media trumpeted that Cory's death supposedly buried Cha-Cha

(Charter Change). Later, they built up Cory's son, Noynoy as the

anointed, a veritable new Messiah.

The Lopezes, who own the ABS-CBN network, owed practically

everything to Cory. Cory gave them back ABS-CBN lock, stock and

barrel and even more.

The leading newspaper, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, had a bad

experience with Joseph Estrada, who is planning a comeback.

The second leading newspaper, the Philippine Star, has always been

pro-Cory.

AQUINO GROUP UNITED

The power of the media is now proven with the unity of the Aquino

group. The Aquino political class has closed ranks behind Benigno

Aquino III or Noynoy, the lackluster son of Ninoy and Cory Aquino.

Mar Roxas, the Liberal Party standard bearer, was forced to take a

back seat to the Anointed. Roxas's fiancee, TV/radio broadcaster

Korina Sanchez, must be fuming. Incidentally, Sanchez was

supposedly romantically linked to Noynoy before Mar.

MARCOS GROUP SCATTERED

While the Aquino political class has united, the Marcos political

class is still divided. The patriarchs of the group are former

President Joseph "Erap" Estrada and his 1992 presidential running

mate, Eduardo "Danding" Cojuangco, Cory's first cousin.

Erap still dreams of becoming president again. Danding has two

surrogates - Chiz Escudero and his nephew, Gilbert Teodoro.

Teodoro is trying to get the nod of the ruling party, Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo's Lakas-Kampi-CMD.

By definition (as mentioned above), GMA belongs to the Aquino

group. But because of circumstances, she is now the Aquino group's

Public Enemy No. 1.

To unite the Marcos group, Chiz should unite with Erap. An Erap-

Chiz tandem would be a match to the Noynoy-Mar team-up. Noynoy

should team-up with Mar. It is the gentlemanly thing to do. But for

pragmatic reasons, the group would probably get another guy. They

should not get one from their group, like Makati kingpin Jejomar

Binay. It would be better if they get somebody from the Marcos

political class like Senator Richard Gordon. Or, they could get

Supreme Court Chief Justice Puno, who is waging a "morality"

campaign, whatever that means.

NOT LIKE THEIR FATHERS

I truly feel sorry for both Mar and Noynoy. They are not their

fathers yet their families/clans expect them to follow their

fathers' footsteps. Mar is not Gerry and Noynoy is almost the

opposite of Ninoy.

As a child and a young man, I had great respect and admiration for

Gerry Roxas and Ninoy Aquino. Unfortunately, I think their sons did

not get their fathers' charismatic charms.

THE ODD MEN OUT

Villar and de Castro do not belong to either political class. The

two can team up but they will lack the political clout or the so-

called "command votes" enjoyed by members of the political class.

Villar's Nacionalista Party has very few members.

De Castro is still weighing his options. He could either join GMA's

or Villar's party.

GMA AGENDA

Whatever GMA's agenda is, her party should get a fairly popular

president. Teodoro and Bayani Fernando come last in all surveys on

presidential candidates. On the other hand, the Vice President is a

very popular fellow. He can give the very popular Estrada a run for

his money. Their constituencies belong to the lower classes - C,D

and E. And that is where most of the Philippine populace belong.

A Noli de Castro - Gilbert Teodoro tandem would do well for

Gloria's party.

If everyone play their cards well, the 2010 presidential elections

could be very interesting.

Comments (1)
August 5, 2009
Ramos-Horta and Macapagal-Arroyo in Aquino wake / funeral mass |

Current events, Socio-Political jamalashley @ 10:10 am

I was watching the TV coverage of the funeral mass for the former

President Corazon C. Aquino. Shortly before the mass began, former

anchor of Tagalog-language TV news programs and now Vice President

of the Philippine Republic Noli de Castro arrived. He was quite in

a hurry to go to his seat as if afraid that he would not get to sit

in the front rows. When he arrived at the proper row, he was

greeted by former Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos. Ramos

introduced him to East Timor President and Nobel Peace Prize

laureate Jose Ramos-Horta. De Castro did not seem to give much

attention to Mr. Ramos-Horta. He seemed to be concerned only with

finding his seat. And suddenly, he pushed aside ”with his two

hands" the East Timor President so he (de Castro) could sit next to

ex-President Fidel Ramos.

I couldn't believe my eyes! I asked my companion if she saw what De

Castro did. Yes she did. So, I thought that maybe it was not

Ramos-Horta. Maybe it was just his (Ramos-Horta's) aide.

A few minutes later, Ramos-Horta was shown entering his limousine

and leaving the Manila Cathedral. The news anchors did not know why

Ramos-Horta was leaving. And when the cameras went back to show

Fidel Ramos and De Castro, there was noone seated next to the Vice

President.

Why would anybody go through all the trouble of attending a funeral

in another country and leave just before the mass begins?

How I wish I had TIVO so I could just rewind and verify if it was

indeed Ramos-Horta who was unceremoniously shoved aside by Noli de

Castro.

PRESENCE / ABSENCE OF ARROYO

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo went to the wake of former

President Aquino early morning today. Only one child of the former

president was there to greet her. She sat near Senator Noynoy

Aquino for some 10 minutes and left. She will not be attending the

funeral.

I think Arroyo's advisers got it all wrong. Arroyo should not have

come for the wake because wakes are usually for friends and

relatives, of which she was neither. She should have come for the

funeral proper as it would be more politically-correct. It is only

proper that a sitting president would attend the funeral of a

former president, especially a former superior. Ms. Arroyo was

appointed as Assistant Secretary and later Undersecretary at the

DTI by then President Aquino. It was at the Department of Trade and

Industry that Ms. Arroyo started making her fortune.

I was at the funeral of the late Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino,

President Aquino's husband. I joined the very long caravan from

Sto. Domingo Church to the Memorial Park. We left the church around

9 or 10 a.m. and reached the memorial park some 11 hours later.

That was an experience.

But this time, I pass.

Comments (0)
June 8, 2009
BANGSA MORO STRUGGLE | History, Socio-Political, Bangsa Moro,

Moroland, Religious/Cultural, Islam jamalashley @ 11:10 pm

In my post The Bangsa Moro is an International Concern, a reader,

DATUAN SOLAIMAN PANOLIMBA (datuan.panolimba@yahoo.com) wrote a

rather long "comment". Because of its length, I am instead

publishing it in this post.

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

ARMED STRUGGLE OF THE BANGSAMORO MUSLIMS IN THE PHILIPPINES:

Written by: DATUAN SOLAIMAN PANOLIMBA-
North Cotabato, Philippines

Bismillaher Rahmaner Raheem. Asalamo Alaykum Warahmatullahi

Wabarakatuho.

The Bangsamoro Muslims of Mindanao and its islands have fought the

longest and bloodiest struggle in the entire history of mankind in

the world which extends to about four hundred eighty seven (487)

years already up to this writing. First, the Bangsamoro people

fought, without let up, against the Spanish colonial power for 377

years from 1521 to 1898. Second, they fought a bloody war against

the American imperialist from 1898 up to 1946.And third, they are

still fighting against the Philippine neo-colonial power from 1946

up to the present.

In fact the present JIHAD FIY SABILILLAH waged by the Bangsamoro

people is a continuation of the struggle which had been fought by

their ancestors and forebears demanding for freedom and

independence. The 487-year war which has been fought by the

Bangsamoro is replete with historical facts.

But what is surprising is despite of the long period of war being

fought for; the Bangsamoro people are still engaged in a war for

freedom and independence. The struggle which has been fought by the

Bangsamoro in four hundred eighty seven years (487) had extensively

covered by the Muslim historians and authors in their books such as

Dr. Cesar Adib Majul in his Muslims in the Philippines, 1973,

Manila, Philippines, Dr. Alunan C. Glang in Muslim Secession or

Integration, 1969, Quezon City, Philippines, and Salah Jubair in

Bangsamoro: A Nation Under Endless Tyranny, 1997, Lahore, Pakistan.

THE FIRST MORO WAR:

After securing the friendship with Rajah Humabon of Cebu, Ferdinand

Magellan, who led the Spanish colonial adventure in the Far East,

invaded the small kingdom of Mactan in 1521. The island was then

ruled by Rajah Lapu-Lapu who did not want to be a friend of foreign

colonizer.

It can be noted, therefore, that Visayas before was believed under

the influence if not one of the principalities controlled by the

Moro Sultanate of Sulu or Maguindanao at that early period of time.

See Map of Moro Sultanate, principalities and areas in Luzon,

Visayas and Mindanao at the time of the arrival of Spaniards in

1521. (Source: London Library and Museum). Unfortunately, Magellan

died in action on April 27, 1521 that drove the Spaniards back to

the West and by such incident, they had narrated their fiasco under

the hands of the native inhabitants.

Thus, Lapu_Lapu stood as the first native chieftain who fought

against foreign attempt to colonize the Moro homeland.
The Spanish dream had yet started so that in 1522, with Captain

Sebastian Del Cano at the head of the Spanish survivors, Spain

became the first circumnavigator of the globe as declared.

SPAIN'S AGGRESSION:

Crown Prince Felipe, known as King Philip II of Spain, directed

Captain Miguel Lopez de Legaspi, the viceroy of Mexico, to go to

the Philippine island and to make it a permanent Spanish colony. He

landed at Cebu where he had established the first Spanish

settlement in 1565. In 1569, he proceeded to Panay where a second

Spanish settlement was created.

After quelling some minor resistances staged by the native

inhabitants, he sent Captain Martin de Goiti to Luzon, particularly

in Manila where a well-fortified Moro principality was located. It

was ruled by Rajah Solaiman and assisted by Rajah Matanda. Tondo

then was ruled by Rajah Lakandula. Records has showed that these

Manila chieftains where of Bornean origin. In fact, their

relationship with the Sultan of Borneo was categorized as very

close to each other.

Rajah Solaiman who led the fight for freedom and independence,

declared to the foreign aggressors the following words: "WE WISH TO

BE THEN FRIENDS OF ALL NATIONS. BUT THEY MUST UNDERSTAND THAT WE

CANNOT TOLERATE ANY ABUSE. ON THE CONTRARY, WE WILL REPAY WITH

DEATH THE LEAST THING THAT TOUCHES OUR HONOR." Unfortunately, on

June 3, 1571, Rajah Solaiman perished at the historic Battle of

Bangkusay, a place off the coast of Tondo, but he left with a

patriotic landmark in his defense of freedom and independence of

the country. The next to fall, despite of a fierce defense by the

native inhabitants, was the Muslim principality of Mindoro in 1574.

Then came the short-lived Magat Salamat Uprising in 1587. Emerging

victorious over the pockets of resistance were the Spanish

conquistadors. So that within a span of 11years, they were able to

overlord the territory of Luzon and Visayas. Legaspi, who was

appointed as the first Governor-General, had made Manila as the

seat of Spanish colony in Luzon and Visayas, which was collectively

called as "Filipinas" or "Philippine Islands" eventually.

Salah Jubair succinctly wrote â€œit is necessary to clarify,

contrary to popular perception, two important points in history:

Firstly, the first group of people whom the Spaniards in 1570

called "Moros" were those in Manila and environs and not the

Islamized natives in Mindanao and Sulu and secondly, the first

Moro-Spanish War was not fought in Mindanao and Sulu but right in

what is Metropolitan Manila.

THE MORO-SPANISH WAR:

The 377 year of Moro-Spanish War represents an uninterrupted bloody

war which had been fought by the Moros against the Spaniard's

attempt to subjugate them as a people. At first, the Spaniards

thought that Borneo was more of a threat to the Manila colony than

the Muslims of Mindanao and Sulu. So they invaded Borneo in 1578.

However, after their Bornean expedition, the Spaniards had turned

their eyes on the Moros in the South, particularly, Sulu which they

were suspecting of having an alliance with the Borneans.

The Spanish colony towards the Moros was basically spelled out in

the instructions of Governor-General Francisco de Sande to Captain

Esteban Rodriguez de Figueroa in May of 1578. Figueroa was

officially commissioned to subdue the Moro Sultanate of Mindanao

and Sulu.

It was clear then from the instructions given to him, Spain sought

to achieve two things with respect to the Moros of Mindanao namely:
1. Get them to acknowledge Spanish sovereignty over their

territory.

2. Promote trade with them, limiting their trade to the Philippine

islands and exploring natural resources of Moro land with a view to

their commercial exploitations.

3. Bring an end to Moro "piracy" against Spanish shipping, and an

end to Moro raids on the Christianized settlements of the Visayas

and Southern Luzon. 4. Hispanize and Christianize the Moros, along

the same lines followed with respect to other lowland Filipino

(Indio) groups.

According to Dr Peter G. Gowing, the last line Spanish policy was

the reason if not the root of the Moro's fierce resistance to the

Spaniards and their Christianized Filipino allies. Capt. Figueroa

was instructed to order the Moro chief not to admit any more

"preachers of the doctrine of Mahomet since it is evil and false,

and that of the Christianity alone is good." Addressing himself to

the "Lord of Mindanao," the instruction includes: "You shall tell

him that our object is that he be converted to Christianity and

that he must allow us freely to preach the law of the Christians,

and the natives must be allowed to go and hear the preaching and to

be converted, without receiving any harm from the chiefs."

Furthermore, Figueroa was instructed to ascertain who the preachers

of Islam were so that they can be arrested and brought them before

the Governor-general. He was also commanded to destroy any Masjeed

he found "where that accursed doctrine has been preached and you

shall order that it be not be rebuilt." As he was instructed to

meet force with force and to punish the Moros as he deemed best

taking special care not to trust them..., the Moros responded to

such designs with violence and warfare. In 1596, during the initial

Spanish campaign in Buhayan (Buayan) in the heart of Mindanao,

Figueroa met his disastrous defeat.

The erstwhile Spanish conquistador suffered death at the hands of

the Moro warriors led by Datu Ubal (Mangubal in Moro tradition).

The initial Spanish campaign in Mindanao had ignited and caused the

series of bloody encounters between the Moros and the Spaniards, in

which,it was carried up to the coming of the Americans in 1899.

MORO WARS:

In retaliation to the Spanish cruelty, the Moros had carried out

the war to the Spanish settlements in Luzon and Visayas. In 1599

led by Datu Sirongan and Datu Salikula of Mindanao, the Moros

raided the northern islands and return home with rich war booty

including several captives. The Moro actions had created fear and

anxiety among the Spanish and Filipino settlements in Luzon and

Visayas.

In succeeding years, the Moro buccaneers harassed Spanish shipping,

and so were dubbed "pirates". But to the Moros they believed they

were fighting a war in defense of freedom and independence. Thus,

Sultan Kudarat I, after his ascension to power to the Sultanate of

Mindanao in 1619, declared a Jihad against Spain whom he had

emboldened more than ever the Moros to fight for home, country and

Islam. Their expeditions carried Jihad to the coasts of Visayas and

Luzon.

From then on, the Moro war vessels periodically raided, killed and

plunders Spanish settlements. Thus, it was dubbed really a bloody

war. The Spaniards counter move was seen in their series of

punitive expeditions against the Moros. The expeditions were made

up of Spanish-led Christian Filipino forces. Which eventually, the

Spaniards had succeeded to establish forts in Moro homeland,

however, their colonies were only confined inside their fortified

garrisons. They failed to subdue the Moros who were periodically

attacking their forts.

From the 18th up to the 19th centuries of Spanish successive

engagement in the "Moro Wars", it was never followed by effective

and permanent occupation of the Bangsamoro ancestral homeland. The

American historian Dr. Najeeb Saleeby rightly observed that "the

Moros fought for home and country, for freedom to pursue their

religion and way of life, and for liberty to rove the seas

whichever they would." For over 300 years, they had made a shamble

of Spain's Moro policy.

Even with the importation of Spanish war vessels in the middle of

the 19th century did not stop the Moro raids of Spanish and

Filipino settlements of Visayas and Luzon. Despite of being

guerilla fighters, the Moro exacted a heavy toll of casualties,

however, when entrenched in their "cota" (fort) they simply could

not be rooted out.

When situation demanded they would have readily killed their

wounded and gave no quarter to the Spanish and Christian Filipino

enemy. They fought ferociously, and their usual tactic was to wear

down the attackers, obliging them eventually to withdraw. At the

close of the 19th century, the Spanish colonial power in Luzon and

Visayas was threatened by the Filipino Revolution of 1896 and the

coming of the American colonial power in 1898.

Subsequently, the Treaty of Paris was concluded on December 10,

1898 between the United States of America and Spain wherein the

latter had ceded to the Americans her former colony in Mexico,

Honolulu and the Philippine Islands with the amount of $20 million.

With this treaty, the Spaniards abandoned their colony in the north

by virtue of the Treaty of Paris. So that the Moros of the south

remained a free and independent people. Thus, they were not

subjugated by their conquistadors.

AMERICAN AGGRESSION:

The Bangsamoro people of Mindanao were already enjoying freedom and

independence when the Filipinos declared a revolution against Spain

in 1896. When the Americans arrived in the Philippine islands in

1898, the Philippine Revolution was already in progress in Luzon

and Visayas. The so called "Spanish-American war" was also nearing

its end.

For instance, Commodore George Dewey, commanding the American naval

flotilla, defeated the Spanish Pacific Squadron during "Battle of

Manila Bay" on May 1, 1898. Subsequently, the United States of

America assumed the authority in the Philippine Islands by virtue

of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. But the Filipinos, who

declared the independence of the First Philippine Republic on June

1, 1898, had to fight a new imperialist power.

Maverick as it was, the Americans sought the forging of the Bates-

Kiram Agreement on August 20, 1899 with a view to neutralizing the

Moros of the south while they were still engaging the forces of

President Emilio Aguinaldo in the north.

After three years of Filipino-American war, the Americans were able

to crush the Philippine revolution and declared a general amnesty

in 1902. The Americans, after having a unilateral abrogation of the

Bates-Kiram Agreement, had now turn their eyes to the Moros of

Mindanao.

In May 1899, the first US Army contingent landed in Jolo, Sulu. The

US troops had also occupied Zamboanga on November 16 and followed

the Cotabato areas in December. This began the American occupation

of Mindanao which ended in May 1920 when the Department of Mindanao

and Sulu was abolished as a government unit.

MORO-AMERICAN WAR:

For all practical reasons, the American occupation of the Moro land

was a direct affront to the freedom and independence of the Moros.

The lesson from the Spanish policy of subjugation was still fresh

in the minds and hearts of the Moros. With the Americans, the Moros

have had similar views, as a threat, and a change of colonial

master which had the same intention with that of their predecessor,

that is, to subjugate them as a people.

Thus trouble had erupted as early as May 1899. But this time, the

next generation of Moros took the cudgel. Soon various

confrontations flared up in Mindanao and Sulu. This led J. Ralston

Hayden, an American writer, to note that "never during the entire

continental expansion of the United States had armed encounters

been as frequent and serious as that between the Moros and American

troops."

The Moros' determination to defend their religion and country had

prompted the American colonizers to comment that "THE ONLY GOOD

MORO IS A DEAD MORO." Record has showed that there were at least

20,000 Moros who were killed in action from 1899 to 1916. From 1904

to 1906 alone, the Moros suffered about 3,000 killed as against 70

Americans.

Large-scale engagements were recorded between the American troops

and the Moro warriors in several parts of Mindanao and Sulu from

1902 to 1935. The most serious were those staged by Panglima

Hassan, Datu Ali, Datu Ampuan Agaus and Jikiri.

Shortly after the establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth

Government on November 15, 1935 with Manuel L. Quezon as the first

President, the Moros had viewed it as the transfer of colonial

government to a new master. It could be noted, therefore, that

Mindanao and Sulu were forcefully annexed to the Commonwealth

government. Again, the Moros rose in arms in defense of their

freedom and independence.

The most serious armed rebellion that took place in Mindanao was

happened in June 1936. It was spearheaded by Hadji Abdulhamid

Bungabong of Unayan, Lanao del Sur and lasted for several years.

The Moros fought gallantry and heroically in a series of wars

called "COTA WARS". The grievances were contained in a petition

letter sent to the President of the United States of America. The

issues presented were:

1. Moros had become second class citizens.

2. The Moro Province be segregated once independence is given to

the Filipinos.

3. Acquisition of lands in the Moro Province be reserved for the

Moros.

4. Islam must not be curtailed in any manner.

The uprising lasted until the dawning of the Japanese interregnums

in 1941. The Moros were once again caught in the crossfire between

two colonial masters. But now between the Americans and the

Japanese which saw its peak from 1942 to 1945.

PARLIAMENTARY STRUGGLE:

In 1946 it saw the final annexation of the Moro land to the new

Philippine Republic. Historians, in the likes of Salah Jubair, have

succinctly observed that "The U.S. colonial government and the

succeeding Filipino neo-colonial power have utterly failed to stamp

out Moro resistance. But they have succeeded in rendering the Moro

traditional power structure effete and almost obsolete."

"The main casualties were the sultans and datus, whose authority

had been squelched to the extent, that they had become mere symbols

of the past and mute relics of history," he pointed out. "The

sultan-people direct dealing," he continued "has been almost

severed and , to get rid of the evils of dual rule, meaning sultan

and government ruling simultaneously, the Commonwealth government

directed all state-installed officials in 1936 to take over the

roles so far exercised by the sultans and datus."

Elaborating that the disintegration of the traditional socio-

political order and the ever-tightening imposition of the secular-

materialistic concept of life bequeathed by the Americans, Salah

Jubair said that it has created an extensively difficult situation

for the Moros. Consequently, those who were won over to the

American side, freely or under duress, were the ones who with their

pens, slogans and orations adopted and pursued the parliamentary or

unarmed way of struggle.

These crops of Moro intellectuals asked the United States

government to separate the Moro Province, either as colony or as

independent state. Singly or in chorus, they unanimously refused to

join the Filipinos in their demand for independence. It was true

that they did not succeed, neither did they achieve anything of

consequence in terms of the real liberation of the Moros-that

obviously, was already fore doomed from the start.

But there is no gain slaying the fact that they did their best in

their own way. Yet, on the other hand, by following the unarmed way

of struggle, they were deeply entangled into the Americans cobweb

and continued to become subservient to the whims and caprices of

the new colonial masters.

Failing to achieve their aspiration to be free and independent

during the American colonial days, the Moro parliamentary struggle

dragged to the post-war Philippine administrations. Couple with

some isolated disturbances, armed clashes between Moro warriors and

government troops were reported in various parts of Mindanao.

The off-and-on armed skirmishes continued to plague the countryside

in open defiance of government authorities. Whatever it may said

about the post-war pocket uprisings in Mindanao and Sulu, it could

be attributed to the fact that the Moros have never abandoned their

desire to be free and independent from the clutches of neo-

colonialism in their sacred and ancestral homeland. Nurtured by

socio-cultural discrimination, the most known of these uprisings

were those led by Kamlon Hajji, Abdulmajid Panondiongan, Tawantawan

and Hadjal Uh. It took billions of pesos from the national coffers

in quelling these insurrections.

Such that amid cries of national neglect and apathy, Congressman

Ombra Amilbangsa of Sulu Province had gone to extent of sponsoring

a bill in Philippine Congress in 1961 which sought to declare the

independence of the Province of Sulu from the Philippine Republic.

The Moro solon was disgusted by the chronic ills and inequities

prevalent in the Philippine society where the Moros were the direct

victims. His bill did not merit the attention of his colleagues in

Congress and his move was simply dismissed as a "drama or

attention-calling."

MORO STRUGGLE CONTINUED:

In 1968, the then Governor Datu Udtog Matalam of the empire

Cotabato Province created the Mindanao Independence Movement (MIM)

seeking the separation of Mindanao, Sulu, Basilan, Tawitawi and

Palawan from the Republic of the Philippines and to establish an

Islamic State in the sacred and ancestral homeland of the

Bangsamoro people. But the dream and aspiration of the grand old

man of Cotabato failed.

Finally in 1972, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and its

military wings, the Bangsamoro Army led by Prof. Nur Misuari went

public declaring armed struggle as its principal instrument in the

formation of a Bangsamoro Republik encompassing Mindanao, Sulu,

Basilan, Tawitawi and Palawan. It sought to liberate Moro people

and homeland from Philippine colonialism.

The reverberating sounds of the firearms and mortars of the

Bangsamoro Revolution led by the Moro National Liberation Front

(MNLF) pressured the Philippine government under the then dictator

President Ferdinand Marcos to entered into an agreement with the

MNLF leadership in December 23, 1976. The agreement was known as

"Tripoli Agreement of 1976." It sought to establish an autonomous

government for Muslims in South of the Philippines under its

sovereignty and territorial integrity. But Pres. Marcos grossly

violated the letter and spirit of the entire agreement.

When President Corazon (Cory) Aquino catapulted to the Philippine

presidency in 1986 because of the Peoples Power Revolution against

Pres. Marcos, she created the Autonomous Region Muslim Mindanao

(ARMM), but still failed to finally solved the Bangsamoro problem

in Mindanao and its islands.

Until in 1992, when President Fidel V. Ramos became president of

the Philippines after President Cory Aquino, his government

negotiated with the MNLF leadership which resulted to the creation

of Southern Philippine Council for Peace and Development (SPCPD) on

September 2, 1996. But still the Bangsamoro dream of freedom and

independence became more obscure. It was because of the fact that

all agreements entered by and between the MNLF and GRP are only a

showpiece of the Philippine government in order to smokescreen the

oppression, colonization, exploitation and extermination of the

Bangsamoro people. This regional set-up of government is nothing

but an adjunct of the Filipino colonial government. It is being

used by the Philippine government to further fortify the Filipino

colonialism over the Bangsamoro people and their ancestral

homeland.

So that when the MNLF leadership compromised the liberty and

independence of the Bangsamoro people in December 1976, the Moro

Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), chaired by the late Ameril

Mujahideen Ustadz Salamat Hashim went public assuming and leading

the JIHAD FIY SABILILLAH of the Bangsamoro people for final

liberation, freedom and independence, ALLAH SUBHANAHO WA'TAALA.

Late Ustadz Salamat Hashim, then Ameril Mujahideen and Chairman,

Central Committee of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) said

and we quote, "Any solution less than full independence of the

Bangsamoro people will not work. Past experiences since the be-
ginning of the annexation of the Bangsamoro homeland to the

Philippines in 1935, have proven that the Bangsamoro Muslims could

not live a normal life under a corrupt and secular government and

that the two nations, the Bangsamoros and the Filipinos, could not

get along with each other because of their distinct religions,

customs and traditions. It will be for the best interests of the

Bangsamoros and the Filipinos if both are free" and quote.

Wasalamu Alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuho.
-------END OF COPIED MATERIAL-------

LASTLY:
THE TAGALOG REVOLUTION of 1896 is only one aspect of a much

bigger/wider story of this ARCHIPELAGO. Note the remarks RE HISTORY

in the following exchanges allegedly from/in MINDANAW that I copied

from one blog or website in the past.

-------START OF COPIED MATERIAL-------
Barangay RP

« Adonis lawyers, NUJP, CMFR file petition for writ of habeas

corpus on behal of Adonis
US joins Zambo blast probe; MILF-Abu blamed »

“History must highlight Moro heroism”
By barangayrp

Quantcast

ALABEL, Sarangani (MindaNews/31 May) — A respected leader of the

Indigenous Peoples here said history must be rewritten for the

public to know the bravery and heroism of the Moro people who

fought in defending the country against foreign invaders.

Fredo Basino, one of the leaders of Blaans here and the provincial

administrator of Sarangani said, “If Mindanao is considered part of

the Philippines, then we must highlight the struggle of the Moro

people who defended this land.”

He said people fought for freedom. He noted that everyone must

still possess the will to fight for freedom. “And we need to attain

freedom, freedom from poverty,” Basino stressed.

He noted that an economic revolution is essential considering that

“we are not well developed and can be considered one of the weakest

links in the Asia-Pacific region.”

“Now the battle is against poverty,” he pointed out. “Let us tell

the people to fight poverty,” he said.

Oscar Solaiman, a Tausug leader in General Santos City, said

“Mindanao history has to be revised to be able to tell what

transpired before.”

“And we must not forget that there are Moro and the Indigenous

people who have been heroes in their own history, he added. “They

were defenders, thus they must be recognized,” he stressed.

Al Nezzar Ali, a Moro artist and local historian from General

Santos City said “there is no history written for the Moro people,

only opinions.”

He stressed that history must not be focused mainly on heroism and

idealism. “History must be rewritten to accommodate new findings

and propose new insights and thesis,” Ali said. (Gandhi C.

Kinjiyo/MindaNews)

This entry was posted on May 31, 2008 at 2:56 am and is filed under

indigenous pople, moro struggle. You can follow any responses to

this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or

trackback from your own site.
2 Responses to ““History must highlight Moro heroism””

1. Mahar Sumilang Says:
June 8, 2008 at 12:33 am | Reply

Tunay ngang napapanahon na. Mabuhay ang mga liping kayumanggi

sa kaMindanaoan!

barangayrp:

Tumpak! Per, matagal na rin namang recognized ang naging

papel ng mamamayang Moro sa kasaysayan ng ating bansa. Yun nga

lang, dahil sa umiiral na kolonyalisasyon ng US hanggang sa

kasalukuyan, talagang hindi na ito binibigyang halaga ng

pamahalaan.

They see Mindanao now as potential sources of money to fill

their pockets. Kaya nga kahit sa peace talks e di sila seryoso.

Pati nga US e nagkampo na sa Mindanaw para mabantayan ang mga

target nilang mineral doon.
2. TALIBA Says:
June 8, 2008 at 12:49 am | Reply

Ang mga kuwento at kadakilaan ng buhay at kabayanihan ng

ating mga ninuno at mga Bayani ng Lahi sa Mindanao ay itinago ng

mga mananakop at ng mga sumunod na pamahalaan/administrasyong

kanilang iniluklok, upang mailihim sa kamulatan ng buong bansa at

mga mamamayan sa Luzon at Bisayas, dahil sa takot na ito’y maaaring

magsilbing ningas ng panibagong alab ng kabayanihan mula sa Lahing

Kayumanggi, na magtatayo ng interes ng mga katutubo at bubuwag sa

kasalukuyan mapang-aping kalakaran.

barangayrp:

Isa itong taktika ng pagbura/pagbabago ng takbo ng

kasaysayan.. ang pagbabaon sa limot ng kawalan, sa pamamagitan ng

sinadyang kawalan ng mga literatura, pananaliksik at mga tala-

kasaysayan ng isang partikular na lugar. Kaya lang, nawa’y hindi

malaglag sa linya ng pyudalismo ang pakikibakang-Moro sa

kasalukuyan, tulad ng naging karanasan ng MNLF.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
-------END OF COPIED MATERIAL-------

POST 0017

2010-08-04T06:18:00.000-07:00

August 04, 2010
9:19 p.m. Manila Time

AS THE SUPREMO* OF THIS MY BLOG:) I have decided to insert these four (4) writings RE BANGSAMORO before continuing my usual antique antics. These are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for the HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY & should be read by everyone, FOREIGNERS, FILIPINOS, INDIOS, MOROS, etcetc. The ABBAS BROTHERS were a pair of VERY BRIGHT MORO LEADERS from a mixed M'RANAW-TAUSUG ancestry. In this first article, the author holds firmly to the conviction that his brother was MURDERED. ABBAS also relates important details RE NINOY AQUINO... This point-of-view from the MUSLIM MOROS is what I have termed the "BANGSAMORO PERSPECTIVE" on PHILIPPINE HISTORY.

-------START OF COPIED ABBAS ARTICLE-------
March 27, 2007
WAR IN MORO LAND (Last Phase) by Jun Abbas | History, Socio-

Political, Bangsa Moro, Moroland, Religious/Cultural
jamalashley @ 3:07 am

March 31 is the birth anniversary of Macapanton Rashid Yahya Abbas, Jr., my eldest brother. Among our siblings, I was probably the one closest to him during the years 1977-91. We were together in Saudi Arabia from 1977 to 1983 and again in 1985. We were also briefly together in Paris, France. I also helped him put up an office in Kuala Lumpur in 1985. When he came back to the Philippines, he set up the SSB Holdings, Inc. SSB was practically a 2-man job. In his unsuccessful bid for the Philippine Senate in1992, I was his Campaign Chief of Staff. After the elections, our paths drifted apart. He concentrated more in Mindanao. The last 10 years of his life centered on his wife and children in Lanao and Metro Manila.

On 17 September 2003, Jun Abbas was, as far as I am concerned, murdered at the Makati Medical Center.

Returning from Mindanao after speaking and other official engagements, Jun proceeded to Makati Medical Center for an executive check-up. He was administered a massive dose of dextrose “3 bottles within three hours“ supposedly to lower his sugar count
and to counter his alleged dehydration. While the third bottle was filling his body organs with liquid, he coughed; and, later, he was gasping for breath. His wife, daughters and sister desperately called for a doctor but nobody came. They implored the nurses to call any doctor. Incredibly, NOT A SINGLE DOCTOR WAS AVAILABLE at
the supposedly top-notch Makati Medical Center. Yet when it was all over for Jun, the doctors suddenly came rushing from nowhere.

When I later told my doctor-friends about it, they all said that Jun died of DROWNING. Nobody could survive such a massive dose of dextrose in so short a time.

A few weeks before this happened; Jun led a top-level Moro delegation to meet with President GMA. The Moros, which included almost all elected and appointed top government officials, demanded the ouster of a top Cabinet official, whom the Moros accused as responsible for escalating the war in Mindanao. GMA agreed and sacked the official.

After Jun's passing away, that top official was back at the Cabinet.

For years, I had been telling him to write his memoirs on the Bangsa Moro revolution if he wanted history to recognize his central role in it. There are already many versions floating around.

Amazingly, just before he died, he submitted to Ateneo a long and rambling essay where he mentioned his role in the revolutionary movement. The Ateneo Law Journal editors must have realized the importance of such a document. They had it published immediately, including all the grammatical errors.

Jun Abbas's last published article was

IS A BANGSA MORO STATE WITHIN A FEDERATION THE SOLUTION?

(Ateneo Law Journal Vol. 48 Sept 2003)
(Macapanton Rashid Yahya Abbas, Jr, was Full Professor at the King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in the mid to late 1970s)

Here is an excerpt from that article:

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

WAR IN MORO LAND (Last Phase)

The brief history of the present Bangsa Moro Struggle, which I will present in the first person because I was one of the original members of the movement from 1965 onward. This is perhaps the first time I will be writing on this matter because I want the Bangsa Moro Youth and the Filipino People to understand the Islamic Struggle of our people while there are still some of the originators of the struggle who are still alive and involved in different capacities in the society.

Even before the Jabidah Massacre in 1968, the Muslim students organized on the national level, the CNI Scholars Association and the Muslim Students Association of the Philippines which started as social organizations. In 1965, because of the Vietnam War and massive influx of settlers to Mindanao, the student leaders from UP
injected these issues and started the militancy of the Muslim students. The first issue to be questioned was the policy of "National Integration"" because the Muslims believe that they can not be integrated culturally and socially to the Philippine society that is based on Christian values and acceptance, of Spanish colonialism as a blessing and heritage that resulted to the Christianization of the Philippines. The scholars and the Commission on National Integration supported this position and what the country needed was "unity in diversity" and possibly a "federal system of government" since amendments to the constitution was on the national agenda for 1971.

The Muslim Youth organized that National Coordinating Council for Islamic Affairs (NACCIA) and issued a Manifesto entitled "Al Wahid" in 1967 calling on the Filipino leadership to pay greater attention to the miserable situation of the Muslims before
rebellion will break out. There was a massive influx of settlers to the Muslim areas and displacement of Muslims and Lumads was widespread. The government was encouraging the immigration of settlers from Visayas especially from Negros provinces, Leyte, Samar, and Iloilo, because of the problems of the sugar plantation
workers. There were also massive logging activities denuding the Mindanao forests by concessionaires from Luzon like the Antoninos, Sarmientos, Valencias, Floreindos, Alcantaras, etc.. These new economic elite who were the agents of Korean, Japanese, US and European companies destroyed the forests of Mindanao which were preserved because of the failure to colonize the Bangsa Moro.

These groups that destroyed the environment are now the industrial and financial controllers of the region including installing their proteges in the political positions and even dictate policies for the Bangsa Moro. The NACCIA warned that these economic aggressions against the Muslims in their homeland and political displacement will be met with armed struggle. The government did not listen as usual.

In 1968, trainees from Sulu (Sulu and Tawi-tawi was one province then) in the Army were massacred by their officers at Corregidor when they demanded their pay and to return to their homes because they refused to go Sabah to infiltrate and start the rebellion to reclaim Sabah for the Philippines. The Commanding Officer was Major
Eddie Martelino, an alleged convert to Islam (who was later executed by the MNLF-Malaysians in Sabah after his capture sometime in 1978-79). This incident led Congressmen Rashid Lucman, Salipada Pendatun and Salih Ututalum to demand congressional investigations backed by massive youth demonstrations which took over the Congress premises. Only Congressmen Indanan Ani and Ali Dimaporo sided with
President Marcos.

The Union of Islamic Forces and Organizations composed of all the National Muslim organizations under the leadership of Sultan Rashid Lucman was organized. I was elected Secretary General. My assignment was to organize the demonstrations. I organized and led the demonstrations in front of Congress while Nur Misuari and Abul
Alonto organized the sit-in at Freedom Park, Malacanang. I led the demonstration in Jolo the first and last anti-government demonstration of around 10,000 persons and in Cotabato City with the MIM and Marawi City with the BMLF leaders. I was then Private Secretary to Commissioner Tamano at CNI, so, I filed my resignation which was not accepted, but I was allowed to go on leave of absence by Executive Secretary Rafael Salas because I refused to desist from leading the demonstrations. I told him, "if Ilonggo soldiers were massacred, would you keep silent because you are in
government?" He smiled and told me that he will inform President Marcos, and they will not take any action against me. Despite my action, my brother-in-law was taken as the Muslim Senatorial candidate. Maybe Marcos would have dealt with the Muslims properly if only Martial Law was not declared. In that election, only Congressman Pendatun was returned to Congress because of massive fraud and vote buying which defeated the anti-Marcos Congressmen but a Muslim senator was elected in the person of Senator Mamintal Tamano.

The foreign trained Top 90 has returned home and were welcomed by Senator Ninoy Aquino at Malabang, Lanao Sur. The local training camps were established and the Top 90 became the trainors. At that time, the secret organization was the Bangsa Moro Liberation Front (BMLF) which was later named Bangsa Moro Liberation Organization
(BMLO) under Sultan Rashid Lucman and General Salipada Pendatun.

The Top 90 also secretly organized the Moro National Liberation Front headed by Nur Misuari and Abul Alonto. The young Ulama, professionals and youth leaders were with the BMLF. This was also the first time that Bangsa Moro was used to refer to the Muslims in the Philippines. The MNLF used Moro only. This came after the Muslim Youth National Assembly (MYNA) wherein, over 200 youth leaders met in Zamboanga City at the same time with the Muslim Association of the Philippines Congress in 1969. Almost all the future leaders of the MNLF, MILF, BMLO and political leaders of the
Muslims were present.

The MYNA debated independence or federation as the exercise of the right of self-determination of the Bangsa Moro people. After two days, the vote that won was to participate in the Constitutional Convention election of 1971 and proposed a Federal system to get a Bangsa Moro state. That is why, Nur Misuari, Mike Mastura, Musib Buat, Hussin Pangato of MIM, others and myself ran in the Concon elections and only Mike Mastura was able to make it due to massive cheating and vote buying to assure Marcos a majority. The Federal proposal never saw the light of day in the Concon and the Constitution of 1973 did not contain any provision to respect Bangsa Moro right of self-determination. Only Delegate Banjamin Abubakar of Sulu refused to vote for the approval of the Constitution and he truly represented the aspirations of the Bangsa Moro people and not the Muslim delegates who capitulated to Marcos.[1]

The 1970-72 period saw the escalation of violence between the Barracudas and Ilagas in Lanao Norte and Black shirts and Ilagas in the Cotabato massacres. The Ilagas â€œratsâ€ were paramilitary forces of President Ferdinand E. Marcos and supported by the AFP directly or indirectly. The Mindanao Independence Movement was organized by Datu Udtog Matalam, patriarch of Cotabato, in 1969 which led to the violent clashes and became the stimulus for the government and Christian militias to launch massacres against unarmed Muslims as in the Manile, Cotabato massacre of Muslims in a Masjid (mosque); the Lutayan; the Tacub; the IPIL and the Pata, Sulu massacres etc. The people of Buldon fought a battle against the AFP wherein the air force, artillery and tanks were used against a Moro town. They fought until Mayor Tomatic Aratuc met with President Marcos and the government forces were withdrawn.

That time the President was the real Commander-in-Chief and was responsible for all the military assaults on the Moro Communities. This situation continued and the BMLF under Sultan Lucman and General Pendatun decided to file genocide charges against President Marcos at the UN and also at the OIC. A Petition was filed with UN Commission on Human Rights, through the UN Office in Manila in 1971. This was reported on the BBC world radio and was heard by Col. Ghadaffi of Libya who was then the new leader of his country and decided to respond. He sent his Foreign Minister Saleh Buoyaser to Manila as a Professor to attend the World Universities Conference. That was how the Bangsa Moro case was internationalized. This led to the organization of the Islamic Directorate of the Philippines (IDP) where all the Muslim political leaders joined as well the youth leaders including the writer,
Misuari and Salamat. Dean Ceasar Adib Majul was elected Chair as non-partisan leader and this author Secretary General.

OIC RECOGNITION

As mentioned earlier, this author was sent as a lawyer to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in February 1972 at the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers of the OIC. He met with Secretary General Tengku Abdul Rahman and asked King Faisal Bin Abdul Aziz to mention the issue in his speech. King Faisal also called Tun Abdul Razak to support the case, which Malaysia did. Minister Buoyaser of Libya coordinated with the Moros and got the Bangsa Moro issue into the agenda for the next conference in Libya. That was how the Bangsa Moro issue became the concern of the OIC from 1972 to the present, 29 years and still not finally settled. When martial law was declared, the
author was arrested and detained at Fort Bonifacio. In 1976, he went into exile in Saudi Arabia until 1987, after EDSA I upon invitation of the government under President Corazon C. Aquino. In 1972, the Bangsa Moro clans led the fight against the military that were sent to the Moro areas to collect loose firearms which started with the October uprising in Marawi in 1972. Later in 1973, the MNLF gradually took over the leadership of the armed struggle because of the weapons they were able to bring into Mindanao and logistics donated by supporters of the Bangsa Moro JIHAD. The OIC and many Islamic organizations and governments gave political and material support to the Bangsa Moro. The OIC Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, Libya, Somalia and Senegal came to the Philippines in 1973 and met with the President and agreed to work out a political solution. They went to the Muslim areas up to Sulu. In 1974, the burning of Jolo resulted when the MNLF fighters entered Jolo and a very big battle raged with naval bombardment ordered against Jolo in disregard for innocent civilian lives.

As a consequence, the 1974 Islamic Summit was held in Islamabad, Pakistan. The Summit declared that the situation of the Bangsa Moro Muslims was not an internal problem but a concern of the whole Muslim world. This was demanded by the Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak. The Bangsa Moro was allowed to convene in Marawi City by President Marcos. The Confederation of the Royal Houses of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan led by its Chairman, Sultan Harun Al Rashid Lucman and this author as the Supervising Officer of the Presidential Task Force for the Reconstruction and Development of Mindanao, held the "Mindanao Policy Conference" and came out with a resolution demanding regional political autonomy. This was at the height of martial law and it became the political basis for the OIC to demand regional political autonomy and the demand for negotiations with the Bangsa Moro leaders and the MNLF at the 1974 Kuala Lumpur Conference of OIC-ICFM. At this time there was only one leadership and organization â€“ the MNLF. The Bangsa Moro struggle got the support of the Muslim states and the first negotiation between MNLF and GRP was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia hosted by the OIC in 1975. Executive Secretary Alejandro Melchor led the GRP delegation.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH BANGSA MORO

In 1976, the government created a negotiating panel headed by Carmelo Z. Barbero to talk peace again with the MNLF. The talks were held under the auspices of the OIC in Tripoli, Libya. The peace talks resulted in the forging of the now historic Tripoli
Agreement and recognized as the historic territories of the Bangsa Moro Darul Salam of the Sultanates of Sulu, Maguindanao, Pat-a Pagampong a Ranao, Rajah Buayan and Saragani or the areas almost corresponding to the Moro Province during the American occupation which is the whole of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan except the Caraga Region. To end the war, the areas of autonomy consisting of 13 provinces and cities therein were recognized by the GRP as the Bangsa Moro Homeland. These are the areas which were later constituted as the SZOPAD - Special Zone of Peace and Development.

President Marcos held a referendum on the areas of autonomy and reduced the area to 10 provinces and cities and established the Regional Commissions for Regions 9 and 12. The violation of the Tripoli Agreement was from its inception and it was more honored in the breach rather in compliance. In 1977, Hashim Salamat, the MNLF Vice Chairman for Foreign Affairs left the organization and formed as separate faction of the MNLF. After a few years when OIC did not recognize him, Salamat organized the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), emphasizing Islam instead of only political and economic grievance of the Bangsa Moro.

This split was later followed in 1982 when the Moro Peoples National Congress of MNLF led by Atty. Abdul Basit Harrid (Jibril Riddah) and Haji Napis Bidin ousted Chairman Nur Misuari and installed Commander Dimas Pundato as Chairman, supported by many active commanders in the Homeland. Pundato was then Vice-Chairman of Misuari's MNLF. The BMLO and the Pundato faction later joined forces and established the MNLF-Reformist Group. The group disbanded when Pundato joined the government as OMA Chief under President Corazon Aquino. The reformist commanders who did not join the government like Cdr. Digo and Cdr. Iqra formed in 1999, the new MNLF-Islamic Command Council with Mujahab Hashim as Chairman and Cdr. Milham Alam as Chief of Staff. Eventually, the four MNLF factions reunited and approved a constitution in Tripoli, Libya, April 2003. They have not yet elected a Chairman and other officers.

TRIPOLI AGREEMENT 1976

The government implemented the Tripoli Agreement unilaterally in a manner that was in contravention with the letter and spirit of the said Agreement. In 1986, President Marcos was deposed through "People Power" and Corazon C. Aquino ascended to the Presidency. She did not honor fully the Tripoli Agreement according to MNLF,
the only pact, treaty or agreement signed during the Marcos regime that Aquino refused to recognize despite the commitment of Ninoy Aquino, to fully implement the Tripoli Agreement and if autonomy would not work after ten years, he will support the independence of Bangsa Moro. This author was present when this statement was made in 1982 because Sultan Rashid Lucman, General Salipada Pendatun and this author met with King Khalid Bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia with Ninoy Aquino at the King's Palace in Taif, Saudi Arabia. We also arranged and gave Ninoy his passport "Marcial Bonifacio" which he filled-up at Sheraton Hotel, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in this author's presence.

The author was able, with exiled Moro leaders in Saudi Arabia like the late Ambassador Mauyag Tamano, to convince the then OIC Secretary General Puzada to send a message to President Aquino recognizing her as the President of the Philippines in March 1, 1986. This was five days after EDSA I and the forty-nine (49) Muslim states were the first to recognize the legality of EDSA I. This fact has never been mentioned in the EDSA I history which is unfortunate because the Bangsa Moro conflict would have been settled much earlier.

President Aquino created a Constitutional Commission (ConCom) that drafted a new constitution for the country. The new constitution contained a provision for the creation of an Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The new constitution was ratified in 1987 and a new Congress was established in the same year. Art. X was the
reason why the MNLF broke-off negotiations with President Aquino and the MNLF did not recognize the Organic Act. The MILF adopted the same position and both boycotted the elections. Majority of the Muslims rejected or boycotted the said Act. It was for this reason that the Act was ratified by only four (4) provinces. The Christians and the Lumad's (culturally indigenous groups) did not reject per se the concept of regional autonomy.

Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. sponsored the bill in the Senate- the "Organic Act for Muslim Mindanao" which was signed into law as Republic Act (RA) No. 6734. The MNLF and MILF claimed that it was a betrayal of the Tripoli Agreement, a charge that Senator Pimentel refuted by claiming that the law implemented 99% of the Tripoli
Agreement. President Ramos in 1993 revived negotiations with Chairman Misuari to fully implement the Tripoli Agreement as a binding international obligation and commitment. This was an admission that RA 6734 did not implement fully the Tripoli
Agreement. The Final Peace Agreement (FPA) was signed on September, 1996 between the MNLF/OIC and GRP in Jakarta and finally in Manila.

FINAL PEACE AGREEMENT (FPA) 1996

The FPA provided for the reorganization of the ARMM and the establishment of the Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development (SPCPD) and its Consultative Assembly (CA). The SPCPD was tasked with coordinating development programs and projects for Mindanao but the government failed to provide the necessary funds and support facilities to the SPCPD, the government had allegedly allocated FORTY ONE BILLION PESOS (P41B) but only Eighteen (18B) Billion Pesos had been disbursed according to SPCPD/ARMM officials form 1996-2000. It also did not cooperate with the SPCPD in implementing the development programs and projects for Mindanao.

There was inadequate funding and later in the Senate Hearings the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) admitted that the total releases for ARMM were below P18 Billion under the term of Regional Governor Misuari and most of the funds were for personnel services for the devolved agencies. There was nothing "Final" in the
Agreement because it was subject to the "Will of Congress" and the "Dictates of the Executive."

The creation of the Mindanao Coordinating Council had sidelined the SPCPD (established by E.O. 371), which was created by President Estrada to be the arm of the Office of the President in the planning, recommendation, coordination and monitoring/validating nationally and internationally funded socio-economic projects in the SZOPAD areas. The Chairman of the Consultative Assembly of SPCPD announced that there would be en masse resignations by the ASSEMBLYMEN because the MCC under EO 261, S.2000, and the SPCPD/ARMM were monitoring and validating agencies but were not represented in the council and no Muslim was appointed to the council. This author was invited to address the First Joint Sessions of the ARMM-RLA and the SPCPD-Consultative Assembly on September, 2001 upon the invitation of Chairman Misuari at General Santos City. The creation of the MCC and non-implementation of the FPA and the failure to enact the Organic Act agreed to in the FPA was denounced and the resolution was forwarded to GRP and the OIC Fact Finding Mission of the OIC. Fr. Eliseo Mercado claims that the SPCPD has been rendered virtually inutile as Chairman Nur Misuari has earlier declared. Without the SPCPD then, the FPA should be considered revoked at least by implication because there is no more implementing agency. After the ratification last August 14, 2001 of the Organic Law, then the SPCPD was ipso facto abolished and the SPDA was abolished in 2002.

From 1999 to 2002 the government failed to fully implement the FPA in its substantive provisions as far as MNLF/OIC is concerned (later as evidenced by Resolution No. 02-30, May 30, 2003, 30th ICFM at Tehran, Iran). At the same time the negotiations with the MILF broke down and led to renewed fighting between government
troops and this time, the MILF carried on the Moro armed struggle when the MNLF decided to stop fighting after they signed the FPA and its chairman became then ARMM regional governor and concurrent SPCPD chairman. On the other hand, Joseph Ejercito Estrada was elected President in 1998 with the support of the MILF and many Islamic organizations because he signed an agreement with Ummah Party of Lanao del Sur to pursue peace and development and appoint a Muslim to the cabinet and other high positions. He also announced that he would establish a Malacanang in the south as well as implement the peace process and the FPA.

AGREEMENT WITH MILF

In August of 1998, the GRP and MILF signed an Interim Agreement to

continue the negotiations started with the GRP under President

Ramos. There was a lot of goodwill because the new AFP chief of

Staff, General Nazareno was even endorsed by MILF and the MILF

supported President Estrada on the week of the elections. The

President knew this, Presidential Adviser for Flagship Projects;

Robert Aventajado even brought the reply of the President to Camp

Abubakar and met with Chairman Hashim Salamat. He later became a

frequent visitor and gave socio-economic projects andinfrastructure

projects to MILF as confidence building measures and entered into

an agreement making the area a zone for peace. The GRP also

entered into agreements with MILF acknowledging the major camps of

the MILF and this was under President Estrada and not under

President Ramos. Everyone was euphoric that peace was at hand and

development and progress will follow as the peace dividends.

Later, the "all-out war" of President Estrada was launched against

the MILF despite the signing of the Aide Memoire between the GRP

and MILF. The rest is history chronicled in blood in Mindanao and

street protests all over the country. It culminated with EDSA II

and the ouster of Estrada.

The new President, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared an â€œall-out

peaceâ€ policy and dropped all the charges against Chairman Salamat

and other MILF leaders and started new negotiations. The new all

out war against MILF was again launched by Secretary Angelo Reyes

in February 2002 during the Eidul Adha prayers in the early morning

of February 10, 2003 at the Islamic Center of the Buliok complex at

Pikit, Cotabato after there was already a decision by both the GRP

and MILF to meet at Kuala Lumpur to discuss the peace agreement.

Secretary Eduardo Ermita even said on TV that day that it was â

€œtragicâ€ because of the peace process was going smoothly. The

panels met at Kuala Lumpur for exploratory talks and came up with a

Joint Statement on March 28, 2003. This was after the Davao

International Airport bombing on March 4, 2003. The March 28, 2003

agreement was not implemented because of another bombing on April

4, 2003 at Sasa Port, Davao City. Again Exploratory Talks were held

at Kuala Lumpur and another agreement was made in June 21, 2003.

This was again not implemented because despite the two unilateral

declarations of MILF to stop all offensive military actions on May

28 and June 12, 2003, respectively, the AFP did respond and

military operations against the MILF forces continued.

However, on July 18, 2003, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

announced the signing of the Ceasefire Agreement between MILF and

GRP which was finally signed by MILF on July 20, 2003 because

Chairman Al Haj Murad was in the mountain areas at that time,

Chairman Hashim Salamat already died on July 13, 2003 and since

Murad signed the Ceasefire Agreement, it is significant because he

was already the Chairman of the MILF and the GRP signed through

Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Chairman of the GRP panel. The

Coordinating Committee for the Cessation of Hostilities (CCCH) of

GRP-MILF met for the IOTH- CCCH meeting at Cotabato City on August

4, 2003. I was present as a guest being the Secretary General of

the Philippine Muslim Leaders Forum. The CCCH is now operational

and they are working to organize the Local Monitoring Team (LMT's)

to enforce the ceasefire. Malaysia is expected to send observers.

The ceasefire agreement between the GRP and MILF was signed

principally because of the insistence of the Philippine Muslim

Leaders Forum (PMLF) which is the broadest loose associations of

Muslim elected and appointing Muslim officials with the government

to stop military operations and enforce the ceasefire.

In a letter sent to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on July 16,

2003 by PMLF Chairman Deputy Speaker Gerry Salapuddin[2] presented

the situation and urgent need for a ceasefire to restart the peace

talks:

"The MILF officials met with U.S. officials for two hours yesterday

and have discussed the relationship and time-line with the U.S. in

the peace process. They are also coordinating with Malaysia.

After our lengthy discussions, we have agreed that the PMLF will

present to Your Excellency the herein suggestions to break the

impasse. I called Secretary Eduardo Ermita in the presence of the

MILF officials and told him about these suggestions, and he agreed

that this Memorandum be submitted today.

As agreed last June 21, 2003, once the GRP drops the charges and

cancels the warrants and begins the phased redeployment of military

forces in Buliok, which it has started with the return of the

Islamic Center, and the MILF has internally ordered their men at

arms to desist as they have desisted from offensive military

actions, the GRP will Issue a SOMO soonest after June 23, 2003.

Immediately, by June 28, 2003 the Coordinating Committee on the

Cessation of Hostilities (CCCH) will be reconvened for the

permanent ceasefire and reactivate the Local Monitoring Teams

(LMTs). The GRP CCCH Chairman shall be headed by a General from the

AFP. The meeting was supposed to be held on June 28, 2003 in

Estosan Hotel, Cotabato. Arrangements were to be made by Secretary

Norberto Gonzales but the meeting did not push through because Sec.

Gonzales left for Europe. He rescheduled it for July 12, 2003 but

he GRP panel was informed late and therefore asked for

postponement. It was rescheduled to July 18, 2003 but Malaysia is

still waiting for the settlement of the Issue on the warrants of

arrest and the MILF is also waiting for the SOMO of the GRP.

In view of these developments, we agreed to propose that the

meeting be held immediately between the GRP and the MILF wherein

both parties will simultaneously declare the effectivity of the

ceasefire agreement of June 21, 2003, convene the CCCH, and

reactivate the LMTs.

The Malaysians will now be requested to send the international

monitoring teams to monitor the ceasefire in coordination with the

CCCH and the LMTs.

As provided in the GRP-MILF joint communique of May 6, 2003 signed

in Malaysia, "the MILF and GRP shall from an Ad-Hoc Joint Action

Group against criminal elements in order to pursue and apprehend

such criminal elements." Furthermore, the Ad-Hoc Joint Action Group

"will operate in tandem with their respective Coordinating

Committees on the Cessation of Hostilities."

The U.S. can now be requested to contribute funds for the

operation of the CCCH and the LMTs as well as discuss with the

GRP-MILF the areas or projects where the U.S. can contribute the

funds as offered."[3]

Again, in the Memorandum sent by the author to Secretary Eduardo

Ermita on GRP and MILF Negotiations dated July 17, 2003, where he

amplified in the Memorandum of Deputy Speaker for Mindanao Gerry

Salapudin and discussed the Minutes of the March 28, 2003 Joint

Statement and the June 21, 2003 GRP-MILF understanding and the

letter of US President Bush to Chairman Salamat, he stated that:

"The Joint Statement of March 28, 2003 between the GRP and the MILF

agreed on the following points:

1. Both parties reiterate their commitment to achieve a

comprehensive, just and lasting political settlement of the

conflict in Mindanao and resolve to undertake appropriate steps to

pave the way for the resumption of the formal GRP-MILF peace

negotiations;

2. Both parties reaffirm to implement effectively on the ground

all past and existing GRP-MILF agreements. Details of

implementation shall be discussed by the Panels;

Both parties agree to exercise mutual restraint to minimize, if

not put an end to, violence in Mindanao;

To normalize the situation and facilitate the early return of

evacuees to their places of origin and allow rehabilitation to

proceed, a new arrangement on the ground will be forged by both

parties;

The Philippine government takes note of the activation of the

Bangsamoro Development Agency;

Both parties agree to direct their respective Technical Committees

to work on the Implementing Guidelines of the Joint CommuniquÃ©

signed on May 6, 2002 to ensure that the peace process is not

adversely affected by the presence of criminal groups in Mindanao.

The Technical Committees will meet within two (2) weeks from today;

The parties agree to improve the existing mechanism for monitoring

of the cessation of hostilities including the composition of an

observer/monitoring groups as provided for in the Implementing

Guidelines on the Security Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace

of 2001;

The parties reaffirm the provision on the grant of Safety and

Security Guarantees to MILF leaders and members who are directly

and principally involved in the GRP-MILF peace talks; and

Both parties express their gratitude for the gracious hospitality

of the Government of Malaysia in hosting and facilitating the

exploratory talks and for continuing its support to the peace

process."[4]

Under item no. 1, the phrase "resolved to undertake steps" means

the GRP agreed to undertake appropriate steps to cover the

withdrawal of AFP troops from Buliok Complex and recalls of

warrants of arrest issued against all MILF leaders and members.

The pull out and recalls will be conducted within 4 weeks from

today. While the term "resumption" means formal negotiation will

be back on track but Malaysia has to be consulted as agreed by both

parties. This item was again reiterated on June 21, 2003 between

the GRP and the MILF under item no. 3(b), "In response to this

positive development, the GRP has agreed to undertake the

following:

Facilitate the judicial process, in coordination with the

Department of Justice, leading to the lifting of the Warrants of

Arrests filed against MILF leaders and the Reward bounties for the

apprehension of certain MILF leaders;

Begin the process leading to the phased redeployment of military

forces from the Buliok Complex"[5]

It is very clear that the commitment to recall the Warrant of

Arrests against all MILF leaders should have been done within four

weeks from March 28, 2003 which was April 28, 2003 by the GRP. In

the June 21, 2003 Understanding mention again was made to

facilitate the judicial process with the DOJ to lift such warrants

and cancel the bounties. In the understanding of June 16, 2003

between the GRP and the MILF, the lifting of warrants and bounties

was an obligation of the GRP which they will consult with the

principal and the GRP agreed to these points. GRP has partially

withdrawn from Buliok Complex and returned the Islamic Center to

Datu Abbas Pendatun, Sanggunian Member of North Cotabato.

4. In the June 21, 2003 understanding, the GRP stated that "The

June 20, 2003 MILF Statement entitled "Policy Statement of MILF

Chair Salamat Hashim Rejecting Terror as a Means to Resolve

Differences" substantially responds to the need for the MILF to

publicly condemn terrorism and terrorist organizations."[6] The

GRP acceptance should have led to the GRP issuances of SOMO at the

soonest possible time immediately after June 23, 2003. A meeting of

the CCCH was scheduled on June 28, 2003 at Estosan, Cotabato City

to be coordinated by Sec. Gonzales and Atty. Ali. The purpose was

to re-establish the ceasefire under the agreement of June 2001 and

reactivated the LMT's. The Malaysian Monitoring Team will be

fielded to monitor the ceasefire all over the areas of conflict.

The GRP has already requested Malaysia.

6. In the understanding of June 21, 2003, On the issue of Chairman

Salamat's presence during the peace negotiations, the MILF noted

that Chairman Salamat has made known his intention to be present

during the finalization of the GRP-MILF Peace Agreement and on the

actual signing of the said Agreement.

The GRP, noting that Chairman Salamat's presence would be much

preferred during the talks, will request for Chairman Salamat's

presence during the Opening Ceremony for the resumption of formal

talks.[7] The MILF Panel informed the PMLF in our talks last June

15, 2003 that Chairman Salamat has agreed to be present in the

Opening Ceremony as confirmed to you in the memo of the PMLF.

7. Going back to the May 20, 2003 letter of Chairman Salamat to

President Bush, this was actually the 2nd letter. The 1st letter

(January 20, 2003) was a reply to US Ambassador Riciardone when he

spoke before the FCAP when he raised the questions: "The US

Government's desire to know What the MILF want or how its (the

problem) going to be resolved". The MILF said "We take this

opportunity to inform Your Excellency that the MILF is a national

liberation organization, with leadership supported by the Bangsa

Moro People, and with legitimate political goal to pursue the right

of the Moro nation to determine their future and political status.

As part of this process, we have an on-going negotiation with the

Government of the Republic of the Philippines to arrive at a

negotiated political settlement of the Mindanao conflict and the

Bangsa Moro problem, through the mediation and tender of good

offices of the Government of Malaysia."[8]

8. It is this letter that was answered by the Joint Statement of US

President and Arroyo on May 19, 2003 and the speech of Deputy

Secretary of State Richard Armitage explaining the new US Policy

which was accepted by MILF of their May 20, 2003 letter. The US

President instructed Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly to

reply on June 18, 2003 to the letter of Chairman Salamat dated May

20, 2003. This letter was hand carried by Deputy Assistant

Secretary of State Mathew Dailey and met with the MILF officials.

The basic points of the letter are:

-The United States Government is committed to the territorial

integrity of the Philippines.

-The United States recognizes that the Muslims of the southern

Philippines have serious, legitimate grievances that must be

addressed.

-The United States wishes to see an end to the violence in the

southern Philippines and is working to assist the Republic of the

Philippines in addressing the root causes of that violence.

-The United States is concerned about the links between the MILF

and international terrorist organizations and asks that those links

be severed immediately.

-The United States stands ready to support, both politically and

financially, a bon fide peace process between the Republic of the

Philippines and the MILF.

-The United States appreciates the notable work that the Government

of Malaysia has performed in this connection over the last two

years, and will not seek to supplant Kuala Lumpur; indeed, we week

to work with the Malaysians for a successful peace settlement.

-The United States Government will not mediate between the

Government of the Philippines, nor will it participate in the

negotiations directly. We have asked the United States Institute

of Peace, a respected conflict-resolution organization, to

encourage the negotiation process in coordination with the

Government of Malaysia. The USIP is ready to begin this task as

soon as we have a clear signal from you as to your readiness to

follow through."[9]

This declaration of the US government addressed to the leader of a

revolutionary organizations is a "First" for the US and World

Affairs and also a "First" for the Bangsamoro Movement because MNLF

Chairman Nur Misuari never received such a communication from the

US President, particularly at this time when the United States has

emerged as the only super power in the world. This policy

statement of the US President must be seriously considered by the

GRP because of the proposed implications not only in the

Philippines or Mindanao or the Asian but in the whole Muslim world.

The US offer of political and financial assistance to a bona fide

peace process be properly accepted and understood.[10]

It is a rebuff to the peace process because it is considered by the

United States as not bona fide or in bad faith. Both parties must

seriously evaluate their actions to restore confidence to the peace

process.

9. The assignment of the US government of the US Institute of Peace

(USIP) is a direct involvement of the US government because the

USIP is a Federal Institution funded by the US government since

1984 with the Congressional mandate and the Board of Directors are

all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate just

like the members of the US Supreme Court. They have already

scheduled meeting with MILF and plan exchange of missions.

10. It is imperative that the GRP and MILF must implement their

agreements which are binding international obligations of both

parties mediated by Malaysia in March 28, 2003 and June 21, 2003

particularly convening the meeting of the CCCH and simultaneously

declare the resumption of the ceasefire under the agreement of 2001

and cancel all the warrants of arrests and bounties against all the

accused MILF. This is also the suggestion of the US as well as

Malaysia and other OIC countries in support of the appeal of

churches and other religious groups and civil society. The

conclusion of the US letter to Chairman Salamat clearly manifests

the US concern for a peaceful political settlement:

"I note with satisfaction that the MILF has declared a temporary

ceasefire, which I urge you to extend until a settlement is

concluded. Both sides need to refrain from actions that merely

perpetuate the cycle of violence. Neither side can win this

conflict on the battlefield; however, both the MILF and the

Republic of the Philippines can achieve a lasting victory for the

people of Mindanao by coming to a settlement."[11]

The two Memoranda played a vital role in convincing President

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to declare the ceasefire on July 18, 2003,

five (5) days after the death of Chairman Hashim Salamat which was

only confirmed on August 4, 2003 during the resumption of the

meetings of the CCCH to re-establish the ceasefire.
-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
-------
SUPladong REMOntado? SUPer REvolutionary MOro? Ano kaya ang tunay

na kahulugan nito? E-2-2-LOY

ALSO:
-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
Bangsa Moro Conflict: Historical Antecedents and Present Impact

Posted on April 17, 2007.
Filed under: Bangsa Moro, History, Mindanao, Moroland, Socio-

Political | Tags: Abu Sayyaf, Bangsa Moro, historical roots, Islam,

MILF, Mindanao, Philippines |

In September 2000, I was invited to deliver a speech/lecture on the

Social Impact of the Moro Conflict at the University of the

Philippines in Los Banos. Later, I uploaded the speech in my

website and in one web forum I joined. Later, I found out that this

speech has been linked and/or re-published in various websites and

web fora. Some of the cited links do not exist anymore. At any

rate, here it is:
**********************************

A few years ago, I visited my girl friend's house. Her

septuagenarian Visayan grandmother was visiting them at the time.

Upon seeing me, the grandmother fled the room. She knew that her

granddaughter was going out with a Moro. But meeting a Moro in

person seemed to be too unnerving for the old lady. She is not an

illiterate barrio folk. She is a retired schoolteacher, her nephew

(i.e., her brother's son) is a governor and all her children are

degree-holders, two of them are lawyers.

I had a sexagenarian office mate who told me that when he was

growing up in Bicol, the kids' parents usually scare the children

off by shouting "the Moros are coming!" That announcement usually

made the kids run immediately to their houses for safety.

These two anecdotal samples illustrate the social impact of the

Mindanao conflict “ not of the present MILF/Abu Sayyaf crisis nor

of the MNLF wars in the 1970s. These were the effects on the

intermittent warfare between the Moros and the Spanish from the

16th to the 19th century. Although the Spanish have gone for more

than a hundred years now, the effects on the collective psyche of

the Filipinos remain.

The social impact of the present Mindanao conflict will simply be a

reiteration or reinforcement of the impact of the Moro conflict

since the arrival of the Spanish to these Islands. The social

impact of the Mindanao Conflict today is more or less the same as

the social impact of the late 60s to early 70s conflict between the

AFP-supported Christian vigilante groups led by the notorious

Ilagas and the various Moro private armies like the Baracudas,

Blackshirts, PUSA, etc. The social impact of today's Mindanao

conflict is more or less the same as that of the MNLF wars in the

˜70s. And for some of the parties concerned, the social impact of

the present Mindanao conflict is the same as that of the Moro Wars

during the American and Spanish eras. When it comes to Mindanao,

some things never change. There are of course variations, relating

to present conditions.

Perhaps what is needed now is to truly understand the Moro Problem,

from the viewpoint of the Moros. And only a thorough understanding

of history can give light to this issue. However, the Filipino

majority is reluctant to talk about history. They always claim that

the past should be buried and that everyone should be forward-

looking. During every crisis in Mindanao, the Christian Filipino

talk, write and generally disseminate their ideas on supposed

causes of the conflict and give various solutions to the conflict

greater access to education, more infrastructures, coddling Moro

leaders, peace negotiations, etc.

The Moros who call everyone's attention to historical past are

called obscurantists, obstructionists or simply rabble-rousers. But

the adage "he who forgets his past is sure to repeat it" cannot be

truer when applied to the so-called Moro Problem. No solution can

be found if the underlying causes are not considered. The Moros,

unlike the Christianized Filipinos, have a living culture, or as

the French say, culture vivant. This culture is steeped in history.

For example, the greatness of a man is not measured by how much

money he has in the bank, but for the most part, his bloodline

i.e., who his father, mother, grandparents and ancestors were.

Former US President John Quincy Adams in his defense of the Amistad

African prisoners declared that "Who we are is who we were." For

the Moros, that statement is almost sacrosanct.

THE MYTHS ABOUT MORO-PHILIPPINE HISTORY

The Filipinos as ONE nation since time immemorial

It must be emphasized and acknowledged that the Moros and the

Indios (the Christianized Filipinos) never constituted a nation and

that it was only in 1946, upon the proclamation of the Philippine

Republic that the Moros and the Indios became part of one nation-

state.

The World Maps

The earliest world map that included â€œthe Philippinesâ€ is on

display at the Malacanang Museum. But lo and behold, the

Philippines was not on the map, only Mindanao and Palawan were

there. It is proof positive that before the Western world ever

heard of the Philippines, they already knew Mindanao and Palawan.

In a 1716 map, a group of Islands was labeled I. Philippinae

(Philippine Islands, plural) But Mindanao Island was also labeled.

This could be construed as indicating that Mindanao Island was not

part of the Philippine Islands. In an 18th European century map,

North Borneo was labeled as "Territories belonging to the Sultan of

Sulu."

The Myth of the Spanish Conquest of Moroland

The Christian majority in the country propagates the myth that

although the Moros fought, they were nevertheless conquered by the

Spaniards. History books call the Moro wars as rebellions that were

answered by Spanish punitive expeditions.

Going back to history, a look at the views of the other Europeans

would give a more objective conclusion. Let us see what the

Europeans themselves thought. The 14th Dutch governor of Moluccas,

Simon Cos, brushed away Spanish claims on Mindanao arguing that if

such claims were based on raiding villages, then the Maguindanaons

had much more territory to claim than the Spaniards. On May 16,

1658, Gov. Cos wrote to his superiors:

"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 last year."

When the French led by Admiral Cecille blockaded Basilan in 1845,

the Spanish governor protested alleging that Basilan had recognized

Spain's sovereignty just the year before, in February 1844. (This

alone is telling. This means that after almost 200 years in the

Philippines, the Spanish admitted that Basilan was still not under

their control.) The French answer was to force the Basilan datus to

sign a document affirming the "absolute independence of Basilan

vis-a-vis Spain" on January 13, 1845 aboard the steamer Archimede.

And on February 20, 1845, France forced the Sulu Sultan to formally

cede Basilan Island to France in exchange for 100,000 piastres or

500,000 French francs. The French Admiral totally ignored Spanish

protests. However, the French King, Louis Philippe decided against

taking Basilan although the French Cabinet already approved the

annexation, even allocating the budget for Basilan for that year.

In fact, France has more right than Spain to claim Basilan since

they got a formal cession from the Sultan of Sulu as well as formal

written agreement from the Basilan datus.

In answer to Spanish claims that the Moros were mere pirates, the

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

1877 stated:

"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".

And what did the Spanish themselves think? In a letter by Spanish

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

century, he wrote:

"From this timeâ€¦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 in 200years 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."

Scanning through the various Spanish reports and other official

documents ”bandos y circulares, cartas, cedularios, memorias, etc.“

one could see the pain and destruction suffered by the Spanish

masters and their Indio subjects at the hands of the Moros. The

Moros regularly raided Spanish settlements in Luzon, Visayas and

Mindanao. The report of Spanish Governor-General Manuel de Arandia

to the King of Spain dated May 24, 1755 enumerated the losses

suffered by the Spanish from the Moros, who attacked with impunity

most of the Spanish settlements in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao

which brought the Islands practically to its knees ("en el

deplorable estado y fatal sistema").

Even the Americans belittled Spanish claims in Mindanao. In his

Foreword to his book, Swish of the Kris: The Story of the Moros,

Vic Hurley wrote:

"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."

Historical records show that the Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan were

never conquered by Spain and therefore the Treaty of Paris in 1898

was void ab initio with regards to Mindanao. The US had no right to

take over Moroland, except through the law of Conquest.

The Myth of Socio-Economic-Political Backwardness

The Filipino also insist that it was Spain that brought

civilization to the Philippines. The former President Fidel Ramos

once declared that before the coming of Spain, the natives of the

country had nothing but a crude political system known as

barangays. The political and economic systems of the sultanates

were certainly more complex than the Indios' barangay systems. The

Dutch anthropologist Ruurdje Laarhoven has this to say about the

Maguindanao sultanate in the 17th century:

"The Maguindanao rulers must be credited for their astuteness

in utilizing their strategic position between the Spanish-

controlled Philippines and the Dutch-controlled Moluccas. They were

able to mobilize the rivalry of these European powers to neutralize

each other while successfully maintaining its independence and

advancing its own political development. Even factional struggles

within the Mindanao confederacy can be seen positively as

indicators of political evolution towards a supra-tribal state able

to harness all human and ecological resources within its territory

for higher political goals, able to operate as a state in a larger

political arena defined by the presence of other state-organized

powers such as the Dutch, English and Spanish operating in

Southeast Asia." (Laarhoven : 1989, p. 181)

James F. Warren, in his book, The Sulu Zone, wrote:

"The source of Sulu's hegemony after 1768 was its role as a

regional emporium in the commerce between European traders,

southeast Asian realms and China. The increasing magnitude of this

external trade made regional distribution the dominant pattern of

the economy of the Tausug state and established itsascendancy in

the region."

The Sultanates of Maguindanao, Sulu and Buayan entered into several

treaties with European powers like Netherlands, England and even

Spain. European powers never entered into treaties with barangay

datus. Blood compact was the preferred mode of the Europeans when

negotiating with barangay chieftains.

The Filipino people were united in their desire for Independence

from the US.

During the American Occupation, the great majority of the Moros

fought for independence through peaceful and even violent means.

And they repeatedly communicated their desire for Independence. And

if they could not have Independence, they would rather be with the

Americans than with the Filipinos. The Wood-Forbes Commission

Report of 1922 stated:

"The Moros are a unit against independence and are united

for continuance of American control and, in case of separation of

the Philippines from the US, desire their portion of the Islands to

be retained as American territory under American control. The

pagans and non-Christians, constituting 10% of the population, are

for continued American control. They want peace and security, These

the Americans have given them."

Countering Filipino propaganda that the Americans simply wanted to

grab the lands of the Moros, Datu Gumbay Piang of Buayan declared

in a speech in 1926 that the Moros "would be between two fearful

and objectionable daggers: American at the one side and Filipino at

the other. As a defenseless people they would have no alternative

but choose which dagger would be less injurious. And, funny to say,

they have already, since long ago, chosen the American dagger."

With the intensified fight for Philippine Independence led by

Manuel L. Quezon, the Moros sent various petitions to the US

President and the US Congress. On June 9, 1921, the Moros of Sulu

sent a petition to the US government which stated:

"We are independent for 500 years. Even Spain failed to

conquer us. If the U.S. quits the Philippines, and the Filipinos

attempt to govern us, we will fight."

On February 4, 1924, another petition to the US Congress was signed

by more than 100 datus led the Maguindanao Sultan Mangigin. The

petition in part reads:

"In the event that the United States grant independence to

the Philippine Islands without provision for our retention under

the American flag, it is our firm intention and resolve to declare

ourselves an independent Constitutional sultanate to be known to

the world as Moro Nation."

The Moros found sympathetic ears in the US Congress. On May 6,

1926, Congressman Robert L. Bacon of New York gave a stirring

speech in support of the Moros. He said:

"Their (the Moros') so-called representation in the

Philippine Legislature is a farce and a mockery. They are

deliberately denied any share or participation in the government.

They have no elective representativesâ€¦They have no magistrates,

no judges, no public prosecutor drawn from their own people. And

the guardians of law and order in their region “constabulary“ are

practically drawn from the ranks of their hereditary enemies “the

Filipinos." The Filipinos are their lawmakers, their governors,

their judges, their persecutors and their policemen. To these

conditions the Moros respond by giving nothing but hate and

unwilling submission."

Some 75 years later, and the Moros find themselves still with no

representation in the Senate, very few judges, and the guardians of

law and public order “the military and police“ are still

practically drawn from the ranks of the Filipinos. Congressman

Bacon added:

"The Philippine Islands are divided into two very distinct

areas “the Christian provinces and the Mohammedan territory".These

two regions belong to different and opposed civilizations “the

Christian world and Islam."

Congressman Bacon sponsored a bill that would retain Mindanao and

Sulu in the event of Philippine independence. Other similar bills,

the Roger, Cooper and Kies bills, were also deliberated in the US

Congress.

During the deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional Convention, 189

ranking Maranao datus sent an appeal to the US Government through

the Governor-General that stated:

"With regard to the forthcoming Philippine independence, we

foresee that the condition will be characterized by unrest,

suffering and misery"

One more discriminatory act of our Christian Filipino

Associates is shown in the recent constitution of the Philippine

Commonwealth. In that constitution, no provision whatsoever is made

that would operate for the welfare of the Moros, the (provision of

the) constitution are all for the welfare of the Christian

Filipinos and nothing for the Moros. As proof of this, our delegate

did not sign the constitution.

We do not want to be included in the Philippine

Independence (for) once an independent Philippines is launched

there will be trouble between us and the Christian Filipinos

because from time immemorial these two peoples have not lived

harmoniously. It is not proper for two antagonizing peoples live

together under Philippine Independence.

The Dansalan Declaration, as it came to be known went on to say

that the Maranaos would rather "drown in the lake" than be included

in the Philippine Independence.

The Honeymoon Years

Unfortunately for the Moros, World War II came about. When the US

granted Philippine independence after the war, the Moros neither

had the resources nor inclination to fight another war. Thus the

"honeymoon" with the Philippine Republic began, with very few

troubles like the Kamlon rebellion.

But in 1969, with the discovery of the Jabidah massacre, the Moros

realized that the honeymoon was over. From then on, up to the

present, the Moro fight continues.

The Present Conflict

It must be very clear to everyone that the Moro conflict today did

not begin in 1969. It did not begin with Misuari, Salamat or Abbas,

Jr. In 1969, they were the Young Turks but the independence

movement was led by the elders Congressman Lucman, Senator Pendatun

and other Moro leaders.

In 1972, President. Marcos told OIC officials that the Moros were

not united and could never unite, that Maranaos hate Maguindanaos

and both hate the Tausugs, etc., and that the Nationalistas would

not sit with a Liberal, etc.

The OIC then challenged the Moro community to refute Mr. Marcosâ€™s

allegation. Thus was born the Islamic Directorate of the

Philippines (IDP). The founding directors included Maranao, Tausug,

Maguindanao, Nationalista and Liberal Party leaders. For the first

time political rivals Lucman and Dimaporo, Sinsuat and Pendatun,

and other Moro leaders like Anni, Abubakar, Sen, Tamano, Sen.

Alonto and a host of others including the Young Turks Abbas, Jr.,

Misuari and Salamat joined together in one organization to prove to

the Islamic countries that the Moros were united. The founding

chair of IDP was Dr. C. Adib Majul, then the Dean of the UP College

of Arts and Sciences. Abbas, Jr. was the Secretary-General.

The present conflict in Mindanao does not pertain to only the MILF

and the Abu Sayyaf, although they are the only ones fighting now.

The MNLF cadres are still very much there. The Islamic Command

Council is newly-formed but composed of former MNLF commanders. The

MNLF-Reformists can regroup anytime. There are still thousands of

armed Moros simply waiting for the most opportune time.

An all-out war against the MILF is indeed ill-advised because the

repercussions might be far worse. An all-out war between the AFP

and the MILF will surely expand to an all-out war between the AFP

and all Moro armed groups, which could very well escalate into a

full-scale civil war between the Moros and the Indios.

Time for Peace

Wars will only bring more wars. The Bangsa Moro enjoys the

inalienable right of self-determination. The 1966 Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights and Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights of the United Nations states:

"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By

virtue of that right they freely determine their political status

and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

It is high time that the Bangsa Moro be asked on what it really

wants. Does it want to remain in the present set-up? Do the Moros

prefer an autonomous region within the Republic? Do they want a

federal form of government? Or do they want independence? A clean

and honest referendum can give the answer, and everyone should

abide by the outcome.

Social Impact of the Present Conflict

The present conflict has already shown the negative impacts on the

communities. The degree of intolerance by both communities towards

each other has dramatically increased. The popularity of an â

€œall-out warâ€ policy among the Christian population is evident as

shown by the surge in the popularity rating of President Estrada.

A more serious effect is the apparent success of the Abu Sayyaf and

the apparent failure of the MILF. This means that more Moros would

now be inclined to go the way of terrorism instead of a semi-

conventional warfare as practiced by the MILF.

But there are interesting effects, too. Many Christian

intellectuals are now seeing the practicality in Moro separatism.

More Moro wars would create greater havoc on the economy of the

whole country. Dan Mariano, Executive Editor of the Philippine Post

wrote in his column of May 13, 2000 the ff.:

If only they would be honest about it, the ordinary

Filipinos ”the so-called Christians” feel little kinship and

affinity for those whom they perfunctorily refer to as "Muslim

brothers." There is a great deal of discrimination and prejudice

against the Moros that is expressed officially, as in the

disenfranchisement of entire Muslim communities from the body

politic, and unofficially, as in chauvinistic jokes that portray

Moros as crude, opportunistic yokels.

The Moros are a people that have been set apart from the

Filipino nation by history, faith and culture. Their integration

into the Philippine Republic was a fabrication of colonialism. The

creation of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao merely

acknowledged this fact, but it did not go far enough to rectify a

centuries-old mistake.

The creation of a homeland that the Moros can truly call

their own is the only intelligent solution to the Mindanao problem.

When this comes to pass, only then can Filipinos and Moros learn to

live in peace â€” as good neighbors.

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

Speech delivered by Datu Jamal Ashley Abbas at the University of

the Philippines in Los Banos on 5 Sept. 2000

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

BLAIR, EMMA HELEN and James Robertson (eds.) The Philippine

Islands, 1493-1898 , Cleveland: 1904

DERY, LUIS CAMARA The Kris in Philippine History: A Study of the

Impact of Anti-Colonial Resistance, 1571-1896 self-published : 1997

HURLEY, VIC Swish of the Cross, The Story of the Moros, E.P. Dutton

& Co., USA: 1936

GEORGE, T.J.S. Revolt in Mindanao: The Rise of Islam in Philippine

Politics, Oxford Univ. Press, Kuala Lumpur: 1980

GOWING, PETER G. Mandate in Moroland: The American Government of

Muslim Filipinos 1899-1920, UP Press, Q.C.: 1977

JUBAIR, SALAH A Nation Under Endless Tyranny, 2nd ed., Lahore: 1997

LAARHOVEN, RUURDJE Triumph of Moro Diplomacy, The Maguindanao

Sultanate in the 17th Century, New Day, Q.C.: 1989

MAJUL, CESAR ADIB Muslims in the Philippines, 3rd edition, UP

Press, Q.C.: 1999

MAN, CHE W. K. Muslim Separatism: The Moros of Southern Philippines

and the Malays of Southern Thailand, Ateneo de Manila Press, Q.C.:

1990

NARDIN, DENIS France and the Philippines: From the Beginning to the

End of the Spanish Regime, translated by Ma. Theresa Cruz, National

Historical Institute: 1989

PIGAFETTA, ANTONIO Magellan's Voyage Around The World, 1906 edition

RASUL, JAINAL D. The Philippine Muslims: Struggle for Identity,

Nueva Press, Manila: 1970

SALEEBY, NAJEEB MITRY Studies in Moro History, Law and Religion,

Manila: 1905

TAN, SAMUEL K. The Filipino Muslim Armed Struggle 1900-1972,

Filipinas Foundation, Q.C. 1977

THOMAS, RALPH Muslim But Filipino: The Integration of Philippine

Muslims, 1917-1946, PhD dissertation GSAS, Univ. of Pennsylvania:

1971
-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------

POST 16

2010-07-28T15:16:00.000-07:00

Same time & place as POST 0013

SONG BREAK (Time to buy your snack/merienda, smoke, or go to the CR)
or "THE MYSTERY OF HOW ART CAPTURES REALITY, PARTICULARLY, HUMAN REALITY" or "THE MEANING OF ART" or "ART & HISTORY" etcetc

Sin-cerely D-D-cated to any, every, & all FOREIGNER(S), who, through all these decades, have treated with understanding & compassion, individually or collectively, our nation & our people...
==============
BABALIK KA RIN
==============
Composed by Louie Ocampo
Performed by Gary Valenciano
Lyrics by Ulep

Saan ka man
Naroroon ngayon
Saudi, Japan, o Hongkong
Babalik ka rin (3X)

Anumang layo
Ang narating
Singapore, Australia
Europe o America
Babalik at babalik ka rin

REFRAIN
Kaytagal mo nang nawala
Babalik ka rin (2X)
Kaytagal mo nang nawala
Babalik ka rin (2X)

Saan man
Iyong pinagmulan
Sa iyong nakaraan
Babalik ka rin (3X)

Anumang layo
Ang narating
Iyong maa-alala
Mga dati mong kasama
Babalik at babalik ka rin

Repeat REFRAIN

Sa nakalipas
Na panahon
Sa iyong kahapon
Sa ala-alang
Naghihintay sa 'yo

Repeat REFRAIN
Background sound of gongs
& other native instruments
playing all together

------------------------
I only fully appreciated
the BEAUTY of this song
just this year, 2010!
Almost 3 decades after
it came out & became popular.
Better late than never!
------------------------

DIRECT WORD-FOR-WORD/ARTLESS TRANSLATION:

"YOU'LL (STILL) RETURN/COME BACK" [or "YOU'LL KEEP RETURNING/COMING BACK"]
Composed by Louie Ocampo
Performed by Gary Valenciano
Lyrics by Ulep

Wherever you may be today/now
Saudi, Japan, or Hongkong
You'll still return/come back(3X)
[OR You'll keep returning/coming back]

No matter how far/distant
(You've) reached/gone to
Singapore, Australia
Europe or America
Return & return you will
[or You'll keep returning/coming back]

REFRAIN
It's (been) so long
that you've been gone
You'll still return/come back (2X)
It's (been) so long
that you've been gone
You'll still return/come back (2X)
[or You'll keep returning/coming back]

Wherever
Your origin
To your past
You'll still return/come back
[or You'll keep returning/coming back]

No matter how far/distant
(You've) reached/gone to
You will remember
Your former companions
Return & return you will
[or You will keep on returning/coming back]

To the past times
To your yesterday/yesteryears
To the memories (that are)
waiting for you.

Repeat REFRAIN
Background sound of gongs
& other native instruments playing

BLAH-BLAH
---------
A nice combination of Western & Nusantaran music.
It is commonly-used as musical background by Filipino OFW's
to relate their personal stories in YOUTUBE video presentations.

The climactic part of the song is past halfway (2:37) near the end when Valenciano croons "sa nakalipas na panahon... sa ala-alang naghihintay sa 'yo" & then the native instruments play together with additional chorus. The song then tapers off to resolution gradually to the end, stressing through continued repetition its main phrase, "Babalik ka rin/You'll keep returning". My body hair stand on end when I realize, while listening to the song, how exactly- & perfectly-fitting the LYRICS & the MUSIC go together to present the core MEANING or IDEA of the song which is about SOUL-SEARCHING, seeking one's ROOTS & discovering one's HISTORICAL SELF-IDENTITY. HANEP! ANG GALENG!! To OCAMPO, VALENCIANO, & ULEP: KLAPKLAPKLAP!!

I ask myself:
Is this merely my own personal & private interpretation?
Did the song's creator(s) PLAN on purpose & WILL its creation?
Can ART be the subject or instrument of HUMAN WILL & INTENTIONALITY?
Or is it a product of pure INSPIRATION?

I DEFINE a typical "FILIPINO"
by how much she EMPATHIZES with
(or by the degree of her EMPATHY to)
this SONG.

If you don't FEEL in your BONES
the CORE MEANING or ESSENTIAL IDEA of this SONG,
the thoughts, feelings, sensations, sentiments
& memories evoked in you
by the gestalt of its melody & lyrics
-what it means to EXIST, to BE
to LIVE, to LIVE IN, to LIKE
to LOVE, & to LEAVE your COUNTRY,
your BELOVED HOMELAND,
your place of ORIGIN
behind,
to be forced to go away & work abroad,
compelled by grossly material
economic necessity
to take risks & even SUFFER its consequences
though your Heart & Soul
IS yearning to remain with
& stay beside your LOVED ONES...
THEN
YOU ARE NOT "ONE OF US" [HINDI KA ISA SA AMIN"]
- YOU ARE NOT A GENUINE "FILIPINO"...
["FILIPINO" with BOTH its INSULTING/DEROGATORY
& PROFOUND/NOBLE CONNOTATIONS]

I strongly recommend to OUTSIDERS
who are genuinely interested to learn
about this archipelago & its inhabitants &
who sincerely want to feel or EXPERIENCE
what it is to be "FILIPINO", meaning,
to INTERNALIZE the Filipino LANGUAGE,
to LEARN BY HEART this song
(MEMORIZEd as in automatically-recalled)
& try to (AT THE SAME TIME!)
develop the underlying FEELINGs
& UNDERSTAND the song's core MEANING.
Of course, I DOUBT
IF one can ARTIFICIALLY develop
or voluntarily invoke within oneself
through SCRIPTED behaviour or conditions
the feelings of NOSTALGIA
(its mixed, ambivalent feelings of gladness & sadness),
the innermost emotions evoked upon realizing
through one's own personal experience,
while living & working in a FOREIGN land,
the deep significance & intimate CONNECTION
of one's own FACTICITY
or individual, private & personal
(especially DIFFICULT) situation
to one's own PEOPLE,
to one's own NATION,
to the PAST,
& to HISTORY...

ART IS NOT ARTIFICE,
ART IS NOT ARTIFICIAL.
-sabidaku

MY RATING of this song:
Simply BEAUTIFUL
A certified work of ART
- HISTORICAL ART via the medium of MUSIC.
_______
Mga KAPATID, NAKS NAMAN ANO?!
INGGLESing TO-ITS, HAH!!!
@ RESTRUCTURED STYLISTIX A LA POETIX PA! WAW!
FORANGER ENGLISHMAN na ba KO-AKS???
PERO CUIDAO CAYO, HA!
dahil ang ganitong EMOTING
ang ine-eksployt ng KALABAN!
Ang "emotional & sentimental part
of the Filipino character" ni Badholtz (Pakatandaan ninyo ang nangyari kay PRES. MACSAK.

-------
Isa pang natatanging NOTA-BOL NOTA ni NOTY BOY (NB)

POST 0015

2010-07-28T15:14:00.000-07:00

Same time & place as POST 0013
SONGING ALONG

----------------
TAYO'Y MGA PINOY
----------------
(Originally Composed & Performed by HEBER BARTOLOME & BANYUHAY)
Late 1970's or early 1980's
My preferred, because musically slightly-better, version: JUDAS

LITERAL TRANSLATION
REFRAIN: REFRAIN:
Tayo'y mga Pinoy We're Pinoy(s)
Tayo'y hindi Kano We're not American(s)
Huwag kang mahihiya Don't be ashamed
Kung ang ilong mo ay pango If your nose is flat

Dito sa Silangan Here in the East
Aku'y/Tayo'y isinilang I was/We were born
Kung saan nagmumula ang (From) Where originates
Ang sikat ng araw The rays of the Sun

Aku ay may sariling I have my own
Kulay Kayumanggi Brown color
Ngunit di ko maipakita But I cannot show
Tunay na sarili My true self

Kung ating hahanapin If we will seek
Ay matatagpuan (Then) We shall find
Tayo ay may kakanyahang We have the identity?capability?
Dapat na hangaan That should be admired

Subali't nasaan But where are
Ang sikat ng Araw? The Sun's rays?
Ba't tayo ang humahanga Why are we the ones admiring
Doon sa Kanluran? The West?

Bakit kaya tayo ay ganito? Why are we like this?
Bakit nanggagaya Why do we imitate
Mayroon naman tayo? When we have our own?

Ulitin ang REFRAIN Repeat REFRAIN

Mayroong isang aso There is a dog
Daig pa ang ulol Worse than mad
Siya'y ngumingiyaw It meows (&)
Hindi tumatahol Does not bark
Katulad ng iba Like some/others (who)
Pa-Ingles-ingles pa Keep speaking English
Na kung pakikinggan which when listened to
Mali-mali naman Turn out/are incorrect/full of errors
Huwag na lang Forget it/Never mind/Better not
(2X) (2X)

Hoy Hoy Ikaw ay Pinoy Hey Hey You are Pinoy
Hoy Hoy Ikaw ay Pinoy Hey Hey You are Pinoy

-----------
Nosi Bayasi (NB):
-----------
A POWERFUL NATIONALISTIC & ANTI-COLONIAL POP SONG WITH BEAUTIFUL MELODY though the lyrics are not perfect. I believe that the 4th to 6th lines from the last may be changed/improved & rewritten. Rating: Music 100% Lyrics 99%

One clearly-affected commenter in the website from where I downloaded the MP3, apparently unfamiliar with this old song, stated in Tagalog something like: "HEY, THIS IS DIFFERENT! ONLY STONED PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS!" ["IBA'TO! BATO LANG ANG NAKAKAALAM NITO!"] HAR-HAR-HAR!

NOTE VERY WELL that a mere VERSION can be BETTER than the ORIGINAL.
This is in MUSIC. [e.g., Compare: Paul Young's EVERYTIME YOU GO vs. original HALL & OATES] The BARTOLOME brothers (graduates of U.P. SCHOOL OF MUSIC) have beautiful, really musical voices but the JUDAS version has a strange, unusual underlying background sound that permeates it & immediately sets the mood of the listener. Thus, for me, the JUDAS version is BETTER than the BANYUHAY original. And much better than either would be the imaginary THIRD version having BARTOLOME brothers' vocals combined with JUDAS's instrumentation. Is this state-of-affairs the consequence of ELECTRONIC sound & better sound-GENERATION, RECORDING & REPRODUCTION TECHNIQUES? Does it mean that objective SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY can & do affect & may even CHANGE subjective ART & HUMAN REALITY? - a potentially-controversial PHILOSOPHICAL TOPIC for further discussion.

The song expresses & elaborates on in musical language the MEANING of the following Tagalog saying:

"ANG HINDI MAGMAHAL SA SARILING WIKA AY HIGIT PA SA HAYUP AT MALANSANG ISDA." - Jose Rizal

TANONG: Sumusulat ba si aku (si N.B.) para sa kababayan o para sa dayuhan?
-------
(n) Ninakaw kay N.B.(Noty Boy)
(s) Stolen from N.B.(Noty Boy)

POST 0014

2010-07-28T15:12:00.000-07:00

Same time & place as POST 0013

-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=398995

Arts and Culture
The Mark of Sakay: The Vilified Hero of Our War with America
By Carmen Guerrero Nakpil (The Philippine Star)
Updated September 08, 2008 12:00 AM

Well-known Photo of Sakay & his men here

The mark of Macario Leon Sakay was the long, jet-black luxuriant hair that, uncut and un-trammeled, cascaded from the top of a head, always held high and audaciously, down to his shoulders. With it, Sakay left a large imprint on the annals of the Philippine Revolution against Spain of 1896 and the Filipino-American War of 1899, for the sight of him on his horse, riding against the wind, at dawn or the dead of night, his black mane streaming behind him in order to set right some urgent wrong, alarmed his people’s enemies but gave instant hope to their hapless cause.

He had begun life as a fatherless boy (Sakay was his mother’s surname) in congested, urban-poor, Tondo on Tabora St., earning a living doing odd jobs as a blacksmith or as occasional tailor, also as an actor in street theater and comedias, but mostly as a barber. When he made his commitment to Philippine Independence by joining his friend, Andres Bonifacio’s Katipunan, he made hair the symbol of resistance and vowed he would cut his only after he had defeated the Americans.

During his brief lifetime, Sakay became the scourge of all his country’s oppressors — the Spaniards, the Americans, the misguided half-bloods and compatriots — trying in every way he knew to secure freedom from injustice for his people. He was more determined than Rizal, more fortunate than Bonifacio, purer than Aguinaldo, more lyrically mysterious than Mabini. If Filipinos had won the war with America, he would probably have been our Simon Bolívar or our Ho Chi Minh.

Instead, because most history is written by the victors and their partisans and in the American years, Filipino schoolbooks and acceptable public opinion followed the black propaganda of the American annexation and “pacification,” several generations of Filipinos lived and died, believing that Sakay was a criminal with lunatic pretensions, a brigand and a ludicrous bandit. In the late 1930s Lamberto Avellana, my brother Leoni’s chum from the American Jesuit Ateneo, movie director and National-Artist-to-be, made a film about Sakay where he was portrayed as the villainous bandit, with the Philippine Constabulary officer playing hero and leading man (Leopoldo Salcedo.)

What a little research can undo. After Independence, scholars intent on writing history from a Filipino viewpoint began to review the colonial versions and examine old records. They came to the conclusion that Sakay was an authentic hero in the best tradition of Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto and Apolonio Samson who were his comrades-in-arms in the Katipunan. Far from being a bandit, he was a glorious die-hard, incredibly brave and tenacious, a heroic hold-out for Philippine Independence.

In 1952, Antonio K. Abad, a member of the Philippine Historical Society, published the definitive biography, General Macario L. Sakay: — the only President of the Tagalog Republic. Was He a Bandit or a Patriot? The foreword by Prof. Teodoro A. Agoncillo, read, “No Filipino has been so maligned in history as General Macario Sakay…Sakay and his men lived dangerously and thus invited the hatred of the early Americans who started a double-barreled campaign of imperialism and liquidation. The Americans called them bandits and outlaws… Mr. Antonio K. Abad has recreated the hero out of a mass of documents…His work is a vindication of the much maligned man who dared posterity to emulate his deep devotion to the ideals of independence.”

UP Prof. Renato Constantino also published his findings in the 1960s, demolishing the American colonial libel about Sakay. But colonial propaganda and its lies have a long shelf-life. Only last week I was painfully surprised when a couple of my Manileño friends, in reply to my remark that I was writing about Sakay, replied dismissively, “Oh, that bandit.”

After a hundred years, we still need the backstory of the Revolution against Spain in 1896 and our war with America in 1899 to understand Sakay and his generation.

The day Rizal was exiled to Dapitan, in July 1892, a group of middle-class Manileños met at a private residence on Azcarraga (now Recto) and founded the Katipunan (Ang Kataastaasang Kagalanggalangan Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan), the secret society that planned and initiated the armed struggle against Spain. In four years, the K.K.K.’s membership rose to almost 30,000: students, workers, merchants, farmers from the eight provinces that started the Revolution. Sakay was an early joiner.

After that disastrous first battle in San Juan in August, 1896, Sakay joined the forces that encamped in the hills of Marikina and Montalban and fought in the Katipunan battles, including the victory at San Mateo. After several reverses, the Manila Katipuneros retreated to Cavite where a new general, Emilio Aguinaldo, turned the tide, defeated Bonifacio in a power struggle (Aguinaldo’s Caviteño Magdalo vs. Bonifacio’s Manileño Magdiwang) and went on to win many encounters. The Spanish government called a truce and negotiated the Pact of Biyak-na-Bato.

The heads of the Revolutionary Army retreated to Hongkong, from where they spent the Spanish indemnity money on arms, befriended the US Consuls in Hong Kong and Singapore and resumed the Revolution in 1898 at the height of the Spanish-American War, assuming that the Americans were their allies and protectors. Aguinaldo proclaimed Philippine Independence in Cavite in June, 1898, with the revolutionary forces 80,000 strong, laid successful siege to Spanish Manila, proceeded to liberate Luzon and expected to enter the beleaguered capital and install a Philippine Independent Republic.

But the US had an altogether different agenda. It kept the Filipino forces from entering the city, signed a treaty of surrender with Spain and American troops entered Manila all by themselves, proclaiming the start of the US Occupation, on Aug. 13, 1898.

Dewey had destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay on May 1, and land troops, newly arrived under Gen. Wesley Merritt, took possession. They had to wait, however, for the Treaty of Paris in which Spain ceded a colony it no longer held to the US for $20 million, and started in February 1899, a first military encounter with Filipino troops holding the trenches around Sta. Mesa. The Filipino-American War was formally settled in 1902, after the capture of Aguinaldo in his mountain hideout in Palanan, Isabela, in 1901. But Filipino guerrilla action against the US forces did not end until 1907 when the first Filipino parliament was allowed by the US America spent $300 million more pacifying the Filipinos they thought they had bought at the bargain-basement price of $20 million.

Having survived the Revolution against Spain, Sakay was, at the beginning of the Philippine resistance to the US, an undercover man in Manila where he tried to reactivate the Katipunan, organizing commandos and intelligence and sabotage units. While head of the Dapitan section of the K.K.K., Magdiwang in Manila, Sakay was arrested and jailed by US authorities and released under the general amnesty of July 1902. He quickly took to the hills and organized huge guerrilla forces which operated in Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, and the foothills of Mt. Banahaw. No ragtag band, just one of Sakay’s commanders had 4,000 troops.

In his mountain lair, he proclaimed, on May 6, 1902 the establishment of the Kapuluang Katagalugan (The Tagalog Archipelago) with himself as president, Francisco Carreon as vice-president and Lt. Gen. Julian Montalan as chief of staff. The terms “Tagalog Archipelago” were chosen in contrast to the “Philippine Republic” of the rival Aguinaldo Magdalo.

In a second manifesto, a constitution was enacted and published in Tagalog and Spanish in newspapers edited by Lope K. Santos, proclaiming the Tagalog Archipelago as the “true revolutionists, with a government at Dimas-Alang,” beseeching the representatives of other nations “for help in acquainting the world with our true intent and aims for our unfortunate country.” Sakay’s government had a flag, a system of taxation, a disciplined army consisting of regular battalions and regiments of infantry, artillery, engineer and medical corps with separate commands in full uniform. It operated in total defiance of the hugely superior, first modern foreign army, infuriating and mocking US authorities in Manila. It was a hard state with strict laws impersonally and impartially executed, especially capital punishment and physical maiming imposed on informers, collaborators, and spies of the US government. It took the Americans 3,000 troops and two more years to think they had defeated Sakay. Although, “pacification” had formally ended, there was no let-up in the attacks of Sakay’s forces on US installations.

At last in 1905-06, the Americans devised a more successful trap. First, they passed a Brigand Act defining all forms of resistance to US rule as criminal acts deserving of capital punishment. American officials were able to wean many of the ilustrado elite from their anti-colonial advocacies. Men like T. Pardo de Tavera formed the Federalista Party that aspired to statehood in the US Union; the Paternos, Aranetas, Benitezes participated in other events; Epifanio de los Santos became a delegate to the US Exposition in St. Louis in 1904. Alongside with Sakay’s guerrillas, bands of highwaymen, robbers, cattle-rustlers operated in the Luzon countryside and, when caught, claimed to be Sakay’s troops. Sakay himself, a dashing, romantic figure, was rumored to have kidnapped the comely wife of a provincial governor who vowed revenge. One of the most charming, persuasive ilustrados, Dr. Dominador Gomez, was asked by the Americans to approach Sakay and discuss amnesty for his thousands of soldiers.

Gen. Leon Villafuerte later testified that Dr. Gomez had told Sakay and his officers that, “The American governor-general has promised to create a national assembly of our countrymen elected by the people where our leaders can be trained for eventual self-government. As soon as we prove ourselves capable, we shall be granted independence.” After long treks to Tanay and several visits by Dr. Gomez, Sakay, Carreon, Villafuerte, Montalan and de Vega came to Manila on a safe-conduct pass from the Americans. Dressed in rayadillo uniforms, carrying pistols and daggers, their long hair neatly combed, they came on foot with hundreds of overjoyed townspeople showering them with food and other gifts, guitar music and singing. People acclaimed them as celebrity heroes and they were feted at banquets and dances.

On July 17, they were invited to a town fiesta in Cavite by US Col. Van Shaick, the acting Cavite governor. An orchestra played dance music amid American flags and bunches of flowers. At 11:30 a.m., US officers, pistols in hand, walked in and although Sakay fought unarmed against “his giant attacker,” he and his officers were disarmed. The building was surrounded by Filipino Constabulary officers.

Gen. Villafuerte shouted, “We have been betrayed and we are trapped. Doctor, what is the meaning of this?” Dr. Gomez stepped forward: “There’s no use fighting.” Sakay’s eyes were bloodshot. He said, “Tell the Americans to face us in the open field, in honorable battle.” And to the Filipino Constabularios, he remarked, “Aren’t you ashamed of what you are doing?” Manacled, they were taken by boat to the Hotel de Oriente in Binondo and then to Bilibid Prison. Captain Rafael Crame presided over the preliminary investigation and the accused were charged under the Brigand Act. They were defended by Attys. Felipe Buencamino and Ramon Diokno (father of the great anti-Marcos militant Pepe Diokno).

In Bilibid, the prisoners were allowed visits by family and friends who were astoundingly numerous, bringing food, gifts, letters. Sympathizers who pleaded for clemency, included Aguinaldo, Gregorio Aglipay, the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, the Liga de Mujeres, the Union Obrera Democratica. The prisoners also witnessed prison atrocities (which today recall Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib): 300 members of the Sakay forces were secretly hanged inside Bilibid and 100 more were injected with lethal serum. Many of them had surrendered because Sakay had told his troops they would not be harmed because the Americans had promised a congress of elected Filipino representatives who would rule the country if they abjured armed resistance.

At the trial at the Court of First Instance, using false witnesses, Sakay and his men were accused of robbery in band, murder, rape, summary executions, arson, kidnapping.

Dr. Dominador Gomez instructed them to plead “guilty” because they would then be pardoned. The public defenders, Attys. Buencamino and Diokno, advised them to plead “not guilty,” to show both innocence and non-recognition of US sovereignty. On Aug. 6, 1907, Judge Ignacio Villamor (who would become UP president) convicted them. Those who had pleaded not guilty, like Sakay and de Vega, were hanged. The others, who had listened to Dr. Gomez, had their death sentences commuted or were later released.

A discrepancy intrudes at this point. Just who was Dr. Dominador Gomez? The agent chosen by the Americans to lure Sakay into leaving his headquarters in the mountains of Tanay to come to Manila? From William J. Pomeroy and the National Historical Institute; we learn that he was a medical doctor, a graduate from the University of Sto. Tomas, who in 1903, at the beginning of the American regime, had taken over from Isabelo de los Reyes the leadership of the Union Obrera and had participated in a large anti-American rally. Gomez was arrested for sedition, tried and convicted to four years of hard labor and ordered to pay a fine. His case was on appeal to the Supreme Court (manned by US justices), his sentence un-served, when he began to negotiate Sakay’s surrender, going on arduous treks to Tanay for long discussions, showing a letter from the US governor-general that promised a Filipino assembly, “the door to freedom,” if Sakay and his generals laid down their arms.

The American betrayal in Cavite, Sakay’s and his men’s trial, and conviction have already been told in this article. What remains to be noted is that, two weeks after Sakay was hanged, Dr. Dominador Gomez’s pending case was summarily revived and quickly dismissed for “insufficient evidence.” Gomez then went on to become a representative for the First Philippine Assembly of 1907 where he was denounced and expelled by Sergio Osmeña and Manuel Luis Quezon, for having served as a surgeon in the Spanish army in Cuba and received a medal from the Spanish queen during the Spanish-American War. But in 1909, Gomez was re-elected to a second term because, despite his previous disgraceful expulsion, he was backed by the US authorities. The facts speak for themselves. Sakay was the plea bargain.

At 8:30 in the morning, on Sept. 13, 1907, Sakay and Col. Lucio de Vega were taken from their bartolina to the gallows. Reaching the platform, Sakay shouted at the top of his lungs, “I face the Lord Almighty calmly but we must tell you that we are not bandits and robbers as the Americans accuse us, but members of the revolutionary force that defended our country. Long live the Philippines! Adios Filipinas!” Sakay was 37.

The day before, a big crowd of Manila residents had gathered in front of Malacañang Palace in an unusual, emotional demonstration pleading for clemency, but the American governor-general refused to see them. Almost the same crowd, larger and more vociferous, was at the gates of Bilibid Prison asking to be allowed to wrap the bodies of Sakay and Col. De Vega in Katipunan flags before they were buried. They were refused.

The US Government kept their word about calling a Filipino assembly. In October 1907, the First Philippine Assembly of Filipinos elected (by men of property) was inaugurated at the Manila Grand Opera House on Calle Cervantes (now Rizal Avenue) by Secretary of War William H. Taft. Acting Secretary of the Philippine Commission Ferguson read the Spanish translation of Taft’s speech, followed by an invocation by Bishop Barlin. After the roll call, with names like Gabaldon, Gomez, Guerrero, Imperial, Osmena, Palma, Quezon, Velarde, De Veyra, roundly applauded, the session was adjourned till the afternoon. A young delegate from Cebu, Sergio Osmeña was elected Speaker by acclamation.

But Philippine Independence was granted by America only 40 years later, on 4 July 1946, after a devastating war, and on several conditions: equal rights to US citizens in the development of natural resources, US military bases in perpetuity, economic treaties including the onerous “free trade” (that denied industrialization to this country), also interventions in Philippine elections and in foreign and educational policies.

It was the kind of independence, Macario Leon Sakay, Katipunero and patriot, an “organization genius” as his American captors described him, never would have settled for or even considered. He would have chosen instead to die fighting America, if he had known the truth and seen the future of his adored Filipinas.

* * *
(The National Historical Institute and the University of the Philippines have erected a marker at the foot of Mt. Banahaw where General Macario Sakay and his troops operated. The Manila Historical Heritage Commission held a commemorative program last year at Plaza Morriones Tondo in honor of Macario Sakay. This year, on Sept. 13, 2008, a life-size statue of Sakay will be unveiled at Plaza Morga Tondo by the Manila Historical Heritage Commission.)

View previous articles from this author.
-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
-----------
Nosi Bayasi (NB):
-----------
1) I do not know if Madam Nakpil was ever informed by anyone among her staff that I tried once to personally contact her sometime in the past to consult her about her writings. In fact, I visited the building in Salcedo Village, Makati which was a walking distance from the Indonesian Embassy where Muslims from different nations including the Philippines gather for Friday prayers. I remember now that it was the same building where I was employed briefly as a data encoder in a mini-computer station, working on graveyard shift in the 1980's. [This was years before the job of "call center agent" became popular.] I had read somewhere that her office or one of her offices was in that building. But I was told by the ground security officer that she was not around. I had also attended an event in the Fort Santiago de Vera where her daughter Gemma Cruz spoke to a mostly Muslim audience, including some "big-shots" & foreigners whom I knew personally. This was in the late 1990's or early 2000's just shortly before the ABU-ABU-SAYAP-SAYAP grabbed the headlines.

2) "purer than Aguinaldo"?? - EMI inFAMY AGUI was NOT & NEVER "pure"!! NO! Noble? NO. No-balls? YES! [Read DMACAPAGAL's own personal account how in the 1960's AGUI's side remark to him (while they were both seated at the Quirino grandstand watching the first June 12 celebration-parade) betrayed the latter's DESIROUS, OVERLY-AMBITIOUS, & ENVIOUS CHARACTER - for he even wanted to replace with his own RIZAL's metal figure at the Luneta!!! Pati REBULTO ng mismong PAMBANSANG BAYANIng si RIZAL eh TATALUNIN!! SUSMARYOPES!!! UNETHICAL na, IMMORAL pa! A REAL ROGUE! TSK TSK TSK TSK Ambisyoso, Duwag, Inggitero, Mapagkamkan, Oportunista, Tuso - pawang mga "UGALING-ASAL"!! Ganyan bang klase ng tau ang tinitingalang bayani ng mga taga-SANIPILIP??? LOK-BOOH!!! Kaya naman pala ganyan ang gobyerno ng Pilipinas, eh! I guess AGUI simply has to go & should be EXPUNGED from PHILIPPINE HISTORY or else this nation will ultimately end up a FAILED STATE. And time to declare ANDRES BONIFACIO as the TRUE NATIONAL HERO of the PHILIPPINES!!

3) I am quite sure that Sakay & his group were simply imitating the Macabebe Scouts who were the original long hairs of that historical period. [Or am I mistaken & it is the other way around? I saw first old photos of Macabebes sporting waist-length hair. According to historical accounts, the Macabebe mercenaries physically-imitated Sakay's REVOLUTIONARY group but preyed on civilians to discredit them. (I remember that my GRANNIES KNEW SAKAY.) Of course, they could have discovered it independently because when one is not living in the urban area with "straight people" of society (i.e., when one is in the BOONDOCKS), one tends to let nature take its own course & leave things as these are - including letting one's hair, even nails, beards, & mustaches grow uncut & untrimmed. Is it strange that JC the Chrst of Nzrth is universally-pictured as sporting long hair & beard? Even Nb Mhmmd bn bdllh of Mkkh sported long hair sometime in his career! Ask religious Middle Easterners (Arabs, Persians & Turks) & even those from the Indian subcontinent what uncut beards & hair signify. [But what about baldies or skinheads? Does this mean that they are NOT revolutionaries like JC, Mhmmd et al? Now, I would recommend that they just keep their shiny pates, which is so plainly ordinary nowadays, but simply use wigs as a form of "reverse" disguise. They can be very effective SPIES for revolutionaries. But it would be much better if they build or buy a wig factory first. Big business potential! Of course, there is the risk that if it succeeds financially, then they might just forget about revolution.]

3) Look closely at the S's gang photo & examine his face. I wouldn't be suprised if his Darwinist-racist detractors would claim that he looks simian (monkey-ish). He looks very like someone I know. But note that, according to some accounts, SAKAY's Yanqui captors considered him to be a wizard at organizing! So, apes can teach a course on "Theory of Organization" in Business Management school? [See my blog on GENETICS, RACE & RACISM]

4) S's "Filipinas" was actually Bonifacio's "Bayang Katagalugan".

Evening news on TV (072210) report a double murder of females in Cavite, one of whom is surnamed "Sac/kay"... CHANCE or CHOICE?

LALABAS AT LALABAS ANG KATOTOHANAN...
KAYA NGA SINABI NA "ANG KASAYSAYAN AY DAPAT KATAKUTAN"->(MY Preferred INTERPRETATION)

POST 0013

2010-07-28T15:06:00.000-07:00

July 29, 2010
6:06 a.m. Manila Time

TAGALOG:
Marami sa inilabas ko dito sa aking BLOG ay galing sa ibang tau at kinopya lamang. Ni hindi aku talagang nag-react o nag-komento ng husto sa mga ito. Hindi ko rin talaga sinuri ang mga ito. Ipinakita ko lamang ang mga uri ng babasahin na dapat nabasa, naunawaan at natandaan ng aking bumabasa upang maunawaan niya ang aking
"kahulugan" o ang takbo ng aking kaisipan. Karaniwan kasi ay kailangan ng malawak na KONTEKSTO upang maintindihan o maunawaan ang mga pahayag o sinasabi ng isang tau. Kahit yung baliw kung mauunawaan ang BACKGROUND o konteksto ng pinagsasasabi nito ay malamang na may katuturan naman. Aku nga ay nakikipag-usap sa isang masasabing may
SAYYAD subali't mas nais ko siyang kausapin kaysa sa ibang matitinong taung nakapaligid sa kanya na wala namang alam at wala akung matututunan. Marami talaga siyang nalalaman na pinag-sikapan niyang alaming mag-isa at sa tingin ko ay medyo sumayad nga sa sobrang katalinuhan o dami ng naisip. Kung marunong ka lang sumakay ay marami kang matututunan sa kanya na hindi mo makukuha sa pagbabasa ng aklat o kahit sa pakikipag-usap sa matino! Ang delikado lang sa mga taung may TRA-LA-LA (kagaya ni SISA na ina nina Crispin at Basilio sa nobelang NOLI ni Rizal) ay yung may sayad na medyo bayolente a la JOHN DOE BALL CROST na sinusuotan na ng strait-jacket! (Kaya pala paborito niya ang curved jackets, eh!) Mayroon nga akung malayong
kamag-anak na nakapag-asawa ng may sayad (Hindi kadugo namin kundi yung napangasawa ng kapamilya namin ang may sira.) Wika daw nito: "All geniuses are mad but not every one who is mad is a genius." O lahat daw ng henyo/genio ay sira ang ulo pero hindi lahat ng sira-ulo ay henyo/genio. [Ang nasabing pahayag ay mainam na panimulang
talakayin sa larangan ng LOHIKA. Gamitin ang 1ST ORDER PREDICATE CALCULUS upang isimbolo ang pahayag, at suriin ang resulta. Maaari pang talakayin ang tinatawag na NECESSARY & SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS. Mahalaga kasi ang LOHIKA upang mabigyang linaw ang pinagsasasabi ng isang tau dahil may mas malalim na pakahulugan ang isang pahayag na hindi makukuha agad sa unang pagsipat o pagdinig dito... At ang tunay na may sayad ay wala nang lohika ang mga pinagsasasabi...

Bilang review sa mga ipinaglalagay ko dito:
-Una kong post ay yung kulang ang pera ko at sinimulan ko ang BLOG na ito sa presyong PP10. Bumati lang aku ng pagsalubong sa bumabasa.
-Ikalawa ay ini-upload ko ang LYRICS ng pambansang awit ng Pilipinas sa wikang Inggles (na mas nauna!) at sa wikang Tagalog. Marahil ay ididikit ko dito yung talagang wastong tugtog/tiyempo/tono nito na MARTIAL MUSIC. Medyo mabilis at hindi kagaya ng tinutugtog at inaawit ng mga bumibirit nating stariray songers sa mga boxing events. Siguro sa ibang pagkakataon o sa ibang BLOG ay tatalakayin at ipaghahambing ko ang iba pang MUSIKANG MAKABAYAN o national anthems ng ibang bansa. Kailangang aminin ko na PANGATLO (3rd) lamang ang ating pambansang awit sa pagandahan. Op kors, subjective judgment na ito...
-Sunod-sunod kong inilagay ang iba-ibang sinulat ng mga kilalang tau hinggil sa kasaysayan ng kapuluang ito. Patungo na aku mula sa nasyonal o lokal papunta sa rehiyonal at maging internasyonal o global na antas. Hindi kasi maiintindihan ang mga kaganapan sa isang lugar kung hindi mauunawaan ang iba pang mga kaganapan sa mas malawak na kinalalagyan nito. Dalawang perspektibo ang kailangang sipatin: LUNAN/LUGAR at PANAHON (time & place), Heograpiya at Kasaysayan... Sa pangkalahatan ay binibigyan ko ng pakahulugan ang kasaysayan ng kapuluang ito ayon sa aking mga natutunan at pinaniniwalaan na tutoo.

Subali't iisang katanungan lang talaga ang kailangang paka-alalahanin ng bumabasa: ANO ANG TUTOO O ANG KATOTOHANAN? - hinggil sa Pilipinas, sa mga Pilipino, sa kasaysayan atbp.

ENGLISH:
Most of the writings in this my BLOG came from other people & were simply copied & pasted. I did not really react or comment on these. Nor did I analyze these. I just wanted to give my readers an idea of the genre of reading materials that they should have read, understood & remembered for them to understand my "meaning" or the train of my thoughts. Normally, one needs to understand the broader CONTEXT in order to grasp the statements of a person or what she is saying. Even with a crazy person, if one understands the BACKGROUND or context of what he is saying, then his statements might make sense. I myself converse with somebody who can be considered SAYYADific but I prefer to talk to him instead of other normal people around him who do not know anything & from whom I won't learn anything. He really knows a lot of things that he learned all by himself & I believe he went nuts due to extreme intelligence or information overload. If you know how to handle him, then you will learn a lot from the person that you won't get from/by reading books or talking to ostensibly sane people! The dangerous ones among those afflicted with TRA-LA-LA (like SISA,
Crispin & BasilioS's mother in Rizal's novel NOLI) are the violent ones who require strait-jacket!(No wonder JOHN DOE BALL CROST's favorite outfit are curved jackets!) I myself have a distant relative who got married to a crazie (I am not related by blood to the nut but to her husband.) She stated once: "All geniuses are mad but not every one who is mad is a genius." [This particular statement is an excellent introductory topic in the field of LOGIC. One may use 1ST ORDER PREDICATE CALCULUS to symbolize the statement & analyze the resut. One may also discuss so-called NECESSARY & SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS. LOGIC is important in clarifying the statements of a person because a statement may contain something more than what meets the eye or ears & may not be grasped at first reading or hearing... And a real nut makes statements that do not have any logic...

To review what I have done so far in this BLOG:
-First, I started this BLOG on PP10 & posted the WELCOME greeting
-Second, I posted the Philippine National Anthem lyrics in English (which historically came first!) and in Tagalog. Maybe I shall add in this same posting the correct tune/rhythm/music of the anthem which is MARTIAL MUSIC. It is fast unlike those that are usually played or sung by Filipino starsingers in boxing events. Maybe here in the future or in another BLOG I shall present other NATIONALISTIC anthems of other nations or countries & compare these. I have to admit that our national anthem is 3rd in overall ranking in BEAUTY. Of course, this is a subjective judgment...
-I posted successively different writings of other persons about the heroes & history of this country. I am now moving from the local or national towards the regional & even the international & global level/scene. One cannot really grasp or understand the events in one place if one does not understand the other events in the broader space in which it is situated. Two perspectives must be considered:
TIME & PLACE, History & Geography... As a whole I am trying to present my own meaning or interpretation of the history of this archipelago based on what I have learned & what I believe in (as true).

But there really is only one question that should be kept in mind by the reader: WHAT IS THE TRUTH?- about the Filipinos, the Philippines, its history, etc.

POST NO. CONTENT
-------- -------
0001 WELCOME MAT.
0002 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ANTHEM LYRICS
0003 NOSI BAYASI'S SANIPILIP HISTORY
0004 SAKAY MOVIE CLIP DIALOGUE
0005 E.R. SAN JUAN RIZAL ARTICLE
0006 EUGENE HESSEL RIZAL RETRACTION ARTICLE
0007 NOSI BAYASI'S HEBIGAT ISYUS ON
0008 NICK JOAQUIN TAGALOG-PAMPANGAN ARTICLE
0009 MILAGROS GUERRERO BONIFACIO & 1896 ARTICLE
0010 JUMAANI MORO HISTORY
0011 ZABOLOTNAYA ARTICLE ON RUSSIAN TAGALOG STUDIES
0012 DIVIDE & CONQUER ARTICLE
0013 THIS PRESENT POSTING: TABLE OF CONTENTS
0014 TAYO'Y MGA PINOY & BABALIK KA RIN: ART & IDEOLOGY
0015 NAKPIL ON SAKAY
0016 IMPERIALISM & COLONIALISM
0017 MARXISM: TWO ITEMS
0018 LINGGA TWO NATIONS
0019
Pagkatapos ng ilan pang mahalagang POSTINGS ay sunod ko namang tatalakayin ang IMPERYALISMO, KOLONYALISMO,

MARXISMO, DIGMAAN ng PAGPAPALAYA at REBOLUSYON.
Next, I shall tackle IMPERIALISM, COLONIALISM, MARXISM, WARS OF

LIBERATION & REVOLUTION - REVOLUTIONS & REVOLUTIONARIES IN HISTORY,

MARXIST-SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, ISLAMIC REVOLUTION, etcetc.

"A REVOLUTIONIST HAS TO BE A LITTLE LOCO."
-attributed to ERNESTO "CHE" GUEVARA, Latin American REVOLUTIONARY

"GENUINE EDUCATION IS LIBERATING."
"Ang TUNAY na EDUKASYON ay MAPAGPALAYA."
-Nosi Bayasi (sabidaku), LE CHE

POST 0012

2010-07-14T16:28:00.000-07:00

KASABAY NG POSTS 0008-0011
Huwebes, Hulyo 15, 2010
Kalendaryong Gregorian
7:29 Manila Time

HINGGIL NAMAN SA TINAGURIANG "DIVIDE & CONQUER" O "DIVIDE ET IMPERE"

-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
Call Toll Free 1-800-840 3683 or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Bastille Day
July 14, 2004
The Model for Iraq was Ireland, 1692
Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules

By CONN HALLINAN

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh's recent revelations that the Israeli government is encouraging Kurdish separatism in Iraq, Iran, and Syria should ring a bell for anyone who has followed the long history of English imperial ambitions.

It is no surprise that the Israelis should be using the tactic of "divide and conquer," the cornerstone policy of an empire that dominated virtually every continent on the globe save South America. The Jewish population of British-controlled Palestine was, after all, victim to exactly the same kind of ethnic manipulation that the Sharon government is presently attempting in Northern Iraq.

Following the absorption of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the British set about shoring up their rule by the tried and true strategy of pitting ethnic group against ethnic group, tribe against tribe, and religion against religion. When British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour issued his famous 1917 Declaration guaranteeing a "homeland" for the Jewish people in Palestine, he was less concerned with righting a two thousand year old wrong than creating divisions that would serve growing British interests in the Middle East.

Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a "Jewish homeland" in Palestine meant for the British Empire: "It will form for England," he said, "a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."

Storrs' analogy was no accident. Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer, and where the devastating effectiveness of using foreign settlers to drive a wedge between the colonial rulers and the colonized made it a template for worldwide imperial rule.

Divide and Conquer Revisited

Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Menachem Begin normally take credit for creating the "facts on the ground" policies that have poured more than 420,000 settlers into the Occupied Territories. But they were simply copying Charles I, the English King, who in 1609 forcibly removed the O'Neill and O'Donnell clans from the north of Ireland, moved in 20,000 English and Scottish Protestants, and founded the Plantation of Ulster.

The "removal" was never really meant to cleanse Ulster of the Irish. Native labor was essential to the Plantation's success and within 15 years more than 4,000 native Irish tenants and their families were back in Ulster. But they lived in a land divided into religious castes, with the Protestant invaders on top and the Catholic natives on the bottom.

Protestants were awarded the "Ulster privilege" which gave them special access to land and lower rents, and also served to divide them from the native Catholics. The "Ulster Privilege" is not dissimilar to the kind of "privilege" Israeli settlers enjoy in the Territories today, where their mortgages are cheap, their taxes lower and their education subsidized.

The Protestant privileges were a constant sore point with the native Irish; although in fact, most Protestants were little better off than their Catholic neighbors. Rents were uniformly onerous, regardless of religion.

Indeed, there were numerous cases where Protestants and Catholics united to protest exorbitant rents, but in virtually every case, the authorities successfully used religion and privilege to split such alliances. The Orange Order, the organization most responsible for sectarian politics in the North today, was originally formed in 1795 to break a Catholic-Protestant rent strike.

Ireland as Imperial Laboratory

The parallels between Israel and Ireland are almost eerie, unless one remembers that the latter was the laboratory for British colonialism. As in Ulster, Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories have special privileges that divide them from Palestinians (and other Israelis as well). As in Ireland, Israeli settlers rely on the military to protect them from the "natives." And as in Northern Ireland, there are political organizations, like the National Religious Party and the Moledet Party, which whip up sectarian hatred, and keep the population divided. The latter two parties both advocate the forcible transfer of all Arabs_Palestinians and Israelis alike_to Jordan and Egypt.

Prior to the Ulster experiment, the English had tried any number of schemes to tame the restive Irish and build a wall between conqueror and conquered. One set of laws, the 1367 Statutes of Kilkenny, forbade "gossiping" with the natives. All of them failed. Then the English hit on the idea of using ethnicity, religion, and privilege to construct a society with built-in divisions.

It worked like a charm.

The divisions were finally codified in the Penal Laws of 1692, divisions that still play themselves out in the mean streets of Belfast and Londonderry. Besides denying Catholics any civil rights (and removing those rights from Protestants who intermarried with them), the Laws blocked Catholics from signing contracts, becoming lawyers, or hiring more than two apprentices. In essence, they insured that Catholics would remain poor, powerless, and locked out of the modern world.

The laws were, in the words of the great English jurist Edmund Burke, "A machine of wide and elaborate contrivance and as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man."

Once the English hit on the tactic of using ethnic and religious differences to divide a population, the conquest of Ireland became a reality. Within 250 years, that formula would be transported to India, Africa, and the Middle East.

Sometimes populations were splintered by religions, as with Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims in India. Sometimes societies were divided by tribes, as with the Ibos and Hausa in Nigeria. Sometimes, as in Ireland, foreign ethnic groups were imported and used as a buffer between the colonial authorities and the colonized. That is how large numbers of East Indians ended up in Kenya, South Africa, British Guyana, and Uganda.

It was "divide and conquer" that made it possible for an insignificant island in the north of Europe to rule the world. Division and chaos, tribal, religious and ethnic hatred, were the secret to empire. Guns and artillery were always in the background in case things went awry, but in fact, it rarely came to that.

It would appear the Israelis have paid close attention to English colonial policy because their policies in the Occupied Territories bear a distressing resemblance to Ireland under the Penal Laws

The Israeli Knesset recently prevented Palestinians married to Arab Israelis from acquiring citizenship, a page lifted almost directly from the 1692 laws. Israeli human rights activist Yael Stein called the action "racist," and Knesset member Zeeva Galon said it denied "the fundamental right of Arab Israelis to start families." Even the U.S. is uncomfortable with the legislation. "The new law," said U.S. State Department spokesman Phillip Reeker, "singles out one group for different treatment than others."

Which, of course, was the whole point.

Imperial Blowback

As the penal laws impoverished the Irish, so do Israeli policies impoverish the Palestinians and keep them an underdeveloped pool of cheap labor. According to the United Nations, unemployment in the West Bank and Gaza is over 50 percent, and Palestinians are among the poorest people on the planet.

Any efforts by the Palestinians to build their own independent economic base are smothered by a network of walls, settler-exclusive roads and checkpoints. It is little different than British imperial policy in India, which systematically dismantled the Indian textile industry so that English cloth could clothe the sub-continent without competition.

Divide and conquer was 19th and early 20th century colonialism's single most successful tactic of domination. It was also a disaster, one which still echoes in civil wars and regional tensions across the globe. This latter lesson does not appear to be one the Israelis have paid much attention to. As a system of rule, division and privilege may work in the short run, but over time it engenders nothing but hatred. These polices, according to Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, foment "terror," adding, "In tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interests."

The policy also creates divisions among Israelis. Empires benefit only a few, and always at the expense of the majority. While the Sharon government spends $1.4 billion a year holding on to the territories, 27 percent of Israeli children are officially designated "poor," social services have been cut, and the economy is in shambles.

By playing the Kurds against Syria and Iran, the Israelis may end up triggering a Turkish invasion of Kurdish Iraq, touching off a war that could engulf the entire region. That Israel would emerge from such a conflict unscathed is illusion.

Divide and conquer fails in the long run, but only after it inflicts stupendous damage, engendering hatreds that still convulse countries like Nigeria, India and Ireland. In the end it will fail to serve even the interests of the power that uses it. England kept Ireland divided for 800 years, but in the end, it lost.

The Israelis would do well to remember the Irish poet Patrick Pearse's eulogy over the grave of the old Fenian revolutionary, Jeremian "Rossa" O'Donovan: "I say to my people's masters, beware. Beware of the thing that is coming. Beware of the risen people who shall take what yea would not give."

Conn Hallinan is a foreign policy analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus and a Lecturer in Journalism at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

WWW http://www.counterpunch.org
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------

POST 0011

2010-07-14T16:26:00.000-07:00

Same time & place as POSTS 0008-0010

BASAHIN KUNG GAANO KALALIM ANG NAGAWANG PAG-AARAL NG IBANG LAHI HINGGIL SA ATING BANSA. ALAM BA NG MGA GURO O PROPESOR SA PILIPINAS NA MAY MAHUHUSAY NA ISKOLAR MULA SA RUSYA HALIMBAWA ANG NAGSALIKSIK HINGGIL SA ATING WIKA? GINAGAMIT BA ANG MGA ITO SA MGA PAARALAN O DALUBHASAAN DITO?

-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
Ito ang HTML na salin nghttp://web.kssp.upd.edu.ph/linguistics/plc2006/papers/FullPapers/III-A-3_Zabolatnaya.pdf.
Kusang gumagawa ng mga html na salin ang G o o g l e para sa mga dokumento na nahanap namin sa web.
Upang ma-link o i-bookmark ang pahinang ito, gamitin ang sumusunod na url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:zQ-QYxH14foJ:web.kssp.upd.edu.ph/linguistics/plc2006/papers/FullPapers/III-A-3_Zabolatnaya.pdf+nusantara+site:.edu.ph&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ph&client=firefox-a

Ang Google ay hindi konektado sa mga may-akda ng pahinang ito at hindi rin mananagutan sa mga nilalaman nito.
Ang mga salita na ito ay naka-highlight. nusantara
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1
PHILIPPINE LINGUISTICS STUDIES IN RUSSIA
Natalia V. Zabolotnaya
Moscow State University
natal71@yandex.ru

Abstract The Philippine linguistics studies in Russia trace its roots back to the 18th century when Peter S. Pallas (17411811), a member of the Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences, published his famous work entitled Comparative Dictionaries of all Languages and Dialects in 1787. Although Russia had shown the interest in the Philippines a long time ago, however, until the middle of the 20th century Philippine linguistics studies in Russia were undertaken in fits and starts. During the postwar period, since the 1950s the research institutes under the Academy of Sciences and universities of the former USSR almost simultaneously have undertaken the regular and systematic research and teaching both of Philippine languages, first of all Tagalog, and Philippine literature. In 1960s the first important works on various problems of Tagalog as well as Philippine grammar, typology and comparative and historical studies of the Philippine languages by Philippine linguists in Russia such as V. Makarenko, I. Podberezsky, G. Rachkov, L. Shkarban and some others appeared. In 1980s and 1990s most works were dedicated to the history and the comprehensive language situation and language policy in the Philippines; the first Tagalog textbooks, manuals and dictionaries for students were published; and various reviews and essays on historical studies of the Philippine languages, literature and culture appeared, some of which were published abroad in English and Filipino. In recent decades 70 qualified Philippine specialists having good command of Filipino and several dozens of Indonesian specialists who studied Filipino as optional subject were trained in Russia. Today we have two Filipino groups and two PhD studentlinguists in Moscow State University and one Filipino group in St. Petersburg State University. This is the keystone to further successful and prosperous development of Philippine linguistics in Russia. This paper also includes the bibliography of all Russian Philippine linguists and gives a brief account of their important works. The first descriptions of the Philippine languages were made by Spanish friars by the late sixteenth century when they arrived in the Philippine Archipelago after the Spanish conquest of the Islands. However, the most important and impressive Spanish works appeared in the 1700s and 1800s only. At the beginning of the nineteenth century their materials were used by the fathers of comparative and historical linguistics. As a result, by the early twentieth century 500 works by European, American and Filipino authors on Tagalog only, one of the most widely spoken languages in the Philippines, were produced. Various theoretical schools succeeding one another or existing simultaneously have contributed a lot to the development of the Philippine linguistics studies. The largest and the most influential in force of historical circumstances remains the American linguistics. The European schools exerted less influence, probably, except for universalism presented in the works by Spanish missionaries. The Philippine linguistics studies in Russia trace its roots back to the 18th century when Peter S. Pallas (17411811), a member of the Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences,

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

published in 1787 his famous work entitled Comparative Dictionaries of all Languages and Dialects gathered by the right hand of Her Majesty1. Part I, including the European and Asian languages. This book has materials on Pampangan, or Kapampangan, Tagalog and Magindanao. However, out of 130 words of the Russian glossary 19 words only were translated into Tagalog. Although Peter Pallas did not provide the references, which he used to compile the Dictionary, we may assume that for the Filipino words he applied to Forster’s glossary.At the beginning of the 19th century Peter Dobell, the American who came over to the Russian service and who was appointed to the position of Russian Consul General in Manila in 1820, got acquainted with Tagalog in practice. In his very interesting book Voyages and the latest observations in China, Manila and IndoChinese Archipelago… published in translation from English2 by N. Grech in 1833 in St. Petersburg, you can find not only various observational data about the Philippine Archipelago, its inhabitants, their capital but also very remarkable information on Tagalog, its role and cultivation in Archipelago, cognation of this language with Malay a good command of which Dobell had and etc. As it said in the book, Dobell compiled the pocket Tagalog dictionary and on his return to Russia donated it to Count Nikolay Rumyantsev (17541826), Foreign Minister of Russia in 18071814 as well as the famous collector of books and manuscripts and founder of the Rumyantsev Museum and Library (today – the Russian State Library).At the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century Sergey Bulich (18591921), the famous Russian linguist and specialist in the Slavic languages, comparativist and historian of the national linguistics concept as well as professor of the Moscow State University, repeatedly applied to the Philippine and Austronesian languages. He wrote such articles as The Tagalog language (1901), The Filipino or Tagalog group of the Malay languages (1902) and some others for the popular Encyclopedia by F.A. Broghaus and I.A. Efron. The author used the works of Spanish and Filipino authors as Sebastian de Totanes, Pedro de Sanlucar, Juan Jose de Noceda and Pedro Serrano Laktaw to write the mentioned articles, compiled to the great extent by the terms of the edition. Some information about the Philippine languages, language and ethnonational situation, language policy and culture of the Philippines in the 19th century we can find in the articles of ViceAdmiral V.M. Golovin (17761831), the Russian navigator, captain of circumnavigation and corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences; in the book of Captain Otto Kocebu (17881846) written in cooperation with German writernaturalist Adelbert fon Chamisso (17811838); in part 3 The Philippine islands in the travel notes Frigate Pallada by the Russian famous writer Ivan Goncharov (18551857) and some other publications. During the first years of the Russian postrevolution period Eugenie Polivanov (18911938), the talented Russian linguist, many times appealed to the facts of Tagalog. He is the author of the first course Introduction into Linguistics for the Institutes of 1 i.e. by the Russian Empress Katherine II, the patroness of Art and Sciences. 2 On the book jacket is mentioned that Dobel’s Voyages and latest observations… were translated by someone A. Gh. According to Makarenko’s surveys and supposition, A. Gh. is A. Ghunkovsky, a friend of P. Dobell.

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006)Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines2
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

Oriental Studies (1928) where he widely operated with Tagalog examples. Ten years before this book Polivanov using the Tagalog materials reconstructed the old Japanese forms and proposed the hypotheses on parent language cognation of Japanese and Austronesian languages. Unfortunately, in view of repressions and execution of the scholar his greatest and fruitful scientific effort was interrupted. Polivanov was posthumously rehabilitated at the end of 1960s only. Before the World War II the travel notes by various travelers on the Philippines and one of Jose Rizal’s novels and some others translated into Russian were published. In 19311940 the special articles on Linguistics and Ethnography by Roy Franklin Barton who lived and worked at that time in USSR appeared in different periodicals of Moscow and Leningrad (today St. Petersburg). Although Russia had shown the interest in the Philippines a long time ago, however, until the middle of the 20th century Philippine linguistics studies in Russia were undertaken in fits and starts. During the postwar period, since the 1950s the research institutes under the Academy of Sciences and universities of the former USSR almost simultaneously have undertaken the regular and systematic research and teaching both of Philippine languages, first of all Tagalog proclaimed by President Manuel Quezon in the middle of the 1930s the national language of the Philippines, and Philippine literature. Filipino emigrant Teodosio A. Lansang (19181993) – alias Manuel Cruz and Lina Shkarban (born in 1937) – the author of series of articles on Tagalog morphology worked in the Institute of Oriental Studies under the Russian Academy of Sciences (IV RAN). Together with M. Cruz they published the brochure The Tagalog language in 1966 in journal Narodi Azii i Afriki (Peoples of Asia and Africa).In the Institute of Asian and African Studies (IAAS, former Institute of Oriental languages, founded in 1956) attached to the Moscow State University (MSU) since the academic year of 1959/1960 Tagalog had been taught by Vladimir Makarenko as the second Oriental language for the students of Indonesian and Malay Department and since 1975 as the first Oriental language at HistoricoPhilological Faculty and since 1979 – at SocioEconomic Faculty. In 1985 the instruction of this language was interrupted and the anchor was weighed only in 1997 for philologists by the efforts of Mikhail Meyer, current Director (retiring in 2006) of IAAS attached to MSU. Nowadays we have two Filipino groups and two PhD studentlinguists in IAAS, MSU. The first Filipino group is on the 4th year of its study at SocioEconomic Faculty, Professor Elena Frolova, and the second one is on the 1st year at Philological Faculty, Professor Ekaterina Baklanova, one of the University’s current PhD students on Filipino Linguistics.Since its establishment the intensive research and instructional work has been undertaken at the Department of Philology of SouthEast Asian Countries in IAAS. As a result a lot of programs, textbooks and manuals, student’s readers and collections of sciencephilological articles such as Voprosy filologii stran JugoVostocnoy Azii (Philological Problems of SEA Countries), which collected surveys on comparative TagalogIndonesian linguistics, in particular wordformation and genetic cognation of Austronesian languages as well as some other works, in particular on the old Filipino script and etc. were produced. In the 1960s the Center of Malay and Indonesian Studies headed by Alexander Guber (190271), a member of USSR Academy of Sciences and

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006)Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines3
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

specialist on history of SouthEast Asia and general problems of oriental studies, was established in the Institute of Asian and African Studies. Afterwards, in the late 1970s the center was renamed after Nusantara. Today the Center assembles its members not regularly, annually holds readings on the problems of SEA countries and publishes its Journal once or twice a year. Next year on the occasion of the 30th Anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and the Philippines it plans to organize Conference devoted to the Philippine studies in Russia. At the Moscow State Institute of International Relations attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MGIMO MID) of USSR (now MFA of the Russian Federation) Tagalog was taught by Manuel Cruz since 1956/1957 academic year and later on until the end of the 1970s – by Igor Podberezsky (born in 1937), one of the first graduates who had his language training at the University of the Philippines in 19701971. In 1980 he was succeeded by Elena Frolova (born in 1957) who graduated from IAAS attached to MSU. In 1976 Podberezsky published excellent Tagalog Textbook including Grammar and TagalogRussian Vocabulary for students of the 1st and 2nd year of study. Together with Prof. Frolova who also had very good language practice in the Philippines (in UP Diliman and DLSU) they produced in cooperation with the native speakers perfect language sound courses and other training aids. The Institute of International Relations prepared diplomats placing the high emphasis on Colloquial speech and giving pragmatic knowledge about the country without theoretical and special courses and seminars on Filipino Philology in contrast to IAAS attached to MSU. In the middle of the 1990s the instruction of Tagalog was stopped there in view of unclaimed personnel and lack of teaching staff.Initially for the training purposes some works of Filipino teachers and Filipino dictionaries were published in a small number of copies. However, in 1959 TagalogRussian Dictionary (of about 20 000 words with the potted Tagalog Grammar) by Manuel Cruz and Sergey Ignashev (19381998) who later immigrated to USA, appeared. The abovementioned also compiled RussianTagalog Dictionary in 1965 (about 23 000 words). Both dictionaries printed by the State Publishing House of Foreign and National Dictionaries in Moscow were edited by Vladimir Makarenko. At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation itself till recently Natalia Zabolotnaya, the graduate of the Moscow State University and specialist on Filipino linguistics, held Filipino language courses for Russian diplomats. In view of the completion of the courses and assignment of the students, the instruction at MFA was also interrupted. In the 1960s the first important works on various problems of Tagalog as well as Philippine grammar, typology, comparative and historical studies of the Philippine andIndonesian languages by Philippine linguists in Russia such as V. Makarenko, I. Podberezsky, G. Rachkov, L. Shkarban and some others appeared. The following first Ph.D. theses by linguistphilippinists were defended: Morphological Word Structure in Modern Tagalog (1965) by V. Makarenko, Classification of the parts of speech in Modern Tagalog (1966) by I. Podberezsky and Verb in Modern Tagalog. Problems of Morphology (1967) by L. Shkarban. The translations of the works of classical and modern Filipino literature from Tagalog, English and Spanish were regularly published. The book English

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines4
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

outside England by Belyaeva T.M. and Potapova I.A. characterizes Philippine English and descanted upon the interinfluence of Tagalog and English in the Philippines. However, the book abounds with errors and slips for the authors used multifarious foreign sources, sometimes not relevant, that are hard to distinguish without knowing the Philippinelanguages. Nevertheless we can state the complete development of the Philippine philology in Russia by the end of the 1960s. Since the 1970s a great number of research works by Russian philippinists was dedicated to the history and contemporary language situation and language policy in the Philippines particularly in comparison with language policy and creation of new alphabets for some nonscript nations in USSR in the 1920s1930s. Among them are the following: Language situation in the Philippines: past and present (1970), Language situation and language policy in the Philippines (1977), Language question in the Philippines (1983) and some other works by Vladimir Makarenko, some of which were also published in Manila.In the 1970s the Institute of Asian and African Studies under MSU prepared several works on the theory of Tagalog, Tagalog teaching programs and theoretical and special courses on Filipino philology, published the first Filipino textbooks, dictionaries and readingbooks for junior and senior students, recorded language sound courses and etc. Among them are Word structure in Tagalog (1970), Wikang Pilipino Textbook on Filipino for students of the 3rd year, Textbook for IIIV year, article Evolution of modern Tagalog by V.A. Makarenko and some others as well as informational and encyclopedic articles Tagalog and The Philippine languages, which were published in Abridged Literature Encyclopedia in 1972. Vladimir Makarenko in cooperation with K. Meshkov from the Institute of Ethnography under Russian Academy of Sciences published the article entitled Main problems in researching of old Filipino script, which is based on Makarenko’s previous research work in English published in India in 1964. An analysis of works written and published by V.A. Makarenko in Russia and abroad shows the breadth of his interests: from sociolinguistics to the theoretical grammar of Tagalog in the broader context of languages of SEA and Austronesian languages in general. His great contribution to Nusantara studies in Russia,especially in the field of grammar, cannot be denied. His mentioned monograph Morphological Structure of Modern Tagalog was highly appraised both in Russia and abroad. According to a review in the journal Asian and African Studies (Bratislava 1974, vol. 10) the book was very valuable because of its innovative character. For the first time this problem was analyzed to such deep extent. Following the Moscow State University and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) since the end of 1960s theinstruction of Tagalog was introduced at the Oriental Faculty of the Leningrad (today the St. Petersburg) University. Primarily, the Faculty used the textbooks and teaching programs of IAAS, MSU. The famous Russian orientalist and koreanist Gennady Rachkov (born in 1929) has been the Head of the Tagalog Department of the Oriental Faculty of the St. Petersburg University since its establishment. Today Rachkov gives both language classes and lectures on Philippine philology. Among the great number of the articles on Tagalog grammar he published his fundamental book entitled Introduction into morphology of modern Tagalog. The lectures delivered by Rachkov at the St. Petersburg University, which were devoted to the crucial problems of Tagalog morphology and wordformation, underlie the

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

abovementioned book. Now he is giving the final touches to his FilipinoRussian dictionary – the biggest dictionary of this kind in Russia, which he has been compiling for about 20 years. One of Rachkov’s firststudents Dr. Maria Stanyukovich, the ethnographer, several years ago spent the whole year among the Ifugaos who have terraced the central Cordilleran mountains of Luzon, to study, on the heels of R. Barton, their present life, traditions and language. Today she is the unique specialist in the Ifugao Hudhod epics. In 1980s various reviews and essays on historical development and studies of the Philippinelanguages, literature and culture appeared in Russia, some of which were published abroad in English and Filipino. Some philological surveys by Russian philippinists began to be published abroad since that period (in Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Netherlands, Indonesia, the Philippines and etc.) as well as the works, which for various reasons were not published in Russia (in former USSR) such as A preliminary annotated bibliography of Pilipino linguistics (16041976) that includes about 2000 names. This work is simply unique because it is the first book of this kind. No wonder it was recommended as a reference book for Filipino students at some universities in Manila for a long time and underlies the latest Bibliography of Philippine Linguistics (1996) by Rex E. Johnson from Summer Institute of Linguistics published by the Linguistic Society of the Philippines, which, by the way,elected Makarenko its life member 14 years ago.Having started with the article Some problems of the history of the Philippine national linguistics in 1982, Vladimir Makarenko continues his surveys in this field in the context of sociolinguistics and maintains close connection and book exchange with his Filipino colleagues. His contribution to the comparative linguistics is also very essential too. His several articles shed light on the relationship among Austronesian languages, including Tagalog, Malay, and Indonesian. The Russian philippinists closely watch the development of contemporary linguistics and study of literature in the Philippines and promote the latest achievements of the Filipino philologists, in particular, in their reviews, bibliographic essays, articles and surveys since 1960s, which, unfortunately, as most Russian research works are not known in Manila, first of all due to language barrier for they are published in Russian in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Most reviews and surveys you can find in Herald of Moscow University published by IAAS attached to MSU and in its St. Petersburg version, in bulletin New Books on Social Studies, which before the early 1990s had been printed for decades by Publishing House Progress in scholarlyjournal Peoples of Asia and Africa (today Orient) and otherpublications as well as in philological referee journal of the Institute for Scientific Information on Social Studies (INION) under the Russian Academy of Sciences. A series of fundamental articles by L. Shkarban and her complete monograph Tagalog grammatical system are also worthy of notice. The monograph’s references consist of 85 works in Russian and 119 works in English, Spanish, German and Filipino. The description of Tagalog in the mentioned book is based on a research carried out with two main aims: 1). to reveal a set of implicative relations among specific features of Tagalog grammar observed at different levels of its structure, thus clarifying its internal systemic organization, and 2). to put to proof the validity of the following supposition: the

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

lowered degree of the Noun/Verb differentiation (manifesting itself in numerous striking similarities between Tagalog nouns and verbs) may serve a key to the abovementioned internal systemic integrity. The review of this book by V. Makarenko and G. Rachkov is published in the Vestnik SanktPeterburgskogo universiteta (Journal of the St. Petersburg University) in 1997. Needless to say that Igor Podberezsky, the famous literary critic and translator, bears the palm in the field of literature and culture in the Russian Philippine studies. He translated into Russian the works by Nocomedes Joaquin, Fr. Sionil Jose and some other Philippine writers, he is the founder of the Russian Rizaliana and the author of such brilliant books as Evolution of Jose Rizal’s work: Infancy of the Philippine Contemporary Literature (1982), The Philippines: Philippine Contemporary Cultural Studies (1984), Sampaguita, Cross and Dollar, Jose Rizal (1985) and some others. His keen interest in translating the best Philippine literary works has made them very popular in Russia. However, beside for Podberezsky’s very interesting books on literature and culture, he produced very important and fundamental works on Filipino grammar, some of which are still used both by students and scholars as reference books.The detailed information on the main Philippine languages, Filipino script and Philippine literature and culture are published in various encyclopedias, references and the recent universal linguistic editions of Russia. Thus, such articles as The Philippine languages, Bikolano, The Visayan languages, Ilokano, Pampangan, Pangasinan, Tagalog and others are featured in the Linguistic Encyclopedia (1990). A great number of materials on Filipino philology you can find in a ninevolume Abridge Literary Encyclopedia, Literary Encyclopedia (1987) and some other editions. In recent decades 70 qualified Philippine specialists having good command of Filipino and several dozens of Indonesian specialists who studied Filipino as optional subject were trained in Russia. Today we have two Filipino groups and two PhD studentlinguists in Moscow State University and one Filipino group in St. Petersburg State University. This is the keystone to further successful and prosperous development of Philippine linguistics in Russia.

Appendix List of main Russian works on Philippine Linguistics
1. Cruz, Manuel, Ignashev, S.P. 1959. Tagal’skorussky slovar (TagalogRussian Dictionary), ed. by Makarenko, V.A.. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo inostrannykh i natsional’nykh slovarey (State Publishing House of Foreign and National Dictionaries). 2. Cruz, Manuel, Ignashev, S.P. 1965. Russkotagal’sky slovar (RussianTagalog Dictionary), ed. by Makarenko, V.A. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo inostrannykh i natsional’nykh slovarey (State Publishing House of Foreign and National Dictionaries).

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines7
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

3. Dobell, Peter V. 2002 (second edition). Puteshestviya i Noveishiye nablyudeniya v Kitaye, Manile i IndoKitayskom Arkhipelage (Voyages and latest observations in China, Manila and IndoChinese Archipelago), ed. by Makarenko, V.A. Moscow: Vostochny Dom. 4. Grigoriev I.V. 1987. Iz istorii izuchenia filippinskikh yazykov (bikolsky yazyk) (From the history of the Philippine languages studies (Bikol) Uchyenie zapiski (Works of scientists) No 29, 1321. Vostokovedenie (Orientalists) No 13. Leningrad: LGU (Leningrad State University).5. Grigoriev I.V. 1994. Sistema uslovnykh konstruktsy v tagal’skom yazyke (System of conditional constructions in Tagalog) Malayskoindoneziyskie issledovania (Malay and Indonesian studies) No 5, 6270. Filippiny v malayskom mire (The Philippines in Malay world). Moscow.6. Grigoriev I.V. 1997. Uslovnoustupitelnie konstruktsii v tagal’skom yazyke(Conditional and concessive constructions in Tagalog) In Kultura stran Malayskogo arkhipelaga (Culture of the countries of Malay Archipelago): Sbornik materialov (Collected materials),1928. 7. Grigoriev I.V. 1998. Glagolnaya transformatsiya v tagal’skom yazyke (Verb transformation in Tagalog) SeveroZapadYugoVostok (NorthWestSouthEast): Abstracts and materials of Session, 5258. Siberia. 8. Grigoriev I.V. 2000. Ispanoyazychnie pidzhiny na Filippinakh (chavakano) (Pidgin Spanish in the Philippines(chavacano) In Nusantara. YuVA: Sb. Materialov 1998/99 i 1999/2000 akademicheskogo godov (Nusantara. SouthEast Asia: Collected materials of 1998/99 and 1999/2000 academic year), 2333. St. Petersburg. 9. Makarenko, V.A. 1964. Some data on Indian cultural influences in SouthEast Asia. To the history of the Origin and Development of the Old Filipino script. Tamil Culture 11(1), 5891. Madras. 10. Makarenko, V.A. 1965a. O stepeni rodstva tagal’skogo i indoneziyskogo yazikov (About the degree of similarity among Tagalog and Indonesian). VoprosifIlologii stran YugoVostocnoy Azii (Philological problems of SEA countries. Collection of articles), 2546. Moscow: Moscow State University. 11.Makarenko, V.A. 1965b.Tagal’skoindonezijskie slovoobrazovatel’nye paralleli (TagalogIndonesian word formation parallels). Voprosy filologii stran JugoVostocnoy Azii(Philological problems of SEA countries. Collection of articles), 73105. Moscow: Moscow State University. 12.Makarenko, V.A.1966. Tamil loanwords in some languages of Southeast Asia. In The International Association of Tamil Research News, 5764. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 13.Makarenko, V.A. 1967. Izuchenie v SSSR filippinskih yazikov do i posle Oktyabrya (Studies on Philippine languages in the Soviet Union before and after October Revolution). Narodi Azii i Afriki (Peoples of Asia and Africa) No 6, 100107. Moscow. 14.Makarenko V.A. 1968. Teaching Tagalog in Russia. In The Sunday Times Magazine Feb. 25, 2627. Manila. Also repr. in Philippine Approaches Vol. I. N 4, 7476, April 1968. N. Delhi. 15.Makarenko, V.A. July 1969. The Purists are wet (Special Report ‘The Philippine language dilemma’), 2628. Graphic. Manila. 16.Makarenko, V.A. 1970a. Tagal’skoe slovoobrazovanie (Word Structure in Tagalog). Moscow: Publishing House Nauka. 17.Makarenko, V.A. 1970b. Razvitie sovremennoy yazikovoy situatsii v Filippinskoy Respublike i eyo osnovnie tendentsii (A Development of language situation in the

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006)Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines8--------------------------------------------------------------------Page 9
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

Philippine Republic and its main prospects). In Problemi izucheniya yazikovoy situatsii i yazikovoy vopros v stranah Azii i Severnoy Afriki (Problems of the studies of language situation and language question in Asia and North African countries), 156170. Moscow. 18.Makarenko, V.A. 1970c. Yazykovaya situatsiya na Filippinakh v proshlom i nastoyaschem (Language situation in the Philippines: past and present). Narody Azii i Afriki (Peoples of Asia and Africa”), 5. Moscow,. 19.Makarenko, V.A. 1972. South Indian influence on Philippine languages. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 23(12), 6577. Manila, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. 20.Makarenko, V.A. 1973a. Printsipi stroeniya slovoobrazovatel’nikh sistem imyon suschestvitel’nikh v indoneziyskom i tagal’skom yazikakh (Principles of noun structures in Indonesian and Tagalog). Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta (Journal of Moscow University). Vostokovedenie (Orientalistics), 1, 6878. Moscow. 21.Makarenko, V.A. 1973b. General characteristics of Filipino word formation. In Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez, 196 —205. Quezon City, Philippines.22.Makarenko, V.A. 1973c. Osnovnie problemi issledovaniya drevnefilippinskogo pis’ma (Main problems in researching of old Philippine writing). Sovetskaya etnografiya (Soviet Ethnography) 2, 4250. Moscow. 23.Makarenko, V.A. 1977. Yazikovaya situatsiya i yazikovaya politika na Filippinakh: osnovnie problemi issledovania (Language situation and language policy inthe Philippines: Fundamental problems). In Yazikovaya politika vafroaziatskikh stranakh (Language policy in AfroAsian countries), 150172. Moscow. 24.ed. by Makarenko V.A. 1978. Wikang Pilipino (Textbook on Pilipino). Moscow: MGU.25.Makarenko, V.A. 1979. Evolutsiya sovremennogo tagal’skogo yazika (Evolution of modern Tagalog). Narodi Azii I Afriki (Peoples of Asia and Africa) No 3, 114122. Moscow.26.Makarenko, V.A. 1979. Yazykovaya situatsiya. Filippiny: Spravochnik (Language situation. The Philippines: Reference book). Moscow: Nauka. 27.Makarenko, V.A., Demidyuk, L.N. 1980. Indonesian linguistics in the Soviet Union in the 60’s and 70’s. Bijdragen tot de taal, land en folkenkunde, 440462. Leiden. Deel 136, 4e Aflev. 28.Makarenko, V.A. 1981a. A preliminary annotated bibliography of Pilipino linguistics (16041976,), XIV, ed. by Andrew Gonzalez, FSC, and Carolina N. Sacris. Manila. 29.Makarenko, V.A., Genzor, J. 1981b. The most recent phenomena in the evolution of contemporary Tagalog language and prognosis of its development. Asian and African Studies No 17, 165177. Bratislava. 30.Makarenko, V.A. 1981c. Yazikovaya politika yaponskikh okkupatsionnikh vlastey na Filippinakh v 19421945 godakh (Language policy in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation 19421945). Voprosy yaponskoy filologii (Problems of Japanese philology) No 5, 113123. Moscow: MGU.31.Makarenko, V.A. 1982a. Etnolingvisticheskie protsessi v stranakh avstroneziyskikh yazikov: lndoneziya, Malayziya, Filippiny (Ethnolinguistic processes in Austronesian countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines). In Natsional‘niy vopros v stranakh Vostoka (National question in Asian countries), 139154. Moscow. 32.Makarenko, V.A. 1982b. Problemi razrabotki istorii filippinskogo natsional’nogo yazikoznaniya (Some problems of the history of the Philippine national linguistics).

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006)Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines9
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 10
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

Teoreticheskie problemi vostochnogo yazikoznaniya (Theoretical problems of Oriental linguistics) No 6, 115123. Moscow. 33.Makarenko, V.A. 1983a. Yazikovoy vopros v Respublike Filippiny (Language question in the Philippines). Narodi Azii i Afriki (Peoples of Asia and Africa) No 2, 112117. Moscow.34.Makarenko, V.A. 1983b. Soviet studies of the Philippines. Manila. 35.Makarenko, V.A. 1985. Izuchenie malykh filippinskikh yazykov (A study of minor Philippine languages). Referativniy zhurnal (Essay Journal). Obschestvennie nauki za rubezhom (Social sciences abroad). Ser. 6. Yazykoznaniye (“Linguistics’) No 6. Moscow: INION. 36.Makarenko, V.A. 1988. Spetsificheskie osobennosti yazika sovremennoy filippinskoy angloyazichnoy pressi (Specific features of the Philippine press language in English). Moscow: INION.37.Makarenko, V.A. 1990. Filippinskie yazyki; Bikol’skiy yazyk; Bisayskie yazyki; Ilokanskiy yazik; Pangasinanskiy yazyk; Tagal’skiy yazyk (Philippine languages; Bicol language: Bisayan languages; Ilokano language; Pangasinan language; Tagalog). In Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ (Linguistics Encyclopedia). Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya. 38.Makarenko, V.A. 1994. Yazykovaya situatsiya i yazykovaya politika na Filippinakh (Language situation and language policy in the Philippines). In Yazykovie problemy Rossiyskoy Federatsii i zakony o yazykakh (Language problems of the Russian Federation and laws of languages). Moscow: Scientific Council “Language and Society”, Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Science. 39.Makarenko, V.A., Pogadaev V.A. 1999. Yazikovaya situatsiya i yazikovaya politika v YugoVostochnoy Azii: sravnitel’noe issledovanie (Language situation and language policy in the SouthEast Asia: comparative study). Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta (Journal of Moscow University). Seriya.13. Vostokovedenie (Series 13. Orientalistics) No 2. Moscow. 40.Makarenko, V.A., Pogadaev, V.A. 2000a. Language situation and language policy in Southeast Asia. Parangal kay Brother Andrew. (Festschrifl for Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday), ed. by Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista, Teodoro Llamzon, Bonifacio P. Sibayan, 213225. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. 41.Makarenko, V.A., Pogadaev, V.A. 2000b. The language policy in Malayspeaking countries as a paradigm of development. In Indonesia and Malay World in the Second Millennium: Milestones of Development, 138150. Papers presented at the 11th European Colloquium on Indonesian and Malay Studies, Moscow 29 June 1 July 1999. Moscow. 42.Makarenko, V.A. 2002. Izucheniye filippinskikh yazykov v Rossii (XVIIIXX) (Philippine language studies in Russia). Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta (Journal of Moscow University). Seriya.13. Vostokovedenie (Series 13. Orientalistics) No 1, 7482. Moscow. 43.Podberezsky, I.V. 1966. Klassifikatsiya chastey rechi v sovremennom tagal’skom yazyke. (Classification of the parts of speech in modern Tagalog). Ph.D. dissertation, MGIMO MID SSSR (Moscow State Institute of International Relations attached to MFA USSR).44.Podberezsky, I.V. 1967a. Morfologicheskaya struktura slova v tagal’skom yazyke (Morphological word structure in Tagalog), 213224. In Languages of SouthEast Asia. Moscow.

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines10
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 11
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

45.Podberezsky, I.V. 1967b. Sintaksicheskaya kharakteristika chastey rechi v tagal’skom yazyke (Syntactic characteristic of the parts of speech in Tagalog), 164196. In Problems of philology: MGIMO. 46.Podberezsky, I.V. 1968. Udvoenie v sovremennom tagal’skom yazyke (Reduplication in Modern Tagalog), 155171. In Problems of language and literature. Moscow: MGIMO.47.Podberezsky, I.V., 1971 vusostavnie predlozheniya v sovremennom tagal’skom yazyke (Twopart Sentences in Modern Tagalog). In Yazyki Kitaya i YugoVostochnoy Azii. Problemy sintaksisa (Languages of China and SouthEast Asia. Problems of Syntaxes). Moscow.48.Podberezsky, I.V. 1976. Uchebnik tagal’skogo yazyka (Textbook on Tagalog). Moscow: "Nauka", Glavnaya Redaktsiya vostochnoy literatury (Main Publishing House of the Oriental Literature).49.Pozdeeva, T.A., Rachkov G.E. 1977. Benefaktivnie konstruktsii v tagal’skom yazyke (Benefactive constructions in Tagalog), 7483. Vostokovedenie (Orientalostics) No 5. Leningrad. 50.Rachkov G.E. 1966. Sluzhebnoe slovo “ay” v tagal’skom yazyke (Linking word “ay” in Tagalog), 8994. In Issledovania po filologii stran Azii i Afriki (Studies on philology of the countries of Asia and Africa). Leningrad. 51.Rachkov, G.E. 1967. Predikativy nalichia v tagal’skom yazyke (Predicate noun “to have” in Tagalog). Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta (Journal of the Leningrad University), No 2, 110114. Leningrad. 52.Rachkov, G.E.1973. K kharakteristike tagal’skikh dvusostavnykh opredeleny (On characteristic of Tagalog twoword definitions). Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta (Journal of the Leningrad University), No 2, 132138. Leningrad. 53.Rachkov, G.E. 1976. Imennie odnorodnie chleny v tagal’skom yazyke (Nounhomogeneous parts of sentences in Tagalog). Vostokovedenie (Orientalistics), No 2, 7376. Leningrad.54.Rachkov, G.E. 1981. Vvedenie v morfologiyu sovremennogo tagal’skogo yazyka (Introduction to morphology of modern Tagalog). Leningrad.: Publishing House of the Leningrad University. 55.Rachkov, G.E. 1983. Fazovie glagoly i fazovie konstruktsii v tagal’skom yazyke (Phase verbs and phase constructions in Tagalog). In Kategoria glagola i struktura predlozheny (Verb category and sentence structure), 168175. Leningrad.: "Nauka", Leningradskoye otdeleniye (the Leningrad branch). 56.Rachkov, G.E. 1988. Tagal’sky retsiprok (Tagalog reciprocal constructions) // LGU (Leningrad State University). Uchyenie zapiski (Works of scientists), No 422, issue No 30, 8190. Vostokovedenie (Orientalists), No 14. Leningrad.57.Rachkov, G.E. Tagalskorussky slovar (FilipinoRussian Dictionary). in press. 58.Shkarban, L.I., Cruz, Manuel. 1966. Tagal’sky yazyk. Narody Azii i Afriki (Peoples ofAsia and Africa). Moscow. 59.Shkarban, L.I. 1967. Glagol v sovremennom tagal’skom yazyke. Problemy morfologii (Verb in modern Tagalog. Problems of morphology). Abstract of Ph.D. dissertation, Moscow.60.Shkarban, L.I.1974a. K semanticheskoy kharakteristike passivnykh zalogov v tagal’skom yazyke (On semantic characteristic of passive voice in Tagalog). In Problemy semantiki (Problems of semantics). Moscow.

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines11
--------------------------------------------------------------------Page 12
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

61.Shkarban, L.I. 1974b. Problemy uzuchenia kategorii zaloga v tagal’skom yazyke (Problems of studying voice category in Tagalog). In Yazyki Kitaya I YugoVostochnoy Azii (Languages of China and SouthEast Asia), 224245. Moscow: Nauka.62.Shkarban, L.I. 1975. Zamechania o tagal’skoy fonologii v svyazi s izucheniem morfologicheskoy sistemy tagal’skogo yazyka (On Tagalog phonology in connection with the studies of Tagalog morphological system). In Ocherki po fonologii Vostochnykh yazykov (Essays on phonology of Oriental languages), 240259. Moscow: Nauka. 63.Shkarban, L.I. 1976. Tagalog Reference Grammar, [Rev.]: Paul Schachter, Fe Otanez. Linguistics No 182. 64.Shkarban, L.I. 1979. K tipologii sistem chastey rechi indoneziyskikh yazykov (On typological system of Indonesian parts of speech). In XIV Tikhookeansky nauchny congress. Tezisy dokladov (The 14th Pacific Academic Congress. Abstracts). Part 2. Moscow. 65.Shkarban, L.I. 1980. O kategorii zaloga i padezha v tagal’skom yazyke v svete sootnosheniya glagola, imeni I mestoimeny (On category of Tagalog voice and case in the light of the noun/verb/pronoun correlation). In Teoria i tipologia mestoimeny (Theory and typology of pronouns), 142164. Moscow. 66.Shkarban, L.I. 1981. Chasti rechi (Parts of speech). In Materialy sovetskovietnamskoy lingvisticheskoy ekspeditsii 1981 goda. Yazyk chru (Materials of USSRVietnam linguistic expedition of the 1981. The Chru language). Manuscript. 67.Shkarban, L.I. K tipologii chastey rechi v yazykah YugoVostochnoy i Vostochnoy Azii (On typology of the parts of speech of the languages of SouthEast and East Asia). Manuscript.68.Shkarban, L.I.1982. O semanticheskikh vidakh predikatov v tagal’skom yazyke (On semantic types of predicates in Tagalog). In Semanticheskie tipy predikatov (Semantic types of predicates). Moscow. 69.Shkarban, L.I. 1983. K sravnitelnomu izucheniyu morfologii indoneziyskikh yazykov (v svyazi s voprosom o kornevykh slovakh) (On contemporary morphological studies of the Indonesian languages (in connection with the question of root words). In Geneticheskie, arealnie i tipologicheskie svyazi yazykov Azii (Genetic, areal and typological ties of the Asian languages). Moscow.70.Shkarban, L.I. 1985a. K voprosu o tipologii sistem chastey rechi (na materiale yazykov YugoVostochnoy Azii i Dalnego Vostoka) (On typology system of the parts of speech (by the example of the languages of SouthEast Asia and Far East). In Lingvisticheskaya tipologiya (Linguistic typology). Moscow. 71.Shkarban, L.I. 1985b. O sootnoshenii struktury slozhnykh slov i slovosochetany v tagal’skom yazyke (On correlation of compound words and wordcombinations in Tagalog). In Yazyki YugoVostochnoy Azii i Dalnego Vostoka. Problemy slozhnykh slov (Languages of SouthEast Asia and Far East. Problems of compound words). Moscow. 72.Shkarban, L.I. 1986. Filippiny (The Philippines). In Zarubezhny Vostok. Yazykovaya situatsiya i yazykovaya politika (Foreign East. Language situation and language policy). Moscow. 73.Shkarban, L.I. 1988. The FunctionalSemantic Field ofAspectuality in Tagalog. In VICAL. Abstracts. University of Auckland. 74.Shkarban, L.I. 1989. Poryadok slov v tagal’skom yazyke (Word order in Tagalog). In Ocherki tipologii poryadka slov (Essays on word order typology), 75108. Moscow.

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006)Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 13
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

75.Shkarban, L.I. 1990. Ponyatie “chast rechi” kak instrument sistemnotipologicheskogo issledovaniya (Concept of the “part of speech” as the instrument of system and typological studies). In Vsesouznaya konferentsiya po lingvisticheskoy tipologii (AllUnion conference on linguistic typology). Tezisy dokladov (Abstracts). Moscow. 76.Shkarban, L.I. 1992. Syntactic Aspect of Partofspeech Typology. PanAsiatic Linguistics. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1. Bangkok. 77.Shkarban, L.I. 1995. Grammatichesky stroy tagal’kogo yazyka (Tagalog grammatical system). Moscow: Izdatelskaya firma “Vostochnaya literatura” (Publishing Company “Vostochnaya literatura (“Oriental literature”). 78.Shkarban, L.I. 1999. O roli slogovoy struktury v grammatike tagal’skogo yazyka (On role of syllabic structure in Tgalog grammar). In Obschee i vostochnoe yazykoznanie (General and Oriental linguistics), 239252. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, posvyashennykh 70letiyu ch.korr. RAN Solntseva, V.M. (Collected treatises on the occasion of the 70th Anniversary of Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Sciences V.M. Solntsev). Moscow.79.Shkarban, L.I. 2002. O sootnoshenii morfemy i sloga v filippinskikh yazykakh v kontekste integralnoy lingvisticheskoy tipologii (On morpheme and syllable correlation in the Philippine languages in the context of integral linguistic typology). Nusantara. YUVA: Sb. Materialov (Nusantara. SouthEast Asia: Collected materials), issue No 3, 716. St. Petersburg. 80.Shkarban, L.I. 2003. O nekotorykh parametrakh opisania sintaksisafilippinskikh yazykov v kontekste integralnoy lingvisticheskoy tipologii (On some methods of the description of the Philippine syntax in the context of integral linguistic typology). In Vostochnoe yazykoznanie: k 80letiyu Yu.A. Rubinchika (Oriental linguistics: on the occasion of the 80th Birthday Anniversary of Yu.A. Rubinchik), 322341. Moscow.81.Shkarban, L.I. 2004. On Tagalog morphology in the context of partsofspeech typology (in English). Malayskoindoneziyskie issledovaniya (Malay and Indonesian studies), issue No 16, 314323. Moscow. 82.Stanyukovich, Maria V. 2001. Filippinistika v Evrope (Philippine studies in Europe). In Kyunerovskiye chteniya (Cuner readings (1998–2000): Krat. soderzh. dokl. (Argument of papers), 198–201. St. Petersburg. 83.Stanyukovich Maria V. 2003. Language and cultural identity in Ifugao, Philippines. In Proceedings of the II International Research Conference “Language and culture”, Presidium RAS, Institute of Foreign Languages, Moscow, September 1721 2003. Moscow. (In English). 84.Stanyukovich Maria V. 2003. The Wording of Gender: Ifugao Women’s Epics and Male Ritual Performances. In A.K. Ogloblin et al, eds. Languages and Literature of Nusantara, 6873.. Academic session 2425 April 2003 (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, East Timor). St. Petersburg: State University of Saint Petersburg, Faculty of Oriental Studies. (In English).85.ed. by Stanyukovich Maria V. 2006. Yazyki i kul’tury avstroneziyskikhnarodov i ikh sosedey (Languages and cultures of Austronesian peoples and their neighbours). In honor of Elena V. Revunenkova and Alexander K. Ogloblin. St.Petersburg: MAE RAS Publication. (In press).86.Studenchik, Yu. I. 1990. Leksicheskaya interferentsiya i natsional’noye samosoznanie v mnogoyazychnom gosudarstve (Lexical interference and national selfconsciousness in the multilingual state (by the example of the Philippines). Problemy funktsionalnogo
9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006)Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines13
--------------------------------------------------------------------Page 14
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

opisaniya yazykovykh yedinits (Problems of functional description of the language units). In Tezisy mezhvuzovskoy konferentsii (Abstracts of intercollege conference), 196-197. Sverdlovsk. 87.Studenchik, Yu. I. 1991a. O lingvisticheskikh ogranicheniyakh dvuyazychnogo pereklyucheniya kodov tagal’skyangliysky (On linguistic limitations of bilingual TagalogEnglish codeswitching). Deposited in INION AN USSR.88.Studenchik, Yu. I. 1991b. O meste pereklyucheniya kodov v sisteme yazykovykh kontaktov (On codeswitching part in the system of language contacts). Deposited in INION AN USSR. 89.Studenchik, Yu. I. 1991c. O ponyatii “pereklucheniya kodov” (On concept codeswitching). In Aktual’niye problemy lingvistiki (Actual problems of linguistics). Tezisy chetvyertykh fevral’skikh chteny (Abstracts of the 4th February readings). Sverdlovsk. 90.Studenchik, Yu. I. 1995. Tagalog vs. Taglish (K probleme razgranicheniya zaimstvovany i leksicheskoy intereferentsii (On problem of differentiation of loan words and lexical interference). In Sbornik materialov po kul’ture Nusantary (Collected articles on Nusantara culture), 1117. St.Petersburg. REFERENCES1. Dobell, Peter V. 2002 (second edition). Puteshestviya i Noveishiye nablyudeniya v Kitaye, Manile i IndoKitayskom Arkhipelage (Voyages and latest observations in China, Manila and IndoChinese Archipelago), ed. by Makarenko, V.A. Moscow: Vostochny Dom. 2. Forster J.R. 1778. Observations made during a Voyage round the World. London.3. Makarenko, V.A. 1964. Some data on Indian cultural influences in SouthEast Asia. To the history of the Origin and Development of the Old Filipino script. Tamil Culture 11(1), 5891. Madras. 4. Makarenko, V.A. 1967. Izuchenie v SSSR filippinskih yazikov do i posle Oktyabrya (Studies on Philippine languages in the Soviet Union before and after October Revolution). Narodi Azii i Afriki (Peoples of Asia and Africa) No 6, 100107. Moscow. 5. Makarenko V.A. 1968. Teaching Tagalog in Russia. In The Sunday Times Magazine Feb. 25, 2627. Manila. Also repr. in Philippine Approaches Vol. I. N 4, 7476, April 1968. N. Delhi.6. Makarenko V.A. Aug. 24,1974. A Russian consulate in Manila (at the beginning of the 19th century). Focus Philippines Vol. II, 45. Manila. 7. Makarenko, V.A., Demidyuk, L.N. 1980. Indonesian linguistics in the Soviet Union in the 60’s and 70’s. Bijdragen tot de taal, land en folkenkunde, 440462. Leiden. Deel 136, 4e Aflev. 8. Makarenko, V.A. 1982. Ang Unyong Sobyet at Ang Pilipinas: Kahapon at Ngayon. Manila. 9. Makarenko, V.A. 2002. Izucheniyefilippinskikh yazykov v Rossii (XVIIIXX) (Philippine language studies in Russia). Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta (Journal of Moscow University). Seriya.13. Vostokovedenie (Series 13. Orientalistics) No 1, 7482. Moscow.

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006) Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines14
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 15
Zabolotnaya/Philippine Linguistics Studies in Russia

10. Shkarban, L.I. 1995. Grammatichesky stroy tagal’kogo yazyka (Tagaloggrammatical system). Moscow: Izdatelskaya firma “Vostochnaya literatura” (Publishing Company “Vostochnaya literatura (“Oriental literature”). 11. Rachkov, G.E. 1981. Vvedenie vmorfologiyusovremennogo tagal’skogo yazyka (Introduction to morphology ofmodern Tagalog). Leningrad.: Publishing House of the Leningrad University.

9th Philippine Linguistics Congress (2527 January 2006)Organized by the Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines15

-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------

PAHABOL: Hindi tulad ng mga Amerikano at Espanyol sa Pilipinas, Inggles sa Malaysia, Olandes sa Indonesia, at Pranses sa Vietnam, ang mga Russo ay walang naging papel ayon sa KASAYSAYAN bilang COLONIZER o MANANAKOP sa ating teritoryo sa NUSANTARA/MALAY WORLD/DUNIA MALAYU/OCEANIA/SOUTHEAST ASIA. Marahil, dahil sa hindi nila tayo direktang nakalaban (maliban sa proxy COLD WAR kung saan kakampi natin ang U.S.A.), ay iba ang kanilang pananaw o pagtingin sa atin, di-tulad ng mga ibang nabanggit na lahi na malamang ay may pagkamuhi (HATRED) o poot (ANGER) sa kanilang mga sinakop, at pinag-aralan lamang ang mga ito sa tanging mithi na malaman kung paano ang mga ito ay magagapi.

SUSUNOD: COLONIALISM/IMPERIALISM, REVOLUTION, WAR OF LIBERATION

POST 0010

2010-07-14T16:23:00.001-07:00

Same time & place as POSTS 0008 & 0009

ISANG PAGSIPAT SA KASAYSAYAN NG KAPULUAN MULA NAMAN SA ISANG MORO (A BANGSAMORO PERSPECTIVE OF THE ARCHIPELAGO'S HISTORY)

-------START OF COPIED MATERIAL-------
Overview of the Moro Struggle
by Prof.Datu Amilusin A. Jumaani

YEAR EVENTS

1280 Presence of Muslim traders in Southern Philippines brought about by the expansion of commercial contacts between China and Arab lands.

1380 Tombstone dating of a Muslim religious figure in Sulu.

1450 Sultanate in Sulu established.

1521 Advent of Christianity. Portugese Navigator, Ferdinand Magellan, lands and claims the Philippines for Spain. For more than 3 centuries, the Spanish rule prevailed over the archiepelago, particularly in Luzon and the Visayas. However, the colonialist failed to conquer Muslim areas in the South, which have been characterized as having their own system of government and practices their own politics and cultures.

1619 Sultanate in Maguindanao from the principalities of Maguindanao and Buwayan.

1835 Spanish attack on the Banuwa Bangingih in Sepak island (Jolo, Sulu). Full scale attack on the island, not even a single coconut tree left standing. There was fierce resistance.

1836 King of Spain & Sultan Sulu, "Treaty of Peace, Protection & Commerce"

1842 The Commander of American Naval Expedition concluded a "Trade & Navigation Treaty between US & Sultanate of Sulu"

1849 The Queen of United Kingdom & Ireland concluded a treaty of "peace, friendship and good understanding."

12 June 1898 Emilio Aguinaldo declared independence from Spain in Cavite

10 December 1898 Spain sells Philippines to USA for 20 million Mexican dollars after losing Spanish-American War under the terms of the Treaty of Paris. US troops begin to forcibly incorporate Muslim areas into the Philippine state. The Moros did not recognize the agreement, which clinched the American takeover. The BangsaMoro homeland over which Spain could not claim to have colonial authority was included as part of the territory transferred to the USA. The BangsaMoro people were never consulted. They waged a fierce resistance to defend their homeland.

20 August 1899 USA negotiated with the BangsaMoro people under the leadership of Sultan Jamalul II. This negotiation led to the Bates Treaty signed between the Sultan and John C. Bates. The treaty was in no certain terms a recognition of the US of the sovereign character of the BangsaMoro state and precisely distinct from the Aguinaldo Republic.

1902 Philippine bill of July 1 of 1902 - the American government recognized the distinctions between the Moro, the "Pagan" and the Christian Filipinos and adapted their methods of governance accordingly.

1903-1914 USA established the Moro Province.

1915 American governor, Frank Carpenter, tricked and virtually forced the Sulu Sultanate to renounce his temporal sovereignty at the time US halted military campaign and policy of attraction was launched.

1916 Battle of Bud Dahoh Jolo, Sulu, where 1000 Moros were massacred by the Americans.

1917 Bureau of non-Christian tribes was organized to established "mutual understanding and complete fusion" of the Muslims into the majority segment of Filipino Christians.

9 June 1921 57 Moro Datus and leaders of Sulu petitioned the American authorities in Manila and Washington, part of the petition, reads: "Whereas, it would be an act of great injustice to cast our people aside, turnover our country to the Filipinos in the north to be governed by them without our consent and thrust upon us a government not of our own people, nor by our people, nor for our own people.

1926 US congressman Robert Bacon introduces House Bill No. 12772 during 2 successive sessions. The bill proposed to separate Mindanao and Sulu from the rest of the Philippines and to have US permanently retain these islands under American sovereignty

18 March 1935 A historic assembly of more than 100 Maranao leaders passed a strong worded manifesto known as the Dansalan Declaration addressed to the US President which vehemently opposed the annexation of the BangsaMoro homeland in reaction to the conspiracy of the constitutional convention organized by America to write the Philippine constitution.

1946 US grants Philippine independence, but they continue to determine the economic and political direction of the fledging Republic

1960s The central government in Manila enforced a "homestead" policy, which propelled the escalation of Christian migration to Mindanao region. Settlers from Luzon and Visayas occupied the ancestral land of the Moros and other indigenous people in Southern Philippines. Local and foreign big business obtained titles over the Moro lands. Enraged by the "legal" land grabbing, the Moros responded with arms, which ignited a long drawn and bitter conflict between the BangsaMoro people and the Philippine government.

1961 Sulu congressman Datu Ombra Amilbangsa introduced house bill no. 5682 entitled "An Act Granting and Recognizing the Independence of the Province of Sulu".

March 1968 At least 28 Moro army recruits killed in the Jabidah Massacre on Corregidor Island, triggering widespread Muslim indignation. The incident releases pent-up anger from years of prejudice, ill treatment, and discrimination. Moro student in Manila holds a weeklong protest vigil over an empty cofin marked "Jabidah" in front of the presidential palace.

1968-1971 Moro student activism grows. Moro consciousness, based on Islamic revivalism and knowledge of a distinct history and identity, gathers steam. Political organizations emerge to culminate eventually in the establishment of the MNLF under Nur Misuari with the goal of carving an independent muslim nation in the Southern Philippines.

Land conflicts in Mindanao escalates. Para-military groups proliferate; some attached to Christian politicians, some to loggers, and some to Muslim politicians. Hundreds of young Moros are sent to Malaysia for military training. Sabah becomes a supply depot, communication center and sanctuary for Moro rebels.

Towards 1971, the constabulary takes control of many towns because of growing violence. Schools are closed, farms abandoned, commerce stagnates, refugees increased. The Christian led Ilagah para-military group enters the scene. One attack at a mosque in Cotabato, leaves 65 men, women and children, dead and mutilated. A BBC radio report of the massacre draws the attention of Libyan leader Muammar Khadafy.

21 July 1971 Leaders from all sectors of Moro society published a manifesto demanding that the government take action to stop the attacks. The government calls the manifesto a threat. In August, the residents of Buldon (Cotabato) fortified their town after killing some Christian loggers. The army responds with a week-long artillery bombardment.

Sept.- Oct. 1971 The cycle of reprisals is uncontrollable. Fighting between the Baracudas (paramilitary group led by Muslims) and government troops leaves hundreds dead on both sides.

Nov. 1971 40 Maranao Muslims are summarily executed at a military checkpoint in Tacub. Muslims accused the government of genocide.

Jan.1972 The government takes 8 Muslims ambassadors on a tour of Mindanao to show that the charges of genocide are exaggerated. The third Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) in Jeddah, KSA requests the Philippine government to protect the lives and property of Muslims.

July 1972 A Libyan and Egyptian delegation tours the troubled areas and concludes that while no strong evidence exists of state supported genocide, there is clearly a war between Christians and Muslims.

21 Sep. 1972 President Ferdinand Marcos declares Martial Law. One month later the first organized Moro counter offensive is launched in Marawi. The MNLF comes out into the open and claims leadership of the Moro secessionist movement.

1973 Marcos attempts to improve socio-economic development in the South while maintaining military operations. Presidential decrees order relief and welfare projects and resettlement refugees, declare certain Morolands as inalienable. A Presidential task force for the reconstruction and development of Mindanao is constituted to rebuild areas devastated by violence. Marcos wins over key Muslim leaders outside the MNLF. The Philippine Amanah Bank is created to expand the class of Muslim enterpreneurs. The Southern Philippine Development Administration (SPDA) is created to bolster business activity.

The 4th ICFM (in Benghazi) maintains the pressure on Marcos, but recognizes that the problem is "internal to an independent sovereign state". Marcos responds by realigning his foreign policy and organizing diplomatic initiatives to win over the Muslim world.

1974 The MNLF gathers strength and broad support from Philippine Muslims. Fighting escalates into large-scale conventional warfare. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) creates two intigrated commands - the Central Mindanao Command (CEMCOM) for the Cotabato-Lanao Areas, and the Southern Command (SouthCom) for Zamboanga Peninsula and Sulu Archipelago.

Feb.1974 SouthCom unleashes full force on MNLF rebels, who have taken control of Jolo, in the biggest battle of the war. In mainland Mindanao CemCom attacks the MNLF forces in Cotabato. Abroad, the MNLF gains official recognition from Muslim countries as the representative of the Moror people. The 5th ICFM urges the Philippine government "to find a political and peaceful solution through negotiation" and officially recognized the MNLF. The war reaches stalemate.

March 1974 The Philippine government panel holds its first meeting with MNLF chairman Nur Misuari and his deputy Salamat Hashil in Jeddah. Marcos sends negotiating panels to MNLF commanders in the field. The MNLF undergoes fierce debates on how to respond to the Marcos initiatives. The issue is settled for the MNLF by the 5th ICFM, which supports autonomy as basis for negotiations between the MNLF and GRP. The definition of autonomy comes from the working paper of the committee of four (Senegal, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Somalia) which provides for self government within the framework of Philippine national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Marcos intensifies his diplomatic initiatives, sending delegations including special emissary Imelda Marcos to Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Algeria. The Philippine government opens embassies in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Islamic Republic of Iran, Algeria, Lebanon and Kuwait. Relations with 13 other South Asian, Middle-Eastern and African muslim nations are strengthened. The Philippine also lobbies the Non-aligned Foreign Ministers Meeting.

1976 With negotiations in full swing, Marcos builds his case. He meets the OIC Secretary General, the Senagalese Amadou Karim Gaye, in Kenya; sends a delegation to the 7th ICFM (Instanbul) and the Non-Aligned Summit (Colombo); invites the committee of four to Zamboanga City and Manila; and sends Imelda Marcos to personally confer with Khadafy. In the field, local ceasefires are forged, providing space to implement a "policy of attraction" Key rebel leaders are offered amnesty, livelihood projects and business oppurtunities as well as political positions that allow them to surrender with "dignity". Surrenderist include Amelil Malaguiok, of the Kutawato (Cotabato) revolutionary committee, and Abdulhamid Lukman, a former municipal judge who was Misuari's legal adviser in Jeddah.

23 Dec. 1976 Misuari and defense undersecretary Carmelo Barbero signs the Tripoli Agreement. It provides for autonomy in 13 provinces and 9 cities in the Southern Philippines. Marcos instructs Barbero to include one last point in the text; that "the Philippine government shall take all necessary constitutional processes for the implementation of the entire agreement.

Jan.-Apr. 1977 A general ceasefire is arranged. Marcos approves the code of Muslim personal laws, which establishes Shari'ah courts as part of the national system of courts. Talks resume in February to hammer out details of implementing the Tripoli Agreement. A deadlock arises when the MNLF insists that the 13 provinces be immediately declared a single autonomous unit. Marcos maintanis that certain constitutional procedures, including a plebiscite are needed because the majority of the people in the 13 provinces are not Muslims. Imelda Marcos hurries to Libya on 12 March to solicit Khadafy's help. He suggests forming a provisional government to supervise the plebiscite. Misuari refuses to head the provisional government. On
25 March, 1977 Marcos issues proclamation 1628 declaring autonomy in the 13 provinces. On 17 April, a plebiscite is called over objections from the MNLF. Only 10 of the 13 provinces vote for autonomy. Marcos implements his own version of autonomy by dividing the10 provinces into two autonomous regions, IX and XII. Negotiations broke down.

May-Dec. 1977 The 8th ICFM (in Tripoli) allows Misuari, for the first time, to address the conference. Ministers express disappointment over the outcome of negotiations. By this time, however, the improved image of the Philippines is working in its favor and the ICFM simply recommends that negotiations continue. This shakes the MNLF leadership, and the split emerges. In Jeddah on
26 Dec. 1977, Salamat Hashim announces an"instrument of takeover" of the MNLF leadership, a move supported by traditional leaders Rashid Lucman, Dumacao Alonto and Salipada Pendatun. Misuari counters by expelling Hashim Salamat and charging him with treason. Arabs supporters are equally divided: Egypt supports Salamat while Libya leans towards Misuari. Mediation by the OIC and Muslim World League fails. Not wishing to be used by the traditional politicians, Hashim transfers to Cairo and goes on to form the "new MNLF", eventually the Moro Islamic liberation Front (MILF). Lucman and Pendatun reinvigorate the BangsaMoro Liberation Organization to gain support, but Arab states ignore them.

1978 Negotiations between GRP and the MNLF resume but the Philippine panel chooses to meet Hashim Salamat rather than Misuari. Meanwhile the Marcos government presents a report to the OIC on the functioning of the new autonomous regional government.

17-29 April 1978 The 19th ICFM meets Dakkar, Senegal and Misuari is recognized as the chairman and spokesman for the MNLF. Hashim cannot be present because Egyptian authorities, not wishing to antagonize Libya further, prevent him from leaving Cairo. MNLF members in the field conduct kidnappings and ambushes. In Patikul, Sulu a local MNLF leader invites the AFP to a peace dialogue. When they arrived, Gen. Teodulfo Bautista and 33 soldiers are shot dead. Government policy turns increasingly violent.

1979 Misuari reverts to his former goal of seccession and renews efforts to convince Islamic States but to no avail. Meanwhile the Philippine panel continues negotiations with the Hashim faction in Cairo. Surrendered MNLF founder Abul Khayr Alonto joins the government panel. The 10th ICFM in Morocco affirms support for the Tripoli Agreement. Diplomatic iniatives focus on ensuing that the agreement is actually being implemented.

1980 Pocket wars and skirmishes continue. In March, Malaysia and Indonesia offer to serve as "honest brokers" arguing that the problem has regional implications that could be resolved by ASEAN. The Philippine government takes newly installed OIC secretary general Habib Chatti of Tunisia on a tour around Mindanao to meet Muslims and the new Regional Legislative Assemblies. The 11th ICFM in Islamabad request Philippine government to implement the Tripoli Agreement.

1981 Misuari fails to convince a summit conference of heads of states in Taif, Saudi Arabia to support seccession. He fails likewise to convince the 12th ICFM in Baghdad, which resolves to "make new contact with the GRP for the implementation of the Tripoli Agreement in text and spirit." Marcos "lifts" Martial Law but keeps his dictatorial powers in a bid to win further legitimacy for his regime. In May, opposition leader Benigno Aquino, released from prison and allowed to go into exile in the US, visits Misuari in Jeddah and promises to support the Tripoli Agreement. MNLF forces kill 120 government soldiers in Pata island, off Jolo. In retaliation, more than 15,000 troops are sent to the island in a massive operation that infuriates Muslim local government officials.

1982 Marcos consolidates the Philippine diplomatic position. He visits Saudi Arabia King Khaled and OIC's Habib Chatti. The 13th ICFM calls on government "to speed the implementation" of the agreement. It also appeals to the MNLF to prepare for new talks "as a united front". The newly established Moro Revolutionary Organization, a member of the communist-led National Democratic Front (NDF) calls for a "people's war as the main form of the Moro people's revolutionary struggle". Efforts to link communist and Moro insurgencies fail, but local forces cooperate on the ground.

1983 The 14th ICFM in Dhaka calls on Moros to unite prior to new negotiations that will put the Tripoli Agreement into effect. MNLF military activities begin to wane but the New People's Army (NPA, armed group of the NDF) offensives in Mindanao keep the AFP engaged. Benigno Aquino returns from exile and is assasinated on arrival at the Manila Airport. Popular challenge to Marcos regime intensifies throughout the country.

1984 Marcos wins new battles on the diplomatic front. He sends emissaries to the 4th Islamic Summit in Casablanca and to the World Muslim congress in Karachi. In February, he holds bilateral meetings with the Presidents of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Singapore. The 15th ICFM reaffirms its commitment to respect the territorial integrity of the Philippines and again calls on the MNLF to close ranks. In March, Hashim's "new MNLF" officially declares itsef a separate organization with the name Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), with a religious as well as nationalist agenda. The NPA gains in strength and starts to launch larger attacks. Mass demonstrations become spontaneous and the first nationally coordinated Welgang Bayan (People's Strike) shows the depth of popular opposition to Marcos.

1985 Armed attacks by the NPA intensify along with legal, popular opposition to the regime. Marcos schedules a snap presidential election to defuse widespread tension. The legal opposition unites behind Corazon Aquino, Benigno's widow, as the anti-Marcos candidate. The NDF boycotts the exercise calling the election a "sham".

1986 Snap elections are held, with Marcos proclaimed as winner. Days later, he is ousted after a failed coup sends millions of people to the main thoroughfare, known as "EDSA" to protect mutineers from counter attack. The Marcos family is flown to Hawaii by the US government. Corazon Aquino takes her oath as President and establishes a revolutionary government. She appoints a commission to draft a new constitution, which includes provisions for autonomy in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera Region of Luzon.

In March, the MILF sends a message of its readiness to discuss peace with Aquino. In August, OIC and Muslim World League mediation, the MILF and MNLF agree in principle to negotiate jointly in an expanded panel. But on Sept.5 Aquino visits the MNLF camp in Sulu, to talk peace with Misuari. Misuari seizes the initiative and gains recognition for the MNLF from the government as its negotiating partner. The MILF displays political strength through a militant consultative assembly in October, but fails to elicit government response.

1987 GRP and MNLF panels meet in January in Jeddah and agree to discuss autonomy, "subject to democratic processes" Aquino turns down MNLF requests to suspend autonomy provisions in draft constitution, which is ratified in February. The MILF launches a 5-day offensive to assert its presence. This prompts a meeting with GRP panel Chair Aquilino Pimentel, who requests a temporary cease-fire. Talks between GRP and MNLF breakdown as the government unilaterally implements the autonomy mandate in the newly approved constitution over MNLF objections. A Mindanao Regional Consultative Commission (RCC) is organized, and a new autonomy bill is submitted to congress. Both MNLF and MILF bitterly denounce the government's moves.

1988 Aquino meets with the RCC, and starts diplomatic initiatives by briefing Islamic diplomats in Manila about the government's peace program, emphasizing the Tripoli Agreement is being implemented within constitutional processes. Draft autonomy bills are submitted to both House of Congress.

1989 Congress passes Republic Act 6734, which creates the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and Aquino signs into law on 1 August. A plebisite is held on 19 November and the MNLF and MILF call for a boycott of exercise. Only 4 provinces-Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi opt for autonomy, because of opposition from MNLF and MILF and Christian residents.

1990 Regional election are held in ARMM. A regional governor and regional assembly assume positions. Aquino signs executive orders that define central government relations with ARMM, which is officially inaugurated on 6 November.

1991 The 20th ICFM in Instanbul calls for a resumption of negotiations between GRP and MNLF.

1991 Abu Sayyaf emerges as a group of young Moro radicals.

February 1992 Fidel Ramos candidate in the forthcoming Presidential elections, meets Khadaffy in Tripoli to discuss comprehensive and permanent solution to the war in Mindanao. In May, he is elected President and immediately issues a call for peace. He appoints a National Unification Commission (NUC) in July to formulate an amnesty program and a negotiation process, based on public consultations. The first round of exploratory talks with MNLF is held in October in Tripoli. The NUC starts a consultation process, including a meeting with the MILF.

1993 Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas hosts a second round of exploratory talks. The NUC submits its consolidated recommendations in July, prompting Ramos to issue Executive Order 125 defining the approach and administrative structure for government peace efforts. The Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) is created to continue the work begun by the NUC. Formal talks between GRP and the MNLF begin in October in Jakarta. An Interim Ceasefire is signed, along with a memorandum creating support committees to discuss substantive concerns. Alatas reports the progress of negotiations to the 21st ICFM in Karachi. The MILF poses no objections to the talks. The OIC visits Sulu in December.

1995 Support committees meet to discuss defense and regional and security forces, education; economic and financial systems, mines and minerals; the functioning of the Legislative Assembly, Executive Council and representation in the national government and administrative system; and Shari'ah courts. On 4 April, armed men believed to be members of a new Moro rebel group, Abu Sayyaf, raid the town of Ipil (Zamboanga del Sur) killing 50 people and causing millions of pesos worth of damage in looting and burning. Both GRP and MNLF issue separate statements calling for a greater commitment to peace. The government sponsors a series of Mindanao Peace and Development Summits in key cities from May to November. The GRP panel briefs Libya on the progress of the talks in October. At the end of the year, the third round of formal talks resumes in Jakarta. An Interim Agreement is signed, containing 81 points of consensus. Predominantly Christian opponents throughout Mindanao denounce this agreement. Political opposition increases. Vigilantes vow to attack if the agreement is finalized.

Jan.-June 1996 The government rushes to mollify politicians opposing the Interim Agreement. Consultations are held every month with local officials and members of the Congress, with Ramos himself participating in some consultations. The government organizes public meetings in Mindanao to promote the Interim Agreement. In June, Indonesia calls a consultation of the OIC committee of six. A meeting of the GRP-MNLF Mixed Committee results in Agreement to establish the Southern Philippines Zone of Peace and Development (SZOPAD).

July-Aug 1996 Members of Congress express opposition to the Interim Agreement. The Senate organizes public hearings and calls on the executive to justify its actions and commitments. The Senate agrees to support the agreement, but only with 9 substantial amendments, which dilute the powers and autonomy of institutions to be set up under the agreement. Six senators continue their opposition, and lead a group of politicians who file a 54-page petition asking the Supreme court to nullify the agreement. Catholic Bishops express support for the agreement, subject to refinements in the text. Misuari announces his bill for the ARMM governorship. The 9th Mixed Committee meeting and 4th round of formal talks take place in Jakarta. Exploratory talks with the MILF begin.

Sept-Dec 1996 The Final Peace Agreement is signed on 2 September. The MILF distances itself from the agreement, but commits not to stand in the way of peace. In the ARMM elections, Misuari runs for governor and wins, and six MNLF leaders are elected to the Regional Legislative Assembly. Ramos issues Executive Order 371, which departs from the agreement on some significant points. The government forms a new negotiating panel for talks with the MILF in October. The MILF, in a display of strength, holds a huge assembly near Cotabato City from 3-5 December and reaffirms commitment to independence.

1997 GRP and MILF representatives meet and issue a joint press statement. Heavy fighting in Buldon (Cotabato) leaves more than a hundred dead and mars talks. Another meeting in early February is suspended because of renewed fighting. The committees meet again in March and agree to form an Interim Ceasefire Monitoring Committee, with Fr. Eliseo Mercado (NDU president in Cotabato) as chair. Meetings take place in April, May and June but are bogged down by continued fighting. The AFP launches its biggest offensive in June. By July, an agreement on cessation of hostilities is forged. Further meetings between the two sides follow.

August 1998 Organization of SADEM (Sulu Archipelago Decolonization Movement) for restoration of independence of Sulu Archipelago through the United Nations. Hadji Limpasan is chairman of SADEM central committee.

1998 A new President, Joseph Ejercito Estrada is elected, He has an electoral alliance with politicians who opposed the Peace Agreement. Anti-agreement politicians do well in the local elections. MNLF leaders, save for one, lose their bids for local positions. Ten congressional representatives draft a bill to amend the Organic Act on ARMM in accordance with the peace agreement's provisions. A new government negotiating panel is constituted to talk to the MILF. In December 1998, Abu Sayyaf founder Abdurajak Janjalani dies in clash with police.

1999 New outbreaks of fighting between MILF and AFP followed by re-establishment of ceasefire. Government recognizes two MILF camps. ARMM elections are due in September. Three bills have been filed in Congress to amend the Organic Act on the ARMM, expanding it in accordance with the 1996 Peace Agreement. A plebisite on the new autonomous region is due by the end of the year, but may be deferred.

20 March 2000 Abu Sayyaf snatches 50 people from schools in Basilan province including many school children, teachers and Catholic priests.

23 April Abu Sayyaf kidnaps 21 people, including 10 foreign tourists from a Malaysian resort and takes them to the Philippine Island of Jolo.

30 April MILF walks out of peace talks with the government after the Army attacks rebels holding a highway near their headquarters in Maguindanao province.

9 July The AFP declared it captured the MILF camp Abubakar in Matanog Maguindanao following at least one week of air and ground assaults.

16 September Military assaults on Abu Sayyaf in Jolo. Four thousand soldiers were deployed.

16 Oct. OIC mission team from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Somalia, Senegal and Brunei - to look into the implementation of the 1996 Peace Accord between GRP and MNLF.

About PESC-KSP
-------END OF COPIED MATERIAL-------
"Perhaps the Bangsamoro struggle for freedom and self-determination is the longest and bloodiest in the entire history of mankind. It started in 1521 when Spain invaded the Bangsamoro homeland 29 years after the fall of Andalusia. The Bangsamoro people fought against the Spanish invaders for 377 years and against American intruders for about 40 years and have been fighting Filipino barbarous colonial rule during the past 52 year." - Salamat Hashim, late chairman of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)

=================
Nosi Bayasi (NB):
=================
I did not select this from among several. It so happened that its format of date/event follows my own style so I am using it. I do not know or am not familiar with most of its highlights. I may insert the whole material or only some into my own sequence of events to expand it. I notice that the date 1935-1936 does not specifically mention or highlight how the whole BANGSAMORO changed in relation to the Philippine nation-state & the bigger Southeast Asian region with the official abolition of the Sultanate of Sulu. Nevertheless, this perspective can be useful if the reader will use it as initial tentative guide for her own research. I am also corrected by the 20 million Mexican dollars & NOT U.S. dollars paid by U.S.A to Spain for the Philippines...
"YOU WON'T SEE THE PICTURE WHEN YOU ARE INSIDE THE FRAME."

POST 0009

2010-07-14T16:20:00.000-07:00

Same time & place

ISANG PAGBASA SA HIMAGSIKANG 1896 NG ISANG AKADEMIKONG HISTORYADOR

Found by GOOGLE search engine in the past, unknown URL
-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
06/16/2003

Andres Bonifacio and the 1896 Revolution
Milagros C. Guerrero

On 24 August 1896, Andres Bonifacio convened tha Kataastaasang Kapulungan or National Assembly of the Katipunan in Melchora Aquino’s barn in barrio Banlat, then part of Kalookan. Assembled were the members of the Kataastaasang Kapulungan (Supreme Council), as well as the pangulo (heads) of the sangunian (supra-municipal) and balangay (chapter) units. There they made three major decisions. First, they declared a nationwide armed revolution to win freedom from Spain. Second, they established a national government. And third, they elected officials who would lead the nation and the army.

Katipunan Founding

The ilustrado-initiated propaganda movement had failed to persuade the Madrid government to effect urgent reforms distant Asian colony. The Filipino activists in Europe eventually realized the change had to come about from within the archipelago itself.

With this in mind, Jose Rizal came home to the Philippines on 26 June 1892. After meetings with local activists, Rizal established a civic society called the Liga Filipina. On 3 July, a week after he arrived in Manila, Rizal launched the organization in Doroteo Ongjunco’s house on Ilaya Street, Tondo. The aims of the society were national unity, mutual aid, common defense, the encouragement of education, agriculture and commerce, and the study and application of reforms.

The Liga Filipina was short-lived. On 6 July, Rizal was arrested and detained upon the orders of the Governor-General Eulogio Despujol. Two weeks later, he was sent to Dapitan, Mindanao, where he lived in exile for four years. One of the founding members of the league was Andres Bonifacio. On 6 and 7 July, when it had become apparent that an openly pro-Filipino organization like the Liga Filipina would be suppressed by the colonial government, Bonifacio and some friends formed a secret society. Among them were Deodato Arellano, Ladislao Diwa, Valentin Diaz, Jose Dizon, and Teodoro Plata. The organization was called the Kataastaasan Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan. The aims of the Katipunan were to unite the country and to win independence from Spain by means of revolution. Bonifacio, however, continued to work with the Liga, which its other prominent members had resurrected in April 1893 because of his personality and communication skills, the Supreme Council of the Liga appointed him chief of propaganda. Bonifacio’s success in recruiting members unnerved the more conservative elements of the Liga, who did not agree with his revolutionary ideas. The Liga ceased to exist as October 1894.

Bonifacio did not become president of the Katipunan until 1895, although he had always been an officer. Under his guidance, the Katipunan prepared for revolution. Emilio Jacinto, Bonifacio’s trusted friend and adviser, wrote the Cartilla or primer, which embodied the teachings of the organization. The Katipunan operated a clandestine printing press and published a newspaper, Kalayaan. By 1896, on the eve of the revolution, the membership of the society had expanded dramatically. Estimates vary from 30,000 to 400,000.

The Spanish secreta or secret police knew of the existence of a dangerous clandestine organization by early 1896. The Governor-General believed the government was still on top of the situation, but there was no let-up in the surveillance of suspect personalities. By April 1896, the rebels were reported to have cut railroad lines in Kalookan and environs. By May, the general assembly of pangulo and representatives from all the balangay (chapters) of the Katipunan were locked in heated discussions on the timing of the revolution. To many, the time had come; but some, like Rizal, balked at the idea.

By April or May 1896, the existence of the Katipunan was already known to the Guardia Civil Veterana. In August, the confession ofTeodoro Patino’s sister to Fray Mariano Fil, the Augustinian curate of Tondo, merely confirmed what the government already knew. The priest persuaded the authorities of the grave danger the society posed to the Spanish community. Reacting to the ensuing hysteria and acting on information collated over a long period of time, the government had numerous prominent residents arrested and detained; houses were raided and searched. Governor-General Ramon Blanco was urged to apply the “juez de cuchillo” or total annihilation of the Filipino population in a prescribed zone within the areas of uprising.

There was no holding back the revolution.

A nation is born

The Spanish historian Manuel Sastron describes the revolution as a “rebellion of the Tagalogs against Spanish domination;” he also refers to the Tagalog rebels.” But it is clear that the 1896 revolution was a national endeavor.
Written and published in 1896, the Katipunan’s Cartilla defined its major objectives:

Ang kabagayan pinaguusig ng katipunang ito ay lubos at dakila at mahalaga; papagisahin ang loob at kapisan ang lahat ng tagalog. Sa pamamagitan ng isang mahigpit na panunumpa, upang sa pagkakaisang ito’y magkalakas na iwasak ang masinsing tabing na nakakabulag sa kaisipan at matuklasan ang tunay na landas ng Katuiran at Kaliwanagan.
Sa salitang tagalog katutura’y ang lahat nang tumubo sa Sangkapuluang ito; sa makatuid, bisaya man, iloko man, kapangpangan man, etc., ay tagalog din.
(The objective pursued by this association is noble and worthy; to unite the inner being and thoughts of the tagalogs through binding pledge, so that through this unity they may gain the strength to destroy the dense shroud that benights the mind and to discover the Path of the mind and to discover the Path of Reason and Enlightenment.
The word tagalog means all those born in this archipelago; therefore, though visayan, ilocano, pamapango, etc. they are all tagalogs.)

The term “Tagalog” defined all persons born in the archipelago, whether Bisayan, Ilocano, Pampango, etc. Therefore the Tagalog nation or Katagalugan consisted not only of Tagalog speakers but included all those who grew up (tumubo) in the Philippines, regardless of ethnolinguistic classification and ancestry. At the time, the term “Filipino” applied solely to Spaniards born in the archiepelago. Bonifacio and Jacinto made “Tagalog” a term applicable to all indios or natives.
In his unpublished memoir, “Paghihimagsik Nang 1896-1897” (The Revolution of 1896-1897), Caviteño revolutionary and Aguinaldo’s secretary Carlos V. Ronquillo explains the concept further:

Ito ang dapat unawain ng mga bumabasa: sa tawag naming tagalog na makikita sa bawat dahon halos ng kasaysayang ito, ay di ang ibig naming sabihi’y ang paris ng palagay ng iba, at inuukol lamang sa tubong Maynla, Kabite at Bulakan, at iba pa, hinde kundi ang ibig naming tukuyin ay Filipinas…
Sapagka’t sa palagay naming ay ganito ang talagang nararapat ikapit sa tanang anak ng kapilipinuhan. Ang tagalog o lalong malinaw, ang tawag na “tagalog” ay walang ibang kahulugan kundi ‘tagailog’ na sa tuwirang paghuhulo ay taong maibigang manira sa tabing ilog, bagay na di maikakaila na siyang talagang hilig ng tanang anak ng Pilipinas, saa’t saan mang pulo at bayan.
( This is what the readers must understand: by what we refer to as tagalog, a term which may be found on almost every page of this account, we do not mean, as some believe, those who were born in Manila, Cavite and Balacan, etc. no, we wish to refer to the Philippines…because, in our opinion, this term should apply to all the children of the Filipino nation. Tagalog, or stated more clearly, the name “tagalog” has no other meaning but “tagailog” (from the river) which, traced directly to its root, refers to those who prefer to settle along rivers, truly a trait, it cannot be denied, of all those born in the Philippines, in whatever island or town.)

In his patriotic writings, Bonifacio expressed his concept of nationhood. In K.K.K Katungkulang Gagawin ng mga Z.Li.B., Pagibig sa Tinubuang Bayan, Hibik ng Filipinas sa Ynang España and Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Tagalog, he referred to the Philippine islands as sangkapaluan or Katagalugan. In a revolutionary leaflet printed in Cavite during the first quarter of 1897, Bonifacio wrote: “Mabuhay ang Haring Bayang Katagalugan.”

It was clear to Bonifacio and the members of the Katipunan that theirs was a national struggle.

First Filipino government

From 24 August 1896, the Katipunan became an open de facto government. The society had been organized as a secret organization with its own laws, bureaucratic structure and an elective leadership. But a working government was imperative once the August 1896 revolution had begun.
Bonifacio, when questioned at Tejeros, Cavite, defined the letter “K” in the flag to mean “kalayaan” or freedom and explained:

…na mula sa Ktt. Pamunuan ng Katipunan, hanggan sa kababa-babaan, ay nagkakaisang gumagalang sa pagkakapatiran at pagkakapantay-pantay; namumuhunan ng dugo at buhay laban sa Hari, upang makapagtatag ng sarili at malayang Pamahalaan, na samakatwid, ay mamahala ang Bayan sa Bayan, at hindi ang isa o dalawang tao lamang.
(…that from the Highest Officials of the Katipunan to the lowest members, all are one in their respect for brotherhood and equality; they risk blood and life in the struggle against the King, in order to institute our own free Government, so that, in short, the People, and not only one or two people, shall govern the Country.)

Jacinto Lumberas stated:

Ang Kapuluan ay pinamamahalaan na ng K.K.K. ng mga anak Anak ng Bayan, na siyang nagbukas ng Paghihimagsik; may Batas at Alintuntuning pinaiiral; sinusunod at iginagalang ng lahat sa pagtatanggol ng Kalayaan, pag-ibig sa kapatid, pag-aayos at pamamalakas ng mga Pamunuan.
(The Archipelago is governed by the K.K.K. ng mga Anak ng Bayan, which initiated the Revolution: with Laws and Regulations which enforces; followed and respected by all for defending Freedom, fraternal love, constituting and consolidating the Leadership.)

Santiago Alvarez also said:

Kaming mga Katipunan…ay mga tunay na Manghihimagsik sa pagtatanggol ng Kalayaan sa Bayang tinubuan.
(We of the Katipunan…are true Revolutionaries in defending the Freedom of our Nation.)

While Bonifacio, Lumberas and Alvares defined the moral, democratic and nationalist bases of the government, some elements were more explicitly republican. One captured official seal, illustrated in the 30 March 1897 issue of La Illustracion Español y Americana, bore the term “Republika ng Katagalugan.”

John R.M. Taylor, the American military historian and custodian of the Philippine Insurgent Records, concluded that Bonifacio established the first Filipino national government. Taylor interpreted the documents he saw as follows:

The Katipunan came out from the cover of secret designs, threw off the cloak of any other purpose, and stood openly for the independence of the Philippines. Bonifacio turned his lodges into battalions, his grandmasters into captains, and the supreme council of the Katipunan into the insurgent of the Philippines.

Gregorio F. Zaide, who wrote a history of the Katipunan, acknowledged Bonifacio’s revolutionary government:

The Katipunan was more than a secret revolutionary society; it was, withal, a Government. It was the intention of Bonifacio to have the Katipunan govern the whole Philippines after the overthrow of Spanish rule.

Even Teodoro Agoncillo had to concede that:

Immediately before the outbreak of the revolution, therefore, Bonifacio organized the Katipunan into a government revolving around a ‘cabinet’ composed of men of his confidence.

First president

A far clearer idea of Bonifacio’s Katagalugan government emerged in the late 1980s when letters and other important document signed by Bonifacio-part of the collection of noted historian and former director of the prewar Philippine Library and Museum, Epifanio de los Santos-became accessible.

Three letters and one appointment paper, written by Bonifacio on printed letterheads dated from 8 March to 24 April 1897, and all addressed to Emilio Jacinto, prove that Bonifacio was the first president of a national government. These letters contained the following titles and designations:

Pangulo ng Kataastaasang Kapulungan
( President of the Supreme Council)
Ang Kataastaasang Pangulo
(The Supreme President)
Pangulo nang Haring Bayang Katagalugan
(President of the Sovereign Nation of Katagalugan)
Note: “Bayan” means both “people” and “country”
Ang Pangulo ng Haring Bayan
May tayo nang K.K. Katipunan nang mga Anak ng
Bayan,
Unang nag galaw nang Panghihimagsik
(The President Sovereign Nation Founder of the Katipunan,
Initiator of the Revolution)
Kataastaasang Panguluhan,
Pamahalaang Panghihimagsik
(Office of the Supreme President,
Government of the Revolution)

The prewar scholar Jose P. Bantug referred to Bonifacio as the “Kataastaasang Pangulo” and “General’ No. 1.” Jose P. Santos in 1933, and Zaide in 1939, came to the same conclusion and recognized the Bonifacio presidency.

However, both men misread the phrase Ang Haring Bayan-found in the Minutes of Tejeros Assembly (23 March 1897), the Jacinto Appointment Paper (15 April 1897), as well as the undated Bonifacio Manifesto entitled Katipunan Marahas ng mga Anak ng Bayan-as Ang Hari ng Bayan. The first phrase refers to Bonifacio’s adaptation of the Western concept of republic-from res publica, literally public thing or common wealth -to the Filipino concept of “sovereign people.”

Thus, the government headed by Bonifacio prior to 22 March 1897 was democratic in nature and national in scope, contrary to some postwar historians’ contention that Bonifacio attempted to establish a government separate from Aguinaldo’s only after the Tejeros Assembly, and was therefore guilty of treason.

An article on the Philippine revolution appeared in then 8 February 1897 issue of the La Ilusracion Español y Americana. It was accompanied by an engraved portrait of Bonifacio wearing a black suit and white tie, with the caption “Andres Bonifacio, Titulado “Presidente’ de la Republica Tagala” and described him as the head of the native government. The reporter, GA. Reparaz, referred to Aguinaldo only as a generalissimo. The key officers in the Bonifacio government, according to Reparaz, were as follows : Teodoro Plata, Secretary of war; Emilio Jacinto, Secretary of State; Aguedo del Rosario, Secretary of Interior; Briccio Pantas, Secretary of Justice; and Enrique Pacheco as Secretary of Finance.

In his 1897 work, "El Katipunan" or "El Filibusterismo en Filipinas," the Spanish historian Jose M.del Castillo reiterated the results of what was, in effect, the first Philippine national elections and listed the same names as La Ilustracion.
The August 1896 transformation of the Katipunan into a revolutionary government and Bonifacios election to the presidency were confirmed by Pio Valenzuela in his testimony before the Spanish authorities. Del Roasario, who was captured, was described as “one of those designated by the Katipunan to form the Revolutionary Government of the Philippines and to carry out the function of local government administration.”

Katipunan democracy

Bonifacio set in place mechanisms for popular participation from the national to the local levels. The government established by the Katipunan was run by consensus.

The Supreme Council was called the Kataastaasang Kapulungan as can be noted from the letterhead and seal used by Bonifacio. Baldomero Aguinaldo, Pangulo (President) of Sangunian Bayan Magdalo (Magdalo Council), in a letter dated 21 March 1897 and addressed to Felix Cuenca and Mariano Noriel refers to a memorandum from Bonifacio as “isang Kalatas ng G. Presidente “ (a message from Mr. President) and recognizes the national government led by Bonifacio as “Kgg na pulungan ng hihimacsic (Gobierno revolucionario)” (Honorable revolutionary council (Revolutionary government).

In each province, the Kataastaasang Sangunian coordinated the Sanguniang Bayan, which saw to public administration and military affairs on the supra-municipal or quasi-provincial level. In the province of Manila, there were many Sangunian Bayan, such as in Tondo, Kalookan, Mandaluyong, San Juan del Monte, Marikina, Pasig and Pateros, San Mateo, etc. There were Sangunian Bayan in the province of Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, Nueva Ecija and Tayabas, etc. There were at least three Sangunian Bayan under unified military commands to facilitate strategic planning and tactical moves.

At the founding assembly in Kalookan on 24 August 1896, the revolutionary government made the following decisions: 10 the revolution would begin with attack on Manila at midnight of Saturday, 29 August; 20 a revolutionary was established with the appointment of Aguelo del Rosario, Vicente Fernandez, Ramon Bernardo and Gregorio Coronel as brigadiers general; 3) the four generals were tasked with strategic planning for the occupation of Manila; 4) the military situation was to be constantly appraised so that an uprising could be started earlier than 29 August; 5) assigned routes for three commanders were laid out through Tondo, San Marcelino and the Sampaloc rotunda (now part of Sta. Mesa).

The revolutionary troops were more enthusiastic than effective, however, and the Katipunan was unable to wrest state power from the well-entrenched Spanish forces.

Later, Bonifacio and more than ten generals commanded a rebel army assembled by Sanggunian Bayan of various towns within and around present Metro Manila. They engaged mostly in attack-and-withdraw operations: they seized town halls, capture food, arms, and ammunition supplies, and neutralized enemy outposts.

The rebel forces were divided into north and south sectors by the Pasig River. To the north lay Bonifacio’s guerilla forces in Manila and suburbs, with fortified camps in Balara, San Mateo, Pantayanin and Montalban; the armed Katipunan groups in Bulacan and Mariano Llanera’s forces based in Nueva Ecija were constanly on the move through The Siera Madre the patron (landed gentry and rural elite) leaders. Governor Ramon Blanco reported to the Spanish Cortes the reinforcements were necessary to destroy both sectors and end the insurrection.

The Cavite rebel groups evolved into two supramunicipal governments with military commands. One was called Magdiwang, covering the territory from Noveleta and San Francisco de Malabon up to Batangas. The other was called Magdalo, which extended its sphere of influence from Kawit, Cavite, to the southern parts of the province of Manila, now Rizal. It soon became apparent that in order to hold on to captured territory, the rebels had to conform unified intra-provincial administrative units. The perimeter was then secured with forts and trenches.

The Katipunan army in Cavite was big, but it has been estimated that the army north of the Pasig River was much bigger. In other parts of the archipelago, the rebels were organized into squads and commands smaller than those in Central Luzon.

The original Katipunan sub-organizations of Sangunian Bayan on the supra-municipal level, and the Panguluhang Bayan (local council) on the district or barrio level constituted the civilian component of the Katagalugan government. As the government was a revolutionary one, many civilian leaders were concurrently military officials. At the same time, generals and key officers in the revolutionary army exercised power over government structures. Bonifacio, as president was effectively the commander-in-chief. Aguinaldo was one of his captains general.

The Spanish military writer Federico de Monteverde gives details of the military organization instituted by Bonifacio. Monteverde fully illustrates the different revolutionary insignas corresponding to each rank, such as colonel, brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general and captain general. Various military insignas are also discussed by Taylor, and described by Generals Alvarez and Artemio Ricarte in their memoirs.

As the revolution progressed, Bonifacio had to formalize the army. In an order dated 16 December 1896, the revolutionary president redefined the hierarchy of the Katipunan military organization. Each battalion unit-called Katipon-was to be composed of 203 men.

As commander-in-chief, Bonifacio supervised the planning of military strategies and the preparation of orders, manifests and decrees, adjudicated offenses against the nation, as well as mediated in political disputes. He directed generals and positioned troops in the fronts. On the basis of command responsibility, all victories and defeats all over the archipelago during his term of office should be attributed to Bonifacio.

The claim by some historians that “Bonifacio lost all his battles" is ridiculous.

Foreign Affairs

Prior to the outbreak of the revolution, some Filipinos based in Hong Kong acted on behalf of the nationalist movement in the Philippines. Led by Doroteo Cortes, they solicited funds from various sources, especially from wealthy businessmen and companies. They sent the donations to Jose Maria Basa, who was also based in Hong Kong and served as disbursing officer.

A large portion of the funds was used to send a commission to Japan to negotiate for political, military and financial aid for the anticipated uprising towards the end of 1896. With Cortes were Isabelo Artacho and Jose A. Ramos, who arranged with Japanese politicians to acquire 100,000 rifles and an unspecified amount of ammunition. The weapons were partly paid for in advance while the balance was to be amortized over a number of years. The commission also petitioned Japan to send a military squadron to aid the revolutionary forces and, after independence was won, to recognize the Filipino state. Investigations by the Spanish authorities revealed, "The plan was that while Andres Bonifacio was busy ecruiting people for the general uprising, Doroteo Cortes should carry on the necessary negotiations with Japan…"

Although Japan was not at war in 1896, she looked at her Asian neighbours with a keen expansionary eye. However, most Asian countries then were under European colonial dominion. Around the middle of May 1896, the Japanese cruiser Kongo visited Manila. Bonifacio and some Katipunan members immediately sought a meeting with Japanese Admiral Kanimura, while Jacinto drafted a message addressed to the Emperor of Japan. It read: "The Filipino people greet the Emperor of Japan and the entire Japanese nation, with the hope that the light of liberty in Japan will also shed its rays in the Philippines…" Japan was not disposed to go to war against Spain in 1896-1897 just to uphold the rights of Filipinos. Nevertheless, Bonifacio expected the arrival of arms and ammunition from Japan in August 1896.

Cortes continued to represent the revolutionaries before foreign entities. Together with Basa and A.G. Medina, Cortes sent a petition to the Consul of the United States of America in Hong Kong on 29 January 1897. The request implored the "Gefe Supremo desu Nacion" for protection of the Filipinos and recognition of their right to self-government. But the petition was ill-timed. Grover Cleveland lost the presidential elections; his successor, William McKinley, declared a national policy focused on "domestic business conditions and economic recovery from the continuing depression of 1893 and therefore (he tried) to avoid conflict with Spain."

In January 1897, The Philippine Commission in Hong Kong addressed a petition to Henry Hannoteaux, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, which enumerated 50 grievances of the Philippines against Spain and called for assistance. However, France remained strictly neutral because she feared that such anticolonialism would contaminate neighbouring French Indochina, and also because France had no means for practicable intervention.

Significance of 1896 Revolution

In July 1892, Bonifacio founded the Katipunan which launched the first anticolonial revolution in Asia in August 1896. He formed the first national governments established by Aguinaldo from 1897 to 1899.

The Katagalugan government carried over the symbols and teachings of the Katipunan, which the people accepted as the revolutionary authority. This government was democratic in principle, orientation and form. At its inception, it was formed by representatives from the provinces where the Katipunan had a mass-based membership. It adopted as its national standard the Katipunan’s red flag with a white sun with the Tagalog letter "Ka" in the center and commissioned Julio Nakpil to compose the national anthem, "Marangal na Dalit ng Katagalugan."

In defining "Tagalog" as the term for all Filipinos, and "Katagalugan" as the country’s name in lieu of "Filipinas" which had colonial origins, Bonifacio and the Katipunan sought to define a national identity.

The Katagalugan government commanded the loyalty of a significant portion of the population. It held territory, where it exercised the functions of a state. It had armed forces which fought for, and defended its existence. It had diplomatic component, which attempted to gain international recognition for the new nation.

The governments that succeeded Bonifacio’s essentially republican Katagalugan government could only proceed from it. The 24 August 1896` government certainly had a large mass-based following than the 24 August 1897 entity that deposed it. But as a result of the power struggle in Cavite, Emilio Aguinaldo, although only one of many revolutionary generals, usurped President Andres Bonifacio’s authority. Aguinaldo reorganized Bonifacio’s Republika ng Katagalugan and renamed it Republica Filipina.

The first Filipino national government was established on 24 August 1896. Filipinos should observe the date as National Day, if the 1896 Philippine Revolution and the Katipunan are to have any worth at all. And Filipinos should recognize Andres Bonifacio not only the founder of the Katipunan and leader of the revolution of 1896, but as the first Filipino president: the father of the nation and founder of our democracy.

Reference:
*From "Sulyap Kultura," a publication of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (1996).

About the author:
Milagros C. Guerrero

Copyright 2002 © National Commission for Culture and the Arts
All Rights Reserved.
-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
================
NB (Nosi Bayasi):
================
Note the arguable/controversial/disputable etctec claim that the 1896 Philippine Revolution is really "Tagalog Revolution" & the counter-claim supported by Bonifacio's & the Katipunan's definition of what a Tagalog is. Also, the claim that the KKK was no mere cabal but a fully-organized government (though admittedly "underground") designed not simply to overthrow the then existing system via revolution but to govern afterwards; the information that the KKK had a foreign affairs section engaged in high-level negotiations with sovereign powers; the fact that Aguinaldo was a mere captain-general of the SUPREMO; and others. This is one historical INTERPRETATION of a historic event by an academician (which is apparently sanctioned by a Philippine national agency & with a recommendation regarding the date August 24). There are still others. Which or what is the TRUTH? Republica Filipina or Republica Tagala? First Philippine President: Bonifacio, Aguinaldo or Roxas?

Pahabol: "Unang nag GALAW nang Panghihimagsik (The President Sovereign Nation Founder of the Katipunan, INITIATOR of the Revolution)"

TANONG: Si NOSI BAYASI (Aku) ba ay unang nag-GALAW sa ika-21 siglo, o nagga-GALAW lamang? Ask those who can speak deeper TAGALOG language to understand this.

Si NOSI BAYASI ba ay TAGA-ILOG, TAGA-LOG, o TAGA-BLOG?

POST 0008

2010-07-14T16:14:00.000-07:00

Huwebes, Hulyo 15, 2010
7:15am Manila Time

ISANG PAGBASA SA KASAYSAYAN NG SANIPILIP NG ISANG MANUNULAT NA HINDI ISANG AKADEMIKONG HISTORYADOR

-------START OF DOWNLOADED WEBPAGE MATERIAL-------
THE TAGALOG - KAPAMPANGAN ALLIANCE
BY NICK JOAQUIN

The following excerpts are lifted from The Wicked Accomplices, the first chapter of the best-selling book, The Aquinos Of Tarlac by national artist, Nick Joaquin, and first published in 1972 by Solar Publishing Corporation in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila in the Philippines. The webmaster is highly recommending the book to everyone.

The Americans quickly....had grasped a fact the Spaniards had long been aware of: that the Tagalog-Pampangan area, comprehended between Batangas in the south and Tarlac in the north, formed the vital core of the country; was HEARTLAND, was the metropolitan area; in relation to which the other centers of culture in the islands
(e.g. Vigan and Cebu) were outposts. The reason this heartland became the ground of history may be that, in the 16th century, it was the only region of some size where the native tribes had achieved a measure of unity. Older and richer might be the kingdoms of Cebu and Jolo, but these were small city-states isolated by hostility. The king of Cebu, for instance had for enemy the tiny isle of Mactan, which was just across his bay. In contrast, the neighboring kingdoms on the Pasig - Manila and Tondo - were allies, and evidently belonged to a confederacy loosely binding the realms all over the Tagalog-Pampangan region. Not divide and conquer, but unite and rule, was the policy made possible by this domain. The Spaniards were quick to see how smoother an avenue was afforded by the coherence of this region, and their conquest of it was to make official what unity they found there. Here they concentrated their colonizing efforts, with the result that the Tagalog and Pampango were to become the most "politicized" of Filipinos, accounting for the arrogance they have traditionally been accused of. In fact, one friar, Gaspar de San Agustin, has described the Pampangans as "the Castilians among these Indios". Nevertheless the idea of national unity was to begin as this unity of the Tagalog and Pampangan country, from which the Spaniards created a Seat of State (the city of Manila and the province of Pampanga were the basic foundations) and a Seat of the Church (the Archbishop of Manila, which embraces Pampango ground, is the primal See of the country) thus fusing into a unit the old Tagalog and Pampangan realms. From this unit came the necessary consent to government as well as its support forces, so that a counter capital to Manila always had to be within the Tagalog-Pampangan terrain - like Arayat, as proposed by Gov.-Gen. Basco; or Bacolor, to which Simon de Anda removed the government during the British Occupation; or Kawit, Malolos, San Fernando, San Isidro and Tarlac, the successive capitals of the Aguinaldo government. But when the Spaniards, after the fall of Manila in 1898, transferred the government to Iloilo - that is, outside the Tagalog-Pampangan ground - it automatically meant the end of Spanish rule.

Similarly, the Revolution, a Tagalog-Pampangan enterprise, chiefly happened on Tagalog-Pampangan ground, and the Americans foresaw that it could not survive beyond its frontier in Tarlac. The unity of faith and action was, at that moment of our history, still bound up with the particular ethnic and geographical unit that, for almost four centuries, had stood for "law", for "government", for "civilization". When that symbol of Victorian progress, the railroad, was brought to the Philippines, the first line was, of course, laid along, and further bound together, the Tagalog-Pampangan country, connecting it with the outposts in the north. And when the Revolution broke out, the Spaniards, though fighting was confined in Cavite, correctly declared a state of war in the entire Tagalog-Pampangan domain, knowing it only too well as a unit where fire in any part could set the whole ablaze. But the whole had now become something greater than this unit, for a nation had sprung from there. The role of this region can be read in our flag, where each ray of the sun stands for either a Tagalog or Pampangan province. But even the stars in the flag proclaim this role, being three in number because the Tagalog and Pampangan fought to keep them at least three. For good or evil, it was these two tribes, these wicked accomplices, that determined not only the shape of our history but even of our geography. The form now called the Philippines has maintained through almost four centuries of steady assault from within and without only because Spain (which, through those centuries, never had more than 5,000 Spanish troops in the islands) could rely on the Tagalog-Pampangan alliance to keep the form (now called the Philippines) from disintegrating.

The alliance even antedated the coming of Tagalogs and Pampangans to these shores. One scholar theorizes that the two tribes emigrated from neighboring regions in Java (or Sumatra?) and continued in the new country their association in the old - a theory backed by the tradition that the Prince Balagtas who founded a dynasty in Pampanga was, even before his coming to Luzon (sometime perhaps between 1335 and 1380), already a Tagalog-Pampangan mestizo, his mother being of the royal house of the Kingdom of Sapa (now Manila's Sta. Ana district) before she was given in marriage to a sovereign of the Madjapahit Empire in Java. The coming of Prince Balagtas and his entourage apparently capped a series of waves of Pampangan
emigration to Luzon and had a definite intent: to consolidate into a kingdom all these Pampangan colonies believed to be already occupying an area that extended from Manila Bay to the wilds of Cagayan. A true consolidation was never effected, nor did a kingdom arise, but from Prince Balagtas, according to tradition, descended the native principalia, or nobility, that included such families as the Soliman, the Lakandula, the Gatbonton, the Gatchalian, the Gatmaitan, the Gatdula, the Malang, the Puno, and the Kapulong -- families in veins ran a mixed Tagalog-Pampangan blood, and in the knots of whose marryings the two tribes became so intertwined as to form a single growth. Geography was to compound the knots, for the Rio Grande de Pampanga empties into Manila Bay, where also ends the Tagalog's Rio Pasig; and in the region between the two deltas was common ground for confederacy. After Manila (a city ruled by a Tagalog-Pampangan house) was seized by the Spaniards, the ousted heir, Soliman III (Tarik Soliman or Bambalito? - O.S.) presently reappeared, on Manila Bay, with a Tagalog-Pampangan fleet (from Macabebe and Hagonoy - O.S.) which the Spaniards routed in the Battle of Bangkusay. That was in 1571, the year Manila was established as the capital city, the seat of power, and Pampanga was organized into a province, the premier local government of the land, under Spain. Although the Tagalog and Pampangan were to unite later in several revolts, the Battle of Bangkusay can be said to have been their last joint engagement under the old alliance. Only three years later, in 1574, the Tagalogs and Pampangans are being inducted into the army they battled in Bangkusay, and a new alliance has begun. To this alliance they were to become so indispensable, not only as military but as economic arms, that from the start the empire of Spain in the Philippines could not have survived save with the consent of these two tribes. "The colony indeed survived," observes Father Horacio dela Costa, "but what was the price of survival? Obviously, the price which had to be paid for ships; for building them, keeping them afloat and sending them out to fight. This price was paid, most of it, by ... the forced-labor contingents drafted year after year from the provinces near Manila that felled the timber, built the ships, sailed them and manned the guns. It was....these same provinces that fed, clothed and armed the crews....What aggravated the burdens laid on the Tagalogs and Pampangans was the fact that the government was not in a financial position to pay a just wage to the laborers it drafted or a just price for the goods it bought."

And yet, after the period of the Conquista, this region on which the heaviest burdens were laid was nevertheless the least mutinous in the country, as though it regarded itself, however exploited, as not alien to the new government but allied to it. A continuity in fealty justified the view, for the old-time tribal chiefs, the datus, had been incorporated into the new government and in most places were the only visible form of government. "At the time of the conquest," says John Larkin (author of the book, The Pampangans - O.S.) "the Spaniards were severely undermanned and needed someone to maintain order and collect the needed supplies. They accepted the authority of willing local leaders rather than upset the existing system at a time when military concerns were paramount. Both parties were served by this arrangement; the Spaniards received the necessary goods, and the datus retained their position in the village." From these datus would develop the principalia that, from earliest Spanish times, were exempt from taxes, enjoyed the title of Don, and controlled local governments in "elective" positions that were actually hereditary. Because an organic relationship still existed between the principalia and the peasantry, services required by the Dons was not regarded as exploitation by their liegemen, who knew from experience that, whenever abuses grew rampant, the Dons hastened to be their spokesmen, not fearing to appeal to the king of Spain himself. Thus, in the 1670s, did the principalia of Pampanga complain to Carlos II about the quota of rice exacted from every farmer in Pampanga and the Spanish king could not but order "the total extirpation of the abuse and injustice" committed against a region of which he had heard it said that it "has made important contributions to the defense of the entire colony, having raised several companies of troops to serve in the wars against the Dutch who infest those waters, the Moros of Ternate and other hostile nations; that it provided and still provides whole units of regular infantry to garrison that royal capital, its fortress of Santiago, the forts of Cavite, Cebu, Oton, Cagayan, Caraga and the other strong points of these islands"; and that "the Pampango nation has on all occasions shown great fidelity in my service." Indeed a popular saying then was that one Spaniard and three Pampangans are the equal of four Spaniards," a boast that grew from the battlegrounds of the 16th century. Pampangans were with Dasmarinas in the taking of Nueva Vizcaya in 1591; were with Figueroa in the conquest of Mindanao in 1596; were with the "pacification" troops that brought under one flag the regions of Cagayan, Negros, Leyte, etc.; and were with the various expeditionary forces to the Moluccas in the days when our geography was still in the making and it seemed for a while that the Philippines might include the Spice Islands, Borneo, Formosa, the Malay Peninsula and the coasts of Indochina. When the Koxinga invasion impended (1662) and the Chinese in Manila rose in revolt, it was the Pampangan militia under Francisco Laxamana that defeated the rebels in pitched battle, killing a thousand of them and capturing the ringleaders. Because of this victory Laxamana, the Pampangan, was entrusted with the walls of Manila for 24 hours -- a startling symbolic gesture by which the empire confessed its dependence on the heartland.

If the Tagalog-Pampangan troops of those times now seem to us mercenaries, in their own eyes they were not, since they were fighting for a government they regarded as their own, especially as represented by their datus, now the powerful principalia. Theirs, too, was the army: "well-organized troops under the command of their own general officers (Laxamana was a master-of-camp), majors and captains, posts that they greatly esteem as a reward of merit, each of them striving for promotion so as to bequeath this honor to their descendants." Strictly speaking, therefore, theirs was a feudal rather than a mercenary army, since they were led by their own liege lords, to whom they owed fealty; and in fighting outside their tribal ground, in fighting for regions to which, then, they did not feel native (Cagayan, Leyte, Negros, Mindanao, etc.) they were already a national army in the making, creating a sense of country by their willingness to defend certain boundaries from invasion and the government within from usurpers. As long as that government had the consent of the Tagalog and Pampangan, it could stand firm, though the rest of the tribes revolt; but when that consent was withdrawn, the empire tottered. From Limahong in 1574 to William Draper in 1762, the fate of Spain in the Philippines rested on whether the Tagalog and Pampangan chose to side with the Spaniard or with the invader.

The Spanish were well aware that it was they who were dependent on the alliance with the Tagalog and Pampangan , and not vice-versa -- which would have been the case had the native troops been nothing more than mercenaries. So, a Tagalog-Pampangan revolt was feared most of all -- as in 1660 when one such revolt (led by Francisco Maniago - O.S.) was decried as "all the worse because these people had been trained in the military art in our own schools....their valor was well-known, and therefore it was said that one Spaniard and three Pampangos are equal to four Spaniards....(and the) people of the other provinces were on the watch for its outcome, in order to declare themselves rebels ....There is no worse enemy than an alienated friend!" (no hay peor cuna que de la misma madera) Here, from a Spanish mouth, is the admission that the Tagalog and Pampangan were not mercenaries but allies and friends who must not be alienated, being of the same timber as the Spaniard -- and there's "no worse wedge than that of the same wood." The Tagalog and Pampangan were likewise aware that it was on them that the empire rested and through them that destiny was at work, as they proclaimed in the classic feast of Philippine history, the feast in which the Tagalog and Pampangan celebrated the alliance that was to beget a nation. It has been said, quite incorrectly, that the Limahong invasion was the crucial moment in our history, the event that decided if there was to be such a nation as the Philippines or merely an outer province of China. But that moment, was not as decisive as the Dutch wars of the 17th century, which were, by far, the greater threat, the more crucial event. Limahong was not backed by his government (he was just a pirate - O.S.) and did not have the resources for a real invasion; his was purely a one-shot attempt. But the Dutch invaders had the official backing, the resources and the will to sustain what was clearly not just a feint, since their attempt at invasion was pressed for more than 50 years (the first half of the 17th century) with annual battles on a front that stretched from Aparri to Jolo. This was the Great War in our history, for it was the war that decided if we were to be the Philippines --or a part of the Dutch East Indies then, a province of Indonesia today (with Bahasa Indonesia as our national language -- O.S.). The war ended in victory for the idea of nation. That the Tagalog and Pampangan regarded it as their war and their victory can be gathered from the feast that is exclusively a Tagalog-Pampangan tradition: the feast known as La Naval de Manila, once the principal fiesta of Manila, the capital of the land of the Tagalogs, and also the great fiesta of Bacolor, the ancient capital of the Pampangans. When the Pampangans pushed their frontier beyond San Fernando, they thought this tradition important enough to carry with them in their movement northward -- to Angeles, the prime pioneer foundation and take-off point for the new frontier. And in Angeles to this day, the principal celebration is the fiesta called La Naval. The significance may be lost to us now, yet a feeling of pride still inheres to the cult, even with the celebrants not knowing what they feel so proud about, for the inherited emotion may have transcended
the occasion for the feast and perhaps, now refers not merely to the victory in the Dutch Wars, but to all the other feats of an ancient alliance. More than the moment's safety was involved in what we now dismiss as colonial wars not a part of our history.

But for the winning of those wars, we might have had no history. After the Dutch Wars, the next --and last major -- engagement of the alliance is the British Invasion; and here the staging is even more explicit: the capital is moved from Manila to Bacolor; Tagalog and Pampangan rally around the "legitimate" government; while beyond the Tagalog-Pampangan frontier, the Ilocanos seize the chance to break away from achieved form, under the leadership of Diego Silang. "He soon realized, however," says Fr. de la Costa, "that his untried and undisciplined forces, unprovided with firearms and artillery, would be no match to the seasoned and well-armed troops Anda was collecting in Pampanga to send against him. (These battles begot a fearless hero named Manalastas. - O.S.) We shall never know what
might have happened if the Ilocanos and the British had succeeded in combining forces. Whatever dreams Silang had conceived of an Ilocano nation under British protection were shattered forever by an assassin's bullet." This another ambiguous moment in our history; whom are we to cheer? The Ilocano rebels who would break away and set up their own nation; or the Tagalog-Pampangan troops who were for keeping the Ilocos as an integral part of the form? (I am for the latter, because with a British occupation in the Philippines, the U.S. would not have come to our shores in 1898. - O.S.) At any rate, the Tagalog and Pampangan then, as in other tribal attempts to secede that they prevented, were fighting, however unknowingly, for the integrity of a nation. Not so unconscious is their role in the next great struggle in our history: the revolt of the Creole - though this revolt was to confuse the old Tagalog-Pampangan loyalties, unfixing the line between law and outlaw. Did the Creole, even in rebellion, represent "legitimate" government, or was he an usurper? Did he stand for the integrity of the form so long defended, or had he become another disruptor to be stopped? The confusion was inevitable, the Creole having been for so long the Establishment he would now topple.

Stay tuned for the dramatic conclusion of this brilliant
episode on page 2, by clicking:
http://maxpages.com/tarlac/tarlac2
********************************************************
For the article, Lucio F. Turla - Revolucionario, click:
http://maxpages.com/revolucionario

Thanks and acknowledgement are hereby given to the author, NICK JOAQUIN, and the publisher, SOLAR PUBLISHING CORPORATION in Manila, Philippines.

Thanks to my friend, Ernie Turla for letting me build this webpage.
Oscar Soriano, webmaster
-------END OF COPIED WEBPAGE MATERIAL-------
=================
Nosi Bayasi (NB):
=================
Joaquin here presents the essential introduction to what he considers to be a "Creole" (meaning: mestizo or half-breed) revolt or rebellion. He is referring to the Katipunan initiated 1896 Philippine Revolution. This is an important, because different, interpretation of a historic(al) event. Potentially controversial.

POST 0007

2010-07-09T16:10:00.001-07:00

Halos parehong oras at lugar sa POST 0006

NOSI BAYASI'S HEBIGAT ISSUE#2: RIZAL'S RETRACTION

May isa pa akong kinopyang artikulo ni E. SAN JUAN JR. ("RETRAKSYON SA RETRAKSYON NI RIZAL") kaso lang eh parang inatake ng malware o virus ang file at damaged ang text. Kaya ito na lang maayos ni HESSEL ang ipo-post ko.

-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
========================================
Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate
by Dr. Eugene A. Hessel
========================================
Note: This was originally published in The Silliman Journal (Vol. 12, No. 2, April, May, June, 1965), pages 168-183.

Permission has been given by Silliman University and by the author, Dr. Hessel, to reproduce the document on this site.

Originally this was a lecture given at Silliman University, February 15, 1965. Dr. Eugene A Hessel was once a Professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary, Dasmariñas, Cavite.

RIZAL’S RETRACTION: A NOTE ON THE DEBATE

Eugene A. Hessel

This is a debate in which this lecturer hesitates to take part. For one thing, I believe there are aspects in the life and thought of Dr. José Rizal which are of far greater significance. I have already expressed this view in my book The Religious Thought of José Rizal, (01) and I shall have more to say about it in the concluding part of this lecture. It is most unfortunate that some people speak and write about the Retraction without really knowing what Rizal did or did not retract, i.e., not sufficient attention has been given to the mature, quite uniform and systematic religious thought of Dr. Rizal. Only when this has been done first can one evaluate the meaningfulness of the Retraction. For some people to retract would mean little, for they have so little to retract. This was not so of Rizal, and I have tried to make this clear in my previous lectures and writing. It is the life and thought of Rizal during his mature years which are of primary interest to me, and not what happened during the last day of his life.

Another reason I hesitate to enter the “debate” is that some of the protagonists have generated more heat than light. There has been a great deal of “argumentum ad hominem,” i.e., vitriolic attacks upon opponents in the debate. I do not wish to engage in such. I have respect for a number of Roman Catholic defenders of the Retraction. I treasure a letter received recently from one who has written four books defending it. He says, after reading my book, “I wish to congratulate you for your . . . impartial appraisal of the man [Dr. Rizal].” Father Manuel A. Garcia, the discoverer of the Retraction Document, has been most gracious in personally helping me with my research.

Recently, however, I have been looking into the question of the Retraction with some interest and I intend to continue my research. I find that there are four common attitudes toward the “Retraction” and its bearing on the life and character of Dr. Rizal:

1. There are those who insist that the Rizal to be remembered and honored is the “converted” Rizal. This is the official Roman Catholic position. In the only “official” book dealing with all aspects of the Retraction (“official” in the sense that it bears the Imprimatur of Archbishop Santos), Rizal’s Unfading Glory, Father Cavanna says in the Preface:

Rizal’s glory as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may some day fade away, as all worldly glories, earlier or later do. But his glory of having found at the hour of his death what unfortunately he lost for a time, the Truth, the Way, and the Life, that will ever be his UNFADING GLORY. (02)

This same sentiment is echoed in the statement issued by the Catholic Welfare Organization in 1956 and signed by the Archbishop with regard to the Noli and the Fili:

. . . We have to imitate him [Rizal] precisely in what he did when he was about to crown the whole work of his life by sealing it with his blood; we ought to withdraw, as he courageously did in the hour of his supreme sacrifice, “whatever in his works, writings, publications, and conduct had been contrary to his status as a son of the Catholic Church.

2. There are those who have argued that Rizal throughout his mature life was a “free thinker and unbeliever”; thus the Retraction is of necessity a lie. This is the extreme opposite of the Roman Catholic position. My previous writing has tried to demonstrate that the major premise on which this thesis is based is not true.

3. A third implied view may be summarized as follows: the Rizal that matters is the pre-Retraction Rizal; therefore one can ignore the Retraction. The fundamental assumption here is held by many students and admirers of Rizal, including myself, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow. This brings us to the fourth possible attitude towards the Retraction.

4. Scholarly investigation of all facets of Rizal’s life and thought is desirable. In the interest of truth, the truth to which Rizal gave such passionate devotion, we have every right, and also an obligation, to seek to know the facts with regard to the Retraction. If scholarly research continues, fancy may yet become acknowledged fact.

Before we proceed further it would be well to say something about bibliography and method. More than twenty books and pamphlets, in addition to numerous articles have been surveyed in the course of this study. A number of writings on the Retraction merely repeat the arguments of earlier ones and add nothing new. Others are more sarcastic and sentimental than enlightening. But something of value has been gained from almost all of them. The literature belongs to two general categories: biography, and works dealing specifically with the Retraction. Among the biographers, Guerrero, (03) Laubach, (04) and Palma (05) have given the most adequate treatment of the Retraction, the first accepting it and the other two rejecting it. Of works dealing specifically with the Retraction, the most objective, scholarly and complete are those by Pascual, (06) arguing against the Retraction, and Father Cavanna (07) in its favor. As an almost complete compendium of information and arguments pro and con there is no book to date which is the equal of that of Father Cavanna. The second edition has 353 pages of text, appendices, and bibliographical entries totaling some 123 items. (A new edition just off the press is enlarged further but could not be utilized. Incidentally, Father Cavanna draws heavily upon the documents and information supplied by Father Manuel A. Garcia.) Amongst other writers consulted, special indebtedness to Collas, (08) Ricardo Garcia, (09) and Runes and Buenafe (10) should be mentioned. Garcia is a prolific popular writer in defense of the Retraction; the other two oppose it. All tend to chiefly summarize what has previously argued although Runes introduces several new arguments which will be examined in due course. Much research time has been spent in running down various versions of the Retraction Document appearing in books, articles, newspapers, etc. in writing letters to clarify or verify certain points, and in conferring with individuals. Unfortunately, many documents were destroyed during the war.

The story of the Retraction has been told and retold. Various newspaper reports of the last hours of Rizal were published on Dec. 30, 1896 or the days shortly thereafter. However, the first detailed account came out in a series of anonymous articles in the Barcelona magazine, “La Juventud,” issues of January 15 and 31 and Feb. 14, 1897, republished some months later in a booklet entitled La Masonización de Filipinas -- Rizal y su Obra. Some thirteen years later, Father Vicente Balaguer, S.J., the Jesuit priest who claimed to have secured Rizal’s Retraction, asserted that this account was his work which he originally wrote “that very same night of December 29, 1896. (11) Subsequently, on August 8, 1917, Father Balaguer repeated his story in a notarial act sworn to by him in Murcia, Spain. The only detailed account is that by Father Pio Pi Y Vidal, S. J., Superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines in 1896, who published in Manila in 1909 La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor Rizal and confirmed his account in a Notarial Act signed in Barcelona, April 7, 1917. In brief, the Jesuit account is this: On the 28th of December (the very day Governor General Polaviéja ordered the death sentence) Archbishop Nozaleda commissioned the Jesuits to the spiritual care of Rizal, indicating that it would probably be necessary to demand a retraction and suggesting that both he and Father Pi would prepare “formulas.” Thus, about 7:00 a.m. of the 29th, two of the Jesuits arrived at the temporary chapel where Rizal was to spend his last 24 hours. During this day various Jesuits came in and out together with other visitors, including members of his own family. Rizal also took time to write letters. Arguments with Rizal, with Father Balaguer taking the leading part, continued until dusk, by which time, according to the Father’s account, (12) Rizal was already asking for the formula of retraction. That night Rizal wrote out a retraction based on the formula of Father Pi and signed it about 11:30 p.m. The Retraction contains two significant points: (1) the rejection of Masonry (“I abominate Masonry”) and (2) a repudiation of “anything in my words, writings, publications, and conduct that has been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church,” together with the statement “I believe and profess what it teaches and I submit to what it demands.” During the night there followed, according to the Jesuit accounts, several Confessions (some say five), several hearings of Mass, a number of devotional acts, the asking for and signing of devotional booklets intended for various members of his family, and finally at 6:00 a.m. or thereabouts, some fifteen minutes before he was marched out of Fort Santiago to his execution, a marriage ceremony performed by Father Balaguer for Rizal and Josephine Bracken. So much for the story in outline. Details, including the text of the Retraction, will be presented and discussed later.

Before assessing the validity of the account a brief word should be said about the history of the controversy concerning the Retraction. One way to arrive quickly at an overall view of the course of the debate is to read the titles and dates of pamphlets and books dealing with the subject such as are contained in any good bibliography of Rizal. A seemingly accurate description of the history of the struggle in convenient form is found in Part II of Cavanna’s book which reports the various attacks down to the publication in 1949 of Ozaeta’s translation of Palma’s biography of Rizal. Cavanna seeks to answer the various arguments against the Retraction, and in doing so makes reference to the chief works defending it. The first stage of the Debate lasted for some twelve years after Rizal’s death, and at least overtly was wholly one-sided. Cavanna aptly calls this period one of “Concealed Attacks.” The newspapers published the reports given to them presumably by the Jesuits. Within the first year the Jesuits published a quite complete story, for the time being anonymous in authorship. In successive years other books and booklets were devoted in whole or in part to repeating the same story, culminating in the famous full length biography in Spanish by Wenceslao Retana who incorporates the Jesuit account. Yet even in the early years of this first period there were a few small voices raised in objection, quite surprising since a totalitarian regime combining Church and State was in control. Cavanna himself lists a leaflet dated Manila, December 31, 1896 and several letters questioning the retraction. (13) Their main point, stated or implied, is that the Retraction is not in keeping with the character of Rizal. It is of interest that at the end of the period, just a year after the publication of his own biography of Rizal, Retana has something similar to say in an article dated Dec. 29, 1908. Although still not denying the retraction, he adds:

. . . The fact is that influenced by a series of phenomena, or what is the same, of abnormal circumstances, Rizal subscribed that document, which has been so much talked about, and which no one has seen . . . The conversion of Rizal . . . was a romantic concession of the poet, it was not a meditated concession of the philosopher. (14)

We may accept Cavanna’s dating of the second period as covering from 1908-1935. This is the time of vigorous open attacks, many of them by Masons. Ever since, somewhat unfortunately, an active battle has been waged between Roman Catholic and Masonic protagonists. Early in the period, in 1909 to be exact, Father Pi published his booklet La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor Rizal. This was answered three years later in a long article by Hermenegildo Cruz in which several arguments often repeated subsequently were presented, chief of them being: Where is the Retraction Document? The debate drew forth in 1920 the most serious Roman Catholic answer until recent times, namely Father Gonzalo Ma. Piñana’s Murio el Doctor Rizal Cristianamente? Which is chiefly significant because it reports a series of notarized accounts made in the years 1917-1918 by the chief “witnesses.” The period seemingly closes with victory for the defenders of the Retraction, for after many challenges to show the actual Document of Retraction on May 18, 1935 it was “discovered” by Father Manuel A. Garcia, C.M., while he was archdiocesan archivist [and] was busily sorting through a pile of documents [so] that they might be arranged in orderly fashion in their new fireproof vault. On June 16th the news was released by The Philippine Herald.

I would date the last period of the Debate from 1935 until the present. This is the time when, in the light of the Retraction Document discovery, major and minor works have been written on the subject of Rizal’s life and thought as a whole and on the Retraction in particular. This leads us naturally to an assessment of the chief arguments pro and con which have been raised over the years and systematically dealt with in the last thirty years.

As one examines the issues brought forth in the debate, a tabulation of the chief ones raised since 1935 (the year of the discovery of the alleged Retraction Document) indicates that a sort of impasse has been reached. Similar points are now made over and over again. In what follows I shall not devote myself to presenting detailed answers to detailed arguments. This has been done in book after book. Furthermore, as any college debater or trial lawyer knows, it is possible to present an objection to almost any statement, and the effect so far as the audience is concerned is often the result of a subtle turn of phrase or an appeal to a bit of loyalty or sentiment. Rather, we shall be concerned with the thrust of certain main positions which taken individually and in their accumulative significance serve to swing the weight of unbiased conviction from one side to the other. Finally, we shall offer some suggestions for escaping from the present stalemated debate.

What, then, are the major arguments for the Retraction? Although the arguments had been presented by others before him, Father Cavanna (15) gives a well organized summary which is adopted by most subsequent defenders. The points which follow are based on Cavanna with some minor modifications:

1. Since the discovery in 1935, the Retraction “Document” is considered the chief witness to the reality of the Retraction, itself. In fact, since then, by words or implication, the defenders have said: “the burden of proof now rests with those who question the Retraction.”

2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye-witnesses,” and other “qualified witnesses,” i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit order, the archbishop, etc.

3. “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by “witnesses” and a signed Prayer Book. This is very strong testimony if true, for Rizal was giving assent to Roman Catholic teaching not in a general way as in the case of the Retraction statement but specifically to a number of beliefs which he had previously repudiated. According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the Retraction a prayer book was offered to Rizal. “He took the prayer book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, took the pen and saying ‘Credo’ (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book itself.” (16) What was it Rizal signed? It is worth quoting in detail the “Act of Faith.”

I believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son, I believe in God the Holy Ghost, Three distinct Persons, and only One True God. I believe that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became Man, taking flesh in the most pure womb of the Virgin Mary, suffered, died, arose again, ascended into Heaven, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead, to give glory to the just because they have kept his holy commandments, and eternal punishment to the wicked because they have not kept them. I believe that the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are really present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I believe that the Blessed and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, was in the first moment of her natural life conceived without the stain of original sin. I believe that the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ, visible Head of the Church, is the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; that he is infallible when he teaches doctrines of faith and morals to be observed by the universal Church, and that his definitions are in themselves binding and immutable; and I believe all that the Holy, Roman Catholic, and Apostolic Church believes and teaches, since God who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has so revealed it; and in this faith I wish to live and die.

The signed Prayer Book was amongst the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the Retraction.

4. Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by “witnesses.”

5. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.” There could be no marriage without a retraction.

These arguments are impressive. Many think of them, as Cavanna does, as “irrefutable facts.” But to call them “facts” is to prejudge the case or to misuse the word. That a Retraction Document was discovered in 1935 is probably a fact but that is a document actually prepared and signed by Rizal is the question at issue. AS we shall soon see, many opponents of the Retraction use the Document as their chief argument. So also, there is a signed Prayer Book. But a number have asked, is this really Rizal’s signature? Granted, for sake of argument, that it is, what is the significance of a mere signature apart from the testimony of Father Balaguer as to why Rizal signed?

What about the testimony of the “witnesses?” We may dismiss the newspaper reports as being less significant though of corroborative value. Their news was secured from others. One reporter got into the chapel during part of the twenty-four hours. He states that “studies, frolics of infancy, and boys’ stories, were the subject of our chat.” (17) As for the actual eye witnesses, some eight testified to having seen one or more of the acts mentioned above. Only three testify to having seen the signing of the Retraction. The major witnesses are priests or government officials at a time when Church and State worked hand in hand. The bulk of the testimony comes from notarized statements in 1917 or later. Having made these remarks, it is none the less true that the testimony is impressive. It cannot be dismissed, as some have tried to do, with a few sarcastic comments. The argument from testimony as well as the arguments as a whole can be better judged only after weighing this evidence over against the arguments rejecting the Retraction.

What is the case against the Retraction?

1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. As we have noted, the Document plays a significant part on both sides of the debate. There are four prongs to the case against the document itself.

a. First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date the only detailed, scientific study leading to an attack upon the genuineness of the document is that made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the document was found, a study which he incorporated in his book Rizal Beyond the Grave. Taking as his “standard” some half dozen unquestioned writings of Rizal dating from the last half of December 1896, he notes a number of variations with the handwriting of the Retraction Document, the following being the most significant ones according to the present lecturer: (1) the slant of the letters in the standard writings gives averages several points higher than the average yielded by the Retraction Document, and perhaps more significantly, the most slanted letters are to be found in the Document; (2) there are significant variations in the way individual letters are formed; (3) with reference to the signature, Pascual notes no less than seven differences, one of the most significant being indications of “stops” which, says the critic, are most naturally explained by the fact that a forger might stop at certain points to determine what form to make next; (4) there are marked similarities in several respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers, i.e. Rizal and the two witnesses, thus serving to point to Pascual’s conclusion that this is a “one-man document.”

The only scholarly answer to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del Rosario as part of the thesis which he prepared for his doctorate in chemistry at the University of Sto. Tomas, 1937, although most of the details are the result of a later study which Father Cavanna asked him to specifically prepare. (18) Dr. del Rosario’s main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of comparison. On the basis of a larger selection of standards he is able to challenge a number of Pascual’s statements although this lecturer has noted mistakes in del Rosario’s own data. Dr. del Rosario’s conclusion is that the hand-writing is genuine.

-------
TEXT OF THE RETRACTION DOCUMENT DISCOVERED BY FATHER GARCIA IN 1935 IN THE ARCHIVES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE *

Me declare católico y en esta Religion en que nací y me eduqué quiero vivir y morir.

Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido contrario á mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia Católica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me someto á cuarto ella manda. Abomino de la Masoneria, como enemiga que es de la Iglesia, y como sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el Parelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesiástica hacer pública esta manifestación espontánea mia para reparar el escándalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombres me perdonen.

José Rizal

El Jefe del Piquete El ayudante uplaze

Juan del Fresno Eloy Moure

*Based on a photostat of the Retraction in the files of Rev. Manuel A. Garcia, C.M. seen by this lecturer.
-------
TEXT OF THE RETRACTION AS REPORTED BY FATHER BALAGUER IN HIS NOTARIAL ACT OF AUGUST 8, 1917 *

Me declare católico y en esta religión en que nací y me eduqué quiero vivir y morir. Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña; y me someto á cuarto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonería, como enemiga que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la misma Iglesia. Puede el Parelado diocesano, como Autoridad superior eclesiástica, hacer pública esta manifestación, espontánea mía para reparar el escándalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombres me perdonen.

Manila, 29 de Deciembre de 1896.

Esta… retractación la firmaron con el Dr. Rizal, el Sr. Fresno Jefe del Piquete y el señor Moure, Ayudantede la Plaza.

* Cf. Gonzalo Ma. Piñana, Murió el Doctor Rizal Cristianamente? (Barcelona: Editorial Barcelonesa, S.A., 1920), p. 155
-------
b. A second prong directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the principles of textual criticism. Several critics, beginning so far as I know with Pascual, have noted differences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer. (19) Since this kind of criticism is related to my work in Biblical studies I am now engaged in a major textual study of my own which consists first of all in gathering together all available forms of the text. To date, it is clear from my own studies that at least from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant differences. The one form is represented by the Document discovered in 1935 and certain other early records of the Retraction. Two phrases in particular are to be noted: in line 6, “Iglesia Catolica,” and in line 10 “la Iglesia.” The other form of the text is much more common beginning with the text of Balaguer published in 1897. In place of “Iglesia Catolica” in line 6 there is the single word “Iglesia” and in place of “la Iglesia” there appears “la misma Iglesia.” There also tend to be consistent differences between the two types of the text in the use of capital letters. The second form also claims to be a true representation of the original.

The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted from this earliest copy to others. Father Cavanna makes the ingenious suggestion that Father Balaguer made corrections in the “formula” which he supplied to Rizal according to the charges which he supplied to Rizal writing out his own, but he didn’t accurately note them all. On the other hand, it would have seemed that the copy would have been carefully compared at the very moment or at some other early date before the “original” disappeared. It is not surprising that some have wondered if the Retraction Document was fabricated from the “wrong” version of a retraction statement issued by the religious authorities.

c. A third argument against the genuineness of the Retraction Document which also applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s claim that his retraction was “spontaneous.”

d. Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Only Runes has this story. He and his co-author report an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad who tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (when Abad was fifteen) a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction document. This same Roque had been previously employed by Colonel Funston to forge the signature of the revolutionary General Lacuna on the document which led to the capture of Aguinaldo. Runes also includes a letter dated November 10, 1936 from Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, former provincial secretary of Nueva Ecija, who was also present when Roque told his story and confirms it. (20)

On the basis of the above arguments taken as a whole it would seem that there is reasonable ground to at least question the Retraction Document.

(2) The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by writers beginning with Hermengildo Cruz in 1912 are as follows:

a. The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of the family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.”

b. No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the Retraction.

The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and with this the religious authorities could not interfere.

c. Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries of Dec. 30th but on a special page where at least one other admitted non-penitent is recorded (perhaps others, the evidence is conflicting).

It is asked by the defenders of the Retraction, how else could an executed felon be treated? Perhaps the ground outside the wall was sacred also or could have been specially consecrated. To top the rebuttal, Rizal’s “Christian Burial Certificate” was discovered on May 18, 1935 in the very same file with the Retraction Document! The penmanship is admitted by all to be by an amanuensis. Whether the signature is genuine is open to question.

d. There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine Bracken. To say that these were not needed is not very convincing.

e. Finally, Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last 24 hours in particular does not point to a conversion. Whether written during the last 24 hours or somewhat earlier, Rizal’s Ultima [Ultimo] Adios does not suggest any change in Rizal’s thought. The letters which Rizal wrote during his last hours do not indicate conversion or even religious turmoil. In the evening Rizal’s mother and sister Trinidad arrive and nothing is said to them about the Retraction although Father Balaguer claims that even in the afternoon Rizal’s attitude was beginning to change and he was asking for the formula of retraction. It is all well and good to point out that all the above happened prior to the actual retraction. A question is still present in the minds of many.

(3) The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of character. This argument has been more persistently and consistently presented than any other. Beginning with the anonymous leaflet of Dec. 31, 1896 it has been asserted or implied in every significant statement against the Retraction since that time. It has seemed to many, including the present lecturer, that the Retraction is not in keeping with the character and faith of Rizal as well as inconsistent with his previous declarations of religious thought.

First let us look at the character of the man. Rizal was mature. Anyone acquainted with the facts of his life knows this is so. Thirty-five is not exactly young and Rizal was far more mature than the average at this age. It is not likely, then, that he would have been shocked into abnormal behavior by the threat of death. He had anticipated for some time that the authorities would destroy him, and even the priests admit that during most of his last 24 hours Rizal manifested a type of behavior consistent with all that was previously exhibited during his mature years. I worked closely with prisoners for some ten years and accompanied two of them to the scaffold. Their behavior was restrained and consistent. I would have expected Rizal’s to be the same. Furthermore, in the deepest sense of the word Rizal was already a “believer.” In my book and elsewhere I have argued strongly that Rizal was not a “free-thinker” in the usual sense of the word. History is full of the unchallenged reports of real conversions, but the most significant meaning of true conversion is the change from unbelief to belief, not mere change of ideas.

Rizal’s conversion is also out of keeping with his mature religious thought. It is not as though Rizal had been bowled over by confrontation with the new thought of Europe (and by antagonism towards religious authorities who had injured his family and who worked hand-in-hand with a restrictive colonial regime) but had never fully thought through his religious convictions. As I have written elsewhere: “The fact that similar views are found from writing to writing of his mature years and that they made a quite consistent whole suggest that such theology as he had was fully his own . . . .” (21) Rizal had a consistent and meaningful system of Christian thought, and it is therefore harder to think of his suddenly exchanging it for another.

So much for the debate up to the present. I have tried to state fairly the arguments, and it is perhaps evident on which side the lecturer stands. Nonetheless, I do not feel that the question is settled. What, then, remains to be done? Is there a way out of the impasse? Are there areas for further investigation?

(1) Let a new effort be made to keep personalities and institutional loyalties out of future discussion. It is time for honest investigators to stop speaking of the “Protestant,” the “Masonic,” or the “Roman Catholic” view towards the Retraction. Let the facts speak for themselves.

(2) Let the Retraction Document be subject to neutral, scientific analysis. This suggestion is not new, but in view of the present state of the debate and appropriate to the approaching 30th year since its discovery it would be fitting to at last carry this out. Furthermore, it would be an act of good faith on the part of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. If the document is genuine, those who favor the Retraction have nothing to lose; in either case the cause of Truth will gain. I would suggest for this analysis a government bureau of investigation in some neutral country such as Switzerland or Sweden.

Should neutral experts claim that the Document discovered in 1935 is a forgery this of itself would not prove that Rizal did not retract. But it would prompt further study.

(3) As a third step, then, to be undertaken only after a new evaluation of the Retraction Document, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy should feel bound to allow its other “documents” pertaining to Rizal’s case to be investigated, i.e. “the burial certificate,” the signature of the Prayer Book, and perhaps also certain other retraction documents found in the same bundle with that of Dr. Rizal’s.

(4) The story concerning the “forger” should be investigated further.

(5) If assurance can be given that the above steps are being undertaken then let there be a moratorium on further debate and greater attention given to the rest of Rizal’s life and thought, in particular to his mature religious faith and thought. Let me close with the words of Senator José Diokno:

Surely whether Rizal died a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. It is because of what he did and what he was that we revere Rizal. . . Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal: the hero who courted death “to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs” . . . (22)
_______________

(01) Manila: Philippine Education Co., 1961.

(02) Jesus Ma. Cavanna y Manso, C. M. Rizal’s Unfading Glory, a Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. José Rizal. 2nd. Ed. Rev. and improved (Manila: n. n. 1956), p. vi. Subsequently referred to as “Cavanna.”

(03) Leon Ma. Guerrero, The First Filipino (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1963). Subsequently referred to as “Guerrero.”

(04) Frank C. Laubach, Rizal: Man and Martyr (Manila: Community Publishers, 1936). Subsequently referred to as “Laubach.”

(05) Rafael Palma, The Pride of the Malay Race. Translated Roman Ozaeta. (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1949). Subsequently referred to as “Palma.”

(06) Ricardo R. Pascual, Rizal Beyond the Grave, Revised Edition (Manila: Luzon Publishing Corp., 1950). Subsequently referred to as “Pascual.”

(07) Jesus Ma. Cavanna y Manso, op cit. in footnote “1”.

(08) Juan Collas, Rizal’s “Retractions” (Manila: n.n. 1960). Mr. Collas was of great help in preparation of my book on Rizal’s religious thought. He handles both Spanish and English with consummate skill and has opened up to many English readers much of Rizal’s thought by translating Rizal’s most important minor writings.

(09) Ricardo P. Garcia, The Great Debate, The Rizal Retraction (Quezon City: R. P. Garcia Publishing Col, 1964). Subsequently referred to as “Garcia.” Starting with a little booklet in 1960, this former school principal turned publisher has since published three enlargements of his original attempt to answer a number of works written against the Retraction, including those by Palma, Collas, Juan Nabong, Judge Garduño, and Runes using as his defense chiefly Cavanna.

(10) Ildefonso T. Runes and Mameto R. Buenafe, The Forgery of the Rizal “Retraction” and Josephine’s “Autobiography” (Manila: BR Book Col, 1962). Subsequently referred to as “Runes.”

(11) Cavanna, p. 24.

(12) Ibid, p. 8. Cavanna has conveniently included in his book most of the pertinent Jesuits accounts.

(13) Cavanna, pp. 144ff.

(14) Ibid, p. 153.

(15) Cavanna, pp. 1-108.

(16) Cavanna, p. 54. A Photostat of the Acts is found facing page 57 of Cavanna and the translated text on pp 57f.

(17) Don Santiago Mataix, correspondent of the Heraldo de Madrid, quoted by Palma, p. 325.

(18) Cavanna, pp. 176ff.

(19) See accompanying page [inserted columns above] for the two “texts.”

(20) Runes, pp. 107ff. As a first check of my own on his evidence I wrote to a professor friend of mine whom I have known intimately for eighteen years. Since he comes from the North I thought he might be able to make some comments on the persons involved. To my surprise I found that my friend is himself a native of San Isidro, knew personally all three men mentioned above, and vouched strongly for their respectability and truthfulness. All had been civic officials. My informant had not heard the above story nor read the book by Runes, but he knows the author personally and vouches for his “reliability and honesty.”

(21) Eugene A. Hessel, The Religious Thought of José Rizal (Manila: Philippine Education Co., 1961), p. 255.

(22) From the Preface to Garcia’s The Great Debate. It is surprising and heartening that the senator would write this in a book defending the Retraction.

Write the Webmaster:
The Life and Writings of Dr. José Rizal
Dr. Robert L. Yoder
DrRobertL_Yoder@excite.com
-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
=================
NB (Nosi Bayasi):
=================
*Note Hessel's photo showing him with a non-malicious open smile showing teeth (or dentures?). His features are what I remember of Americans as a child. I do not know what "kind" or racial type this is.
*I intended to translate the Spanish text to get some practice but I'll just add this later. The ESSENCE of this written RETRACTION is that Rizal himself, in his own words, is denying or negating everything- his past words & deeds- that went against his religion at birth. Furthermore, he is abhoring MASONRY & returning to Catholicism, explicitly expressing his desire to live & die in the RELIGION of the CATHOLIC CHURCH & seeking forgiveness for his past mistakes or errors.

"THOSE WHO CANNOT REMEMBER THE PAST ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT."
-GEORGE SANTAYANA

POST 0006

2010-07-09T16:04:00.000-07:00

Hulyo 10, 2010 Kalendaryong Gregoryan
7:05 am

NOSI BAYASI'S HEBIGAT ISSUES IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY & REVOLUTION:
---------------------------------------------------------------
(EXCELLENT CHOICE TOPIX FOR ARGUMENTATION & DEBATE)
(n)Ninakaw kay Nosi Bayasi
(s)Stolen from Nosi Bayasi

CENTRAL ISSUE IS NUMBERED WHILE RELATED SUB-ISSUES OR QUESTIONS FOLLOW. NOTE THAT THESE ARE IN THE FORM OF PRO VS. CON.

IN ENGLISH
1) WHO SHOULD BE THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL HERO, RIZAL OR BONIFACIO?
RIZAL: REFORMIST OR REVOLUTIONARY?
WHO REALLY KILLED RIZAL? ("BULLET" IS OUT AS PASSE:) BETTER: WHO WAS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR RIZAL'S EXECUTION?
RIZAL'S ALLEGED LAST ACTION: FOR OR AGAINST SPAIN/PHILIPPINES?
2) RIZAL'S ALLEGED RETRACTION: AUTHENTIC OR FORGERY?
3) PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DATE: JULY 4 OR JUNE 12?
HOW MANY PRESIDENTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES?
4) WHO CONTINUED THE KATIPUNAN REVOLUTIONARY LINE?
WHO IS CARRYING THE AUTHENTIC REVOLUTIONARY TRADITION AT PRESENT?
5) HIMAGSIKANG 1896: TAGALOG OR FILIPINO REVOLUTION?
6) 1896 KATIPUNAN: DISCOVERED BY SPANIARDS OR REVEALED BY BONIFACIO?
7) 1896 PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION: FROM WITHIN OR FROM WITHOUT?
INITIATED ENTIRELY BY NATIVES OR THE LOWER CLASSES OR BY WHOM?
8) MOROS OR FILIPINOS?
MORO PROBLEM?: WHOSE?
BANGSAMORO: PHILIPPINE TERRITORY OR NOT?
9) EL CAVITENYO OR LA CAPAMPANGAN: WHO IS THE TRAITOR?
0) BAYASI OR BAYANI? SON OF THE SUN OR SON OF A _?

Actually, ISSUE#3 is already settled according to public records but it remains an interesting topic for pedagogical purposes. Note that knowledge gained from intensive reading is absolutely necessary prior to any dialectics.

If GMA-TV7 BLOGS wants to capture the masses of bloggers & commenters, then it should immediately set up another blog dedicated to some or all of these topics. I consider Dean Dela Paz's BLOG as focusing essentially on P/Filipinas in general & its HISTORY & INDEPENDENCE in particular.

SA TAGALOG
1) SINO DAPAT ANG PAMBANSANG BAYANI NG PILIPINAS:
SI RIZAL O SI BONIFACIO?
RIZAL: REPORMISTA O REBOLUSYONARYO?
SINO TALAGA ANG NAGPAPATAY KAY RIZAL?
DI-UMANO'Y HULING AKSYON NI RIZAL: PARA O KONTRA SA ESPANYA O PILIPINAS?
2) ANG DI-UMANO'Y RETRAKSYON/PAGBAWI NI RIZAL: TUNAY O PALSO/PALSIPIKADO?
3) PETSA NG KALAYAAN NG PILIPINAS: HULYO 4 O HUNYO 12?
ILAN ANG NAGING PANGULO NG REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS?
4) SINO ANG NAGPATULOY NG HIMAGSIKAN NG KATIPUNAN?
SINO ANG NAGDADALA NG TUNAY NA REBOLUSYONARYONG TRADISYON SA KASALUKUYAN?
5) HIMAGSIKANG 1896: REBOLUSYONG TAGALOG O PILIPINO?
6) 1896 KATIPUNAN: NATUKLASAN NG KASTILA O BINISTO NI BONIFACIO?
7) 1896 HIMAGSIKANG PILIPINO: MULA SA LOOB O MULA SA LABAS?
SINIMULAN NG MGA KATUTUBO O MABABABANG URI O NINO?
8) MORO O PILIPINO?
SULIRANING? MORO: KANINO?
BANGSAMORO: TERITORYO NG PILIPINAS O HINDI?
9) EL CABITENYO O LA CAPAMPANGAN: SINO ANG TRAIDOR?
0) BAYASI O BAYANI?: ANAK NG HARI O ANAK NG P_?

ANG TANONG#3 ay nasagot na ayon sa mga inilabas kong opisyal na dokumentong pampubliko, subali't ito'y nananatiling mainam na talakaying pampaaralan. Alalahaning kailangan ang malawak na kaalamang nagmula sa pagbabasa bago ang anumang pagtatalo. (Layas ang tsetseburetse!)

ORIGINAL JOKE (MINE):
TANONG: Ano ang kaibahan ng motel ng baliw sa ordinaryong motel?
SAGOT: Sa motel ng baliw mauuna ka munang mag-check-out bago ka mag-check-in. (Bakit kamo? Aba eh, paano ka makalalabas sa kulungan este sa ospital mo? Subukan mong huwag mag-check-out as in TUMAKAS - ang BAGSAK mo eh parang kaso ni JOHN DOE BALL CROST na WANTED NATION-WIDE sa ADS!:)
Q: What is the difference between a motel for the insane & an ordinary motel?
A: Madmen's motel requires you to check out first before you can check in - check out first of the mental hospital in which you are confined, that is.
Nakuha mo? Got it?

PORQUE AKALA MO NAKARAAN NA EH TAPUS NA? TAPUS TAYO JOHN!

Ang hindi lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay hindi makararating sa paroroonan,

Ang hindi natatandaan ang mga aral ng kasaysayan ay walang patutunguhan.

Ang hindi natututo sa mga leksyon ng nakaraan ay pupulutin sa kangkungan. (Ilan na ang napulot as in na-"salvaje" sa ating mga kalahi?)

ANOTHER GRAN TIRADA
NI NOSI BAYASI
-------
(n)Ninakaw kay Nosi Bayasi
(s)Stolen from Nosi Bayasi

POST 0005

2010-06-30T13:42:00.000-07:00

Hulyo 01, 2010 4:43am

ART CAPTURES REALITY. HISTORY IN FILMS.
---------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT SCENE from the movie "SAKAY"
---------------------------------------------
Directed by RAYMOND RED, Presented by ALPHA OMEGA PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Starring JULIO DIAZ, TETCHI AGBAYANI, LEOPOLDO SALCEDO et al
(RATED A1/A-OK, EXCELLENT EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL
ON THE HISTORY OF FILIPINO-AMERICAN WAR 1898-1903)
Downloaded FILM SEGMENT from YOUTUBE
[English translation in braces/Alternative translation].
Quotation marks omitted. EMPHASIS mine.

The following dialogue from the film is based on reliable historical research & presents theatrically some details of the HISTORY of the FIL-AM war.

START OF SELECTED PART at "5:45" of Windows Media Player timer
(Sakay is brought to, then taken out of Fort Santiago dungeon-prison for interrogation by two officers, an American & a Filipino.)

START OF SCENE at "6:50" of WMP timer
AMERICAN OFFICER: Mr. Macario Sakay, you are now under the custody of the UNITED STATES ARMY. This interview is being held in view of the possibility of granting you AMNESTY. Because of your incapacity to understand our language, Lt.Cruz here will take charge. Lieutenant Cruz? (American Officer taps Lt.Cruz on the shoulder & stands up.)

LT. CRUZ: Gracias, Senor. (American Officer leaves.) Bueno, ang pangalan mo ay MACARIO SAKAY? [Thank you, Sir. Well, your name is MACARIO SAKAY?]

SAKAY: Oo. [Yes.]

LT. CRUZ: Ano ang iyong trabaho bago ang HIMAGSIKAN laban sa ESPANYA? [What was your occupation before the REVOLUTION against SPAIN?]

SAKAY: Namasukan ako sa isang pagawaan ng kalesa sa TONDO. Sastre din ako. Lumalabas ako sa entablado. Sa MORO-MORO. [I was employed in a calesa factory in TONDO. I am also a tailor. I perform on stage. In MORO-MORO(s)*.]
-------
*MORO-MORO is a publicly-performed stage play depicting the battles between MUSLIMS & CHRISTIANS with the latter invariably winning. It was a common treat for ordinary people during the SPANISH REGIME especially during celebrations or FIESTAs.

LT. CRUZ: Moro-Moro?! Paano kang nasangkot sa himagsikan? [Moro-Moro?! How did you get involved in the revolution?]

SAKAY: Sumapi ako sa KATIPUNAN ni ANDRES BONIFACIO. [I joined the KATIPUNAN of ANDRES BONIFACIO.]

LT. CRUZ: Anong katungkulan mo doon? [What was your position/function there?]

SAKAY: Naging PANGULO ako ng Katipunan sa DAPITAN. Nag-trabaho ako sa imprenta ng Katipunan. [I became the PRESIDENT of the Katipunan in DAPITAN. I worked for the Katipunan (printing) press.**]
-------
**PANGULO is exactly translated as PRESIDENT. HEAD or CHIEF would be
translated as PINUNO. DAPITAN is an area/district in MANILA.

LT. CRUZ: Nasaan ka noong mga buwan pagkaraan ng Marso 23, 1901 noong nadakip si PANGULONG Emilio Aguinaldo ng mga Amerikano? [Where were you during the months following March 23, 1901 after the capture of PRESIDENT Emilio Aguinaldo by the Americans?]

SAKAY: Sa MORONG. [In MORONG***.]
-------
***MORONG is today's RIZAL PROVINCE.

LT. CRUZ: Anong ginagawa mo doon? [What were you doing there?]

SAKAY: Lumalaban. [Fighting/Resisting/Struggling.]

LT. CRUZ: Hindi mo ba alam na iniutos na ni Aguinaldo sa lahat ng opisyal at tauhan ng Republika na sumuko sa mga Amerikano? [Didn't you know that Aguinaldo had already ordered all officers & men of the Republic to surrender to the Americans?]

SAKAY: Alam ko. [I knew.]

LT. CRUZ: Bakit hindi ka sumunod? [Why didn't you obey/follow?]

SAKAY: Hindi si Aguinaldo ang ipinaglalaban ko, kundi ang KALAYAAN. Nang manumpa si Aguinaldo sa gobyerno ng Amerika, ang pamumuno ng Republika ay napunta kay MIGUEL MALVAR. [It was NOT Aguinaldo that I was fighting for but FREEDOM/LIBERTY./I was not fighting for Aguinaldo but for FREEDOM. When Aguinaldo swore allegiance to the government of America, the leadership of the Republic transferred to MIGUEL MALVAR.

LT.CRUZ: Sa mga sandaling ito ay nagliliyab na ang buong lalawigan ng BATANGAS kung saan nagtatago ang iyong Heneral Malvar! Sumuko na ang lahat ng mga heneral ng Republika! Bukas lang, naririto na si Malvar! Pag-isipan mong mabuti ang mga isasagot mo sa mga susunod kong tanong sa'yo, dahil dalawa lamang ang pupuntahan mo magmula rito sa kinalalagyan mo: ang humarap sa BANDILA ng Amerikano o sa BITAYAN.
[This very moment the whole province of BATANGAS where your General Malvar is hiding is already burning/in flames! All the generals of the Republic have already surrendered! (Just) tomorrow, Malvar will be here (too)! Think very carefully about your answers to my next questions, because you have only two destinations to go to from here where you are situated: to face the American FLAG or to the GALLOWS.]

END OF SCENE & SELECTED PART at "9:30" of WMP timer
-------
The AMERICANS proceeded to sentence to DEATH BY HANGING & EXECUTED MACARIO SAKAY, the PRESIDENT of the REPUBLIKA NG KATAGALUGAN, together with some of his officers, as mere TULISANES or BANDITS. This GRAVE HISTORICAL INJUSTICE to the FILIPINO PEOPLE
by the UNITED STATES ARMY, in particular, has NEVER REALLY been accorded any PROPER ATTENTION by either GOVERNMENTS of the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES or the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ever since & UP TO THE PRESENT.

ONE POINT TO THE SIDE OF THOSE WHO CLAIM
THAT "HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE VICTORS.": 1-0

HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT:
COMPARE & CONTRAST SAKAY'S fate at the turn of the 20th-CENTURY
with those of IRAQIs or AFGHANS of the 21st-CENTURY.
EXERCISE YOUR IMAGINATION. Do some RESEARCH.
================================
another GRAN TIRADA
ni NOSI BAYASI
SUPREMO ng KKK (KiKilitiin Kita)
================================

POST 0004

2010-06-30T13:40:00.000-07:00

Hulyo 01, 2010 4:40am

Understanding Rizal without Veneration:
Quarantined Prophet and Carnival Impresario

Rizal failed to draw the necessary lessons from his travels in the United States. Perhaps he was too engrossed as a tourist, enthralled by the Golden Gate Bridge, the Indian statues, Niagara Falls, the Statue of Liberty, and New York City where (to quote his words) “everything is new!” But what can we infer from this hiatus between Rizal’s anger in being quarantined and his belief that the “great American Republic” dare not engage in the brutal adventure of subjugating the natives of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines?

By E. SAN JUAN, Jr.

Bulatlat

“…but I rejoice more when I contemplate humanity in its immortal march, always progressing in spite of its declines and falls, in spite of its aberrations, because that demonstrates to me its glorious end and tells me that it has been created for a better purpose than to be consumed by flames; it fills me with trust in God, who will not let His work be ruined, in spite of the Devil and of all our follies.” Jose Rizal, letter to Fr. Pablo Pastells, Nov. 11, 1892, while in exile in Dapitan

“Ang sagot sa dahas ay dahas, kapag bingi sa katuwiran.” Jose Rizal, “Cuento Tendencioso”

It seems fortuitous that Rizal’s birthday anniversary would fall just six days after the celebration of Philippine Independence Day - the proclamation of independence from Spanish rule by General Emilio Aguinaldo in Kawit, Cavite, in 1898. In 1962 then President Diosdado Macapagal, father of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, decreed the change independence day from July 4 to June 12 to reaffirm the primacy of the Filipinos’ right to national self-determination.

Either ironical or prescient, Aguinaldo’s proclamation contains the kernel of the contradictions that have plagued the ruling elite’s claim to political legitimacy: Aguinaldo unwittingly mortgaged his leadership to the “protection of the Mighty and Humane North American Nation.” Mighty, yes, but “humane”? The U.S. genocide of 1.4 million Filipinos is, even today, disputed by apologists of “Manifest Destiny.” But there is no doubt that Aguinaldo’s gratitude to the Americans who brought him back from exile after the Pact of Biak-na-Bato spelled the doom of the ilustrado oligarchy which, despite the demagogic ruses of Marcos, Aquino, Ramos and Estrada and their handlers, has proved utterly bankrupt in its incorrigible corruption, electoral cynicism, and para-military gangster violence.

And so, sotto voce: Long live Filipino Independence Day!

Let us not forget the specific milieu we are inhabiting today: a barbaric war waged by the U.S. ruling elite against any people opposing its imperial will - the exploited and oppressed of the world. For over a century now, the Filipino people, particularly peasants, Moros, women, and the indigenous communities, have paid an exorbitant price to support the affluence, freedom, and democracy of this racial polity. Given the total subservience of the current regime to the dictates of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization (all servicing global capital and primarily U.S. corporate business), as well as the puppetry of previous regimes, the change has proven to be empty ritual.

Memorial to Dr. Jose Rizal in Rizal Park,
Beacon Hill, Seattle, Washington

Photo from myhistorylink.org

This seems a banal truism. We remain a neocolonial dependency of the United States, with the comprador bureaucracy and military beholden to the Washington Consensus and its current authoritarian program enabled by the contested USA Patriot Act. Proof of this is the recent police action against members of the Philippine Forum who were prohibited from joining the New York City Philippine Independence Day Parade. This exclusion of Filipinos by the Philippine Consulate is due to the fact that they were protesting the “obscene” Trump Towers luxury apartment of Consul Cecilia Rebong amid the widespread poverty suffered by millions forced to send fathers and mothers to work abroad as domestics or recruited contract workers, hailed as “bagong bayani” or ignored as unheroic corpses that arrive three-to-five a day at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.

I.
It is not certain whether Rizal knew or met Aguinaldo - we have no desire to implicate Rizal (as has been done by those sectarians who blindly follow Renato Constantino - see my Rizal For Our Time, 1997) with those who betrayed Bonifacio, Antonio Luna, and others. After the polyphonic novels toying with plural alternatives, Rizal decided on one path: the Liga Filipina. Rizal of course met or was acquainted with Bonifacio and others in the Katipunan who were involved earlier in the Liga. Despite his exile to Dapitan, he was still playing with utopian projects in British Borneo. Historians from Austin Craig to Rafael Palma, Gregorio Zaide, Carlos Quirino, and Austin Coates have already demonstrated that despite Rizal’s reservations about the Katipunan uprising, his ideas and example (all susceptible to a radical rearticulation) had already won him moral and intellectual ascendancy - what Gramsci would call “hegemony”-- whatever differences in political tactics might exist among partisans in the united front.

Pace Constantino, we need understanding before we can have genuine if fallible appreciation. The mythification of Rizal in the popular imagination, as discussed by Reynaldo Ileto in his “Rizal and the Underside of Philippine History,” need not contradict or lessen the secular, libertarian impact of Rizal’s writing and deeds on several generations of organic intellectuals such as Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Apolinario Mabini, Isabelo de los Reyes, up to the seditious playwrights in the vernaculars, the writer/activists such as Lope K. Santos, Amado V. Hernandez, Salvador P. Lopez, and nationalist intellectuals such as Ricardo Pascual, Claro Recto, Baking, Constantino, and others. What is needed, above all, is a dialectical grasp of the complex relations between the heterogeneous social classes and their varying political consciousness—peasantry, workers, petty-bourgeois ilustrado, artisans, etc.—and the struggle for an intelligent, popular leadership of a truly anti-colonial, democratic, mass revolution.

A one-sided focus on Rizal as a sublimation of Christ or Bernardo Carpio, or Rizal as “the First Filipino” (Leon Ma. Guerrero, Nick Joaquin), fails to grasp the “unity of opposites” that conceptually subtends the dynamic process of decolonization and class emancipation traversing different modes of production in a sequence of diverse social formation. We need a historical materialist method to grasp the concrete totality in which the individual finds her/his effective place. After all, it is not individuals or great heroes that shape history, but masses, social classes and groups in conflict, that release the potential of humanity’s species-being from myths, reified notions, and self-serving fantasies partly ascribable to natural necessity and chiefly to history.

Can this explain the limitations of Rizal’s thinking at various conjunctures of his life? Numerous biographies of Rizal and countless scholarly treatises on his thought have been written to clarify or explain away the inconsistencies and contradictions of his ideas, attitudes, and choices. The Yugoslavian Ante Radaic is famous for a simplistic Adlerian diagnosis of Rizal based on his physical attributes. This at least is a new angle, a relief from the exhibitionist posturing of Guerrero and the Creolist obsessions of Nick Joaquin. Radaic, however, failed to honor somehow Rizal’s own psychoanalytic foray into the phenomena of the manggagaway, aswang, and kulam, and other subterranean forms of resistance. How can a person be afflicted with an inferiority complex when he can write (to Blumentritt) a few hours before his death: “When you have received his letter, I am already dead”?

The Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno and the American realist William Dean Howells have recognized Rizal’s subtle analysis of human character and totalizing social critique. For his part, Jose Baron Fernandez’s Jose Rizal: Filipino Doctor and Patriot provides us an updated scenario of late nineteenth-century Spain for understanding the predicament of the Propagandistas in building solidarity, cognizant of Retana’s disingenuous apologia. With tactful lucidity, Rafael Palma’s classic biography, The Pride of the Malay Race, has demonstrated the fundamental secular humanism of Rizal, the inheritor of Spinoza’s Ethics and the Enlightenment’s legacy (Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant). Rizal shared this secular humanism with other propagandistas, a humanism whose utopian thrust was tempered by scientific rigor, self-critical distance, and fin-de-siecle disenchantment. How else could one interpret the exchange between Rizal and Fr. Pastells, Fr. Florentino’s reflections in El Filibusterismo, and the rationalist critique of self-deception and mass hysteria in most of his writings. Ambeth Ocampo has forcefully contributed to the demythologization of Rizal (see his Rizal Without the Overcoat) as well as to the discovery of Rizal’s third novel (on this, more below). Each author responds to the pressure of his moment and the inertia of the past. However, it seems unquestionable that the conventional appreciation of Rizal tends toward an indiscriminate glorification of his mind, his ideas, his “Renaissance” versatility, and so on. Scholastic pedagogy and the opiate of the masses have both contributed to this idealizing, nominalist tendentiousness.

Rizal was a product of his place and time, as everyone will concur. But due to desperate conditions, others credit Rizal with superfluous charismatic powers that he himself will be the first to disavow. We do not need the pasyon or folk religion to illuminate this mixed feudal-bourgeois habitus (to borrow Bourdieu’s term). We are predisposed by social habit to focus on the role of the individual and individual psychology so as to assign moral blame or praise. This is the self-privileging ideology of entrepreneurial neoliberalism. But there is an alternative few have entertained.

As I have tried to argue in previous essays, Rizal displayed an astute dialectical materialist sensibility. One revealing example of concrete geopolitical analysis is the short piece on Madrid and its milieu excerpted in Palma’s The Pride of the Malay Race (pp. 60-62). He was neither an environmental determinist nor social Darwinist. While gauging the force of social circumstances, he did not succumb to mechanical determinism - although the weight of his familial and religious upbringing may be said to condition the limits of possible variations in his thinking and actions. This materialist intuition is leavened with praxis-oriented realism, as glimpsed from this passage in a letter to Fr. Pastells:

“It is very possible that there are causes better than those I have embraced, but my cause is good and that is enough for me. Other causes will undoubtedly bring more profit, more renown, more honors, more glories, but the bamboo, in growing on this soil, comes to sustain nipa huts and not the heavy weights of European edifices….

“As to honor, fame, or profit that I might have reaped, I agree that all of this is tempting, especially to a young man of flesh and bone like myself, with so many weaknesses like anybody else. But, as nobody chooses the nationality nor the race to which he is born, and as at birth the privileges or the disadvantages inherent in both are found already created, I accept the cause of my country in the confidence that He who has made me a Filipino will forgive the mistakes I may commit in view of our difficult situation and the defective education that we receive from the time we are born. Besides, I do not aspire to eternal fame or renown; I do not aspire to equal others whose conditions, faculties, and circumstances may be and are in reality different from mine; my only desire is to do what is possible, what is within my power, what is most necessary. I have glimpsed a little light, and I believe I ought to show it to my countrymen.

“…. Without liberty, an idea that is somewhat independent might be provocative and another that is affectionate might be considered as baseness or flattery, and I can neither be provocative, nor base, nor a flatterer. In order to speak luminously of politics and produce results, it is necessary in my opinion to have ample liberty.”

A dialectical process underlies the link between subjective desire and objective necessity/possibility traced in this revealing passage. Its working can be discerned in most of Rizal’s historical and political discourses. They are all discourses on the permanent crisis in the condition of the colonial subject, a crisis articulating danger with opportunity. The virtue of Rizal’s consciousness of his limitations inheres in its efficacy of opening up the horizon of opportunities—what he calls “liberty”-- contingent on the grasp and exploitation of those same limits of his class/national position in society and history. In short, the value and function of human agency can only be calculated within the concrete limits of a determinate, specific social location in history, within the totality of social relations in history.

II.
Granted Rizal’s strategic wisdom, how can we explain Rizal’s failure to predict the role of the United States in intervening and colonizing the Philippines? In his otherwise perspicacious analysis of the past, present, and hypothetical future in “Filipinas dentro de cien anos” (The Philippines within a century, published in La Solidaridad, 1889-1890), Rizal mentions the United States as a possible player in international geopolitics:

“If the Philippines secure their independence after heroic and stubborn conflicts, they can rest assured that neither England, nor Germany, nor France and still less Holland, will dare to take up what Spain has been unable to hold… Perhaps the great American Republic, whose interests lie in the Pacific…may some day dream of foreign possession. This is not impossible, for the example is contagious, covetousness and ambition are among the strongest vices… the European powers would not allow her to proceed… North America would be quite a troublesome rival, if she should once get into the business. Furthermore, this is contrary to her traditions.”

There is a curious breakdown of dialectics, if not knowledge of history, here. How could Rizal be so blind? Maybe blindness is a function of insight, as American deconstructionists conjecture. It may be that Rizal had been reading too many eulogistic accounts of the United States circulated in Britain, France, Germany—too much de Tocqueville, perhaps? Rizal’s prophetic stance allows him to moralize on the “strongest vices” of “covetousness and ambition,” but somehow his vision can not permit the “traditions” of the “Great American Republic” from being contaminated by the imperialist virus. He mentions Samoa and the Panama Canal, but seems oblivious of the Monroe Doctrine and the nightmarish fear of the Haitian revolution, the first successful revolution of slaves in history. He settles on the fact that U.S. territory was not yet congested; and besides, the European powers will check any imperial ambition the U.S. might show.

What happened to this universalist historian and globalizing polymath? Was Rizal a victim of temporary amnesia in discounting his memorable passage through the United States in his second trip to Europe?

It is indeed difficult to understand how Rizal failed to draw the necessary lessons from his travels in the United States. Perhaps he was too engrossed as a tourist in novelties, enthralled by the Golden Gate Bridge, the Indian statues everywhere “attired in semi-European suit and semi-Indian suit,” Niagara Falls, the Statue of Liberty, and New York City where (to quote his words) “everything is new!”. Unlike his adventures in Europe, he did not find any inamorata—didn’t have time for dalliance. His travel diary was, in Ocampo’s judgment, sparse and hasty; but his letter to Mariano Ponce (dated 27 July 1888 two months after his passage) reveal a somewhat traumatic experience:

“I visited the largest cities of America with their big buildings, electric lights, and magnificent conceptions. Undoubtedly America is a great country, but it still has many defects. There is no real civil liberty. In some states, the Negro cannot marry a white woman, nor a Negress a white man. Because of their hatred for the Chinese, other Asiatics, like the Japanese, being confused with them, are likewise disliked by the ignorant Americans. The Customs are excessively strict. However, as they say rightly, America offers a home too for the poor who like to work. There was, moreover, much arbitrariness. For example, when we were in quarantine.

“They placed us under quarantine, in spite of the clearance given by the American Consul, of not having had a single case of illness aboard, and of the telegram of the governor of Hong Kong declaring that port free from epidemic.

“We were quarantined because there were on board 800 Chinese and, as elections were being held in San Francisco, the government wanted to boast that it was taking strict measures against the Chinese to win votes and the people’s sympathy. We were informed of the quarantine verbally, without specific duration. However, on the same day of our arrival, they unloaded 700 bales of silk without fumigating them; the ship’s doctor went ashore; many customs employees and an American doctor from the hospital for cholera victims came on board.

“Thus we were quarantined for about thirteen days. Afterwards, passengers of the first class were allowed to land; the Japanese and Chinese in the 2nd and 3rd classes remained in quarantine for an indefinite period. It is thus in that way, they got rid of about Chinese, letting them gradually off board.”

Evidence by this and other works, Rizal definitely understood racism in theory and practice. But it is not clear to what extent he recognized how the absence of “real civil liberty” extends beyond the everyday life of African Americans, beyond the Asians—it is not even clear whether he considered himself Asian, though in his reflections on how Europeans treated him, he referred to himself as “dark skinned,” a person of color, especially in relation to European women. Rizal never forgot that in spite of being a relatively privileged Chinese mestizo, the Spaniards uniformly considered him an “Indio.”

Was Rizal so magnanimous or charitable that he expunged the ordeal of being quarantined soon after? Not at all. In his travel diary concerning a train ride from Paris to Dieppe in 1889, Rizal encountered an arrogant American taunting his other companions (an Englishman and two Frenchmen). His comments indicate that he never forgot the quarantine, surveillance, and exclusionist procedures he went through:

“I was beginning to be annoyed by the fury of the traveler and I was going to join the conversation to tell him what I have seen and endured in America, in New York itself [Rizal doesn’t disclose what he “endured” in New York], how many troubles and what torture the customs [and immigration] in the United States made us suffer, the demands of drivers, barbers, etc., people who, as in many other places, lived on travelers….I was tempted to believe that my man’s verbosity, being a good Yankee, came from the steam of a boiler inside his body, and I even imagined seeing in him a robot created and hurled to the world by the Americans, a robot with a perfect engine inside to discredit Europe….” (Quoted in Ambeth Ocampo, Rizal Without the Overcoat, 1990; see also Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Jose Rizal, 1984).

What can we infer from this hiatus between Rizal’s anger in being quarantined and his belief that the “great American Republic” dare not engage in the brutal adventure of subjugating the natives of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines? Two years after his visit, in Brussels, Rizal replied to Jose Alejandrino’s question what impression did he have of America: “America is the land par excellence of freedom but only for the whites.” This insight is quite remarkable for a Filipino traveler then and today. It exceeds the intelligence of Filipino American pundits who boast of 200 percent “Americanism,” of Filipinos as hybrid transnationals or transmigrants capable of besting white supremacy. But Rizal did not pursue the inferences from his insight. While recognizing the denial of civil liberties to “Negroes” and the degrading treatment of Chinese and Japanese in San Francisco, Rizal was unable to connect these snapshots and observations to the history of the United States as one of expansion, genocidal extermination of Native Americans, slavery of Africans, violent conquest and subjugation of indigenous Mexicans in Texas, California and the territory seized after the Mexican-American War of 1845-1848.

What is the historic context surrounding Rizal’s tour of the U.S. in 1886? A historic violent railroad strike had already occurred in 1877; in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act effectively barred the Chinese from entry, a move which did not prevent twenty-eight Chinese from being massacred in Rock Springs, Wyoming, in the summer of 1885. Meanwhile, in the post-bellum South, the basis for segregation was being laid by Ku Klux Klan raids throughout the 1860s and 1870s following the Compromise of 1877 and severe economic depression. In 1886, two years before Rizal’s travels, the Haymarket riot in Chicago led to the hanging of eight anarchists innocent of the crimes they were charged with. It was the era of robber barons, workers’ strikes, immigrant rebellions, and ferocious class wars (as detailed by Howard Zinn in A People’s History of the United States). In 1890, the massacre of Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee marked the culmination of the genocidal campaign against the original inhabitants and the closing of the internal frontier.

Rizal seemed not to have followed U.S. history along these tracks, isolating only the puritan revolt against religious persecution and the colonial, quasi-feudal imposition by the British monarchy. So this tradition of struggling for liberty, for separation from European feudalism and the authoritarian English monarchy, was what Rizal associated with the U.S. as an emerging nation-state when he was preoccupied with demanding Filipino representation in the Cortes in 1889-1890. The United States stood for Rizal as an example of a country or people that demanded representation – “no taxation without representation” was a slogan that must have appealed to the ilustrado assimilationists, not an Anglo state whose “Manifest Destiny” was already nascent from the time of the massacre of the Pequot Indians in 1636, through the institutionalized slavery of Africans, to the savage colonization of Mexican territory in 1848. White supremacy acquired its slogan of “Manifest Destiny” in the U.S. victory over Mexico and its annexation of substantial territory once owned by Spain.

III.
We can understand this omission of the U.S. from the ilustrado consciousness then. So concentrated were the energies and time of Rizal and his compatriots Marcelo del Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Mariano Ponce, and others on stirring up the conscience of the Spanish public in Madrid and Barcelona that they neglected studying closely the political history of the United States. They missed the “signs of the times.” It could not be helped. And so little did Rizal suspect that the “great American Republic” would be the next executioner of Filipino nationalists and radical democrats, the global gendarme of terrorists like the New People’s Army combatants, the Moro separatists, Fidel Castro, Zapatistas in Chiapas, and Maoists in Nepal.

Europe was the arena of battle, but more specifically Spain. During Rizal’s first sojourn in Europe (1882-1887), social ferment was quietly taking place between the dissolution of the First International Working Men’s Association in 1881 and the founding of the Second International in Paris in July 1889 with Marxism as its dominant philosophy. Marx died in 1883. Meanwhile two volumes of Capital have been published and were being discussed in Europe during Rizal’s first visit to Paris. Engels was still alive then, living in London when Rizal was annotating Morga’s Sucesos at the British Museum in 1888-1889. During his second sojourn (1888-1891), Rizal completed El Filibusterismo published in Ghent, Belgium, in 1891. Engels’ writings, in particular Anti-Duhring (1877-1878), have been widely disseminated in German periodicals and argued over. Given his numerous visits to Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, England, and Spain, and his contacts with intellectuals (Blumentritt, Rost, Jagor, Virchow, Ratzel, Meyer, aside from the Spaniards Morayta, Pi y Margall, Becerra, Zorilla, and others), it was impossible for Rizal to escape the influence of the socialist movement and its Spanish anarchist counterpoint. Indeed, a letter (dated 13 May 1891) by his close friend, the painter Juan Luna, conveyed Luna’s enthusiasm over Le socialisme contemporaine by E. de Laveleye, “which is a conflation of the theories of Karl Marx, La Salle, etc; Catholic socialism, the conservative, evangelical,…which stresses the miseries of contemporary society.”

Based on an inspection of Rizal’s library in Calamba and citations in the Epistolario, Benedict Anderson concludes that Rizal had no interest, or awareness, of socialist currents except those filtered through Joris Karl Huysmans. Rizal’s singular modernity, in my view, cannot be so easily Orientalized by U.S. experts like Anderson, Karnow, Glenn May, and their ilk. On the other hand, Anderson’s presumptuous reference to the “narrow nativism” and “narrow obsession with America” of Filipino intellectuals will surely delight the Westernized Makati enclave and his acolytes in Diliman and Loyola Heights. Or even those speculating on Rizal’s homosexual tendencies despite his insouciant flirtations with las palomas de baja vuela (as attested to by close companions Valentin Ventura and Maximo Viola).

In his Solidaridad period, Rizal was just beginning to learn the fundamentals of geopolitics. The United States was out of the picture. It is foolish to expect Rizal and his compatriots to know more than what their circumstances and class orientation allowed. Scarcely would Rizal have a clue then that the U.S. control of Filipino sovereignty would continue through the IMF/WB stranglehold of the Philippine economy for over 40 years after nominal independence in 1946, an unprecedented case—the only country so administered for the longest period in history! This can throw some light on the country’s chronic poverty, technological backwardness, clientelist slavishness to Washington, witnessed of late by the export of over 9 million contract workers as “servants of globalization” and the dependence on the 8.5 billion dollars worth of overseas annual remittances to service the humongous foreign debt and the extravagant “indolence” of the few rich families and their politician flunkeys. Rizal’s memory of his ordeal in San Francisco, had he lived longer, might have resonated beyond his detention in the prison-fortress of Montjuich in Barcelona (where Isabelo de los Reyes was also confined) and influenced the ilustrado circle of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera and other supporters of “Benevolent Assimilation” in the early decades of the last century.

Finally, we return to confront once again Rizal’s “Manifesto” of 1896 written in his prison cell in Fort Santiago. Against the gradualist thrust of this Manifesto (surely a ruse to gain time) can be counterposed the overwhelming evidence of Rizal’s conviction that where the other party cannot listen to reason, force must be used (while civic education proceeds), with separatist liberation the only ultimate alternative. Padre Florentino’s invocation (“God will provide a weapon…”) was fulfilled in Rizal’s banishment and the replacement of the Liga by the Katipunan. It is enough to cite again Rizal’s resolute determination to give his life for the liberation of his people (in the two letters to his brother and to his family) as well as many confessions to Blumentritt, Ponce, Del Pilar, Fr. Pastells, and others, of his readiness to sacrifice his life for the redemption of the masses. The itinerary of his activities in Europe, Hong Kong, and Dapitan suffice to quell any doubt about his commitment. Recall his words to General Alejandrino: “I will never head a revolution that is preposterous and has no probability of success because I do not like to saddle my conscience with reckless and fruitless bloodshed; but whoever may head a revolution in the Philippines will have me at his side.”

IV.
In the long run, the criterion of solidarity with the masses imposes its critical verdict without reprieve. Rizal struggled all his life against the tendency toward individualism. He confided to Del Pilar: “What I desire is that others appear…” To Padre Vicente Garcia: “A man in the Philippines is only an individual, he is not a member of a nation.” But he also will not submit to tradition for its own sake, to unreasoned conformism: “I wish to return to the Philippines [he wrote to Ponce], and though it may be a temerity and an imprudence, what does it matter? Filipinos are all so prudent. That is why our country is as it is…. And since it seems to me that we are not doing well on the road of prudence, I will seek another road.” Several paths were tested in the Noli and Fili, including Simoun’s “anarchical nationalism,” Cabesang Tales’ guerilla foco, urban insurrection, etc. In the opinion of Eugenio Matibag, both novels were multivoiced, intricately dialogic in nature, and so open to the “play of an emancipatory desire that continues to move the Philippines today.” Of course, we don’t need to read Rizal to seek to overthrow the current intolerable system. Limited by his ilustrado class conditioning, but open to the influence of collective projects and spontaneous popular initiatives, Rizal was a nationalist democrat “of the old type,” as the idiom goes. But proof of a more genuinely populist and radical conception of change may be found in the third novel, recently recovered for us by Ambeth Ocampo in Makamisa (Anvil 1992),

Would Rizal’s stature be altered if he had completed this novel? Since this is not the occasion to elaborate on the insurrectionary imagination of Rizal, I can only highlight two aspects in Makamisa. First, the boisterous entrance of the subaltern masses into historical time and space. In the two novels, Elias, Sisa, Cabesang Tales, and others interrupted the plot of individual disillusionment, but never moved to the foreground of the stage. This new mise en scene is rendered here by the demystification of religious ritual via the physical/sensory motion of crowds, rumor, money talk, animal behavior, Anday’s seduction, and so on, escaping from the symbolic Order (sacred space) represented by the Church, as dramatized in the multiaccentual speculations on why Padre Agaton disrupted his public performance. The play of heteroglossia, the intertextuality of idioms (indices of social class and collective ethos), and the stress on the heterogeneous texture of events, all point to the mocking subversive tradition of the carnivalesque culture and Menippean satire that Mikhail Bakhtin describes in his works on Rabelais, Menippean satire, and Dostoevsky (see The Dialogic Imagination). This is the root of the polyphonic modernist novel constituted by distances, relationships, analogies, non-exclusive oppositions, fantasies that challenge the status quo. Rizal could have inaugurated the tradition of an antiheroic postmodernist vernacular centered on the antagonism of ideological worlds.

Second, the tuktukan game accompanying the Palm Sunday procession is Rizal’s proof that folk/indigenous culture, a spectacle staged at the site of the monological discourse of the Church, transgresses prohibitions and allows the body of the earth, its sensory process and affective becoming, to manifest itself. We confront the unconscious of the colonial structure in the essential motifs of carnivalesque ribaldry and topsy-turvy outlawry: “the high and low, birth and agony, food and excrement, praise and curses, laugher and tears “(in Julia Kristeva’s gloss). Paradoxes, ambivalences, Dionysian fantasies, odd mixtures of styles that violate orthodox decorums, and diverse expressions of ideological themes and chronotopes - all these characterize the Menippean satirical discourse exemplified here as well as in Rabelais, Cervantes, Swift, De Sade, Lautreamont, Dostoevsky, Kafka and Joyce. (One wonders if Rizal read Dostoevsky or Gogol’s Dead Souls?) According to Bakhtin, we find in Rabelais’ work the dramatic conflict between the popular/plebeian culture of the masses and the official medieval theology of hegemonic Christianity.

Variants may be found in postmodernist works of magical realism (Garcia Marquez, Ondaatje, Salman Rushdie). In brief, Makamisa is the moment of Rabelaisian satire and carnival feast in Rizal’s archive. It may be read as Rizal’s attempt to go beyond the polyphonic relativizing of colonial authority and Christian logic in the Noli and Fili toward a return to the body of the people, not just folkways and customs but the praxis of physical labor, the material/social processes of eating and excretion, sexual production and reproduction, collective dreams and the political unconscious. It is the moment of unfinalizable becoming, the moment of the Katipunan revolution.

Once more, we encounter the spectre of Rizal at the barricades, arming the spirit for storming the entrenched fortifications of Makati or Malacanang Palace, envisioning a land where “there are no slaves, no hangmen, no oppressors,/where faith does not slay,” “Pearl of the Orient Seas, our Eden lost….”
___________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
E. SAN JUAN is co-director of the Board of Philippine Forum, New York City, and heads the Philippine Cultural Studies Center in Connecticut, USA He was recently visiting professor of literature at the National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, and professor of American Studies at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium. Among his recent books are BEYOND POSTCOLONIAL THEORY (Palgrave), RACISM AND CULTURAL STUDIES (Duke University Press), and WORKING THROUGH THE CONTRADICTIONS (Bucknell University Press). Three books in Filipino were launched in Manila, Philippines, recently: HIMAGSIK (De La Salle University Press), TINIK SA KALULUWA (Anvil), and SAPAGKAT INIIBIG KITA (University of the Philippines). His award-winning book of criticism, TOWARD A PEOPLE’S LITERATURE, is being re-issued by the University of the Philippines Press.
---------------
My Comment (MC):
Isang MAINAM na artikulong babasahin para sa mga interesado sa kasaysayan ng Pilipinas at ng mga bayani nito. Hindi aku sanay sa istilo ng pagsulat ni SAN JUAN kaya pabaligtad ko itong binasa, mula hulihan patungo sa simula. Maaaring akalain sa unang pagsipat ng isang bumabasa na may ere o pasikat lamang ang may-akda dahil sa kanyang wika at sa pagbanggit ng maraming dayuhang personalidad o manunulat. Subali't mayroon din talagang mahalagang nilalaman na dapat suriin at pag-isipan. Hindi pang-masa ang sanaysay, kundi para sa may sopistikasyon, maraming nabasa, at malawak na kaalaman. Halimbawa, kailangang pamilyar sa Marxismo at sa kasulatang Pranses ang bumabasa. Mahalaga lamang banggitin ang mga sumusunod:

-Ipinapakita kung gaano ka-talas ang obserbasyon o puna ni Rizal sa ipinahayag niyang kasagutan kay Jose Alejandrino.
-Dapat na basahin ang ikatlong nobela ni Rizal. Ang pagkaka-alam ko lang ay may tinanggal na kabanata sa isa sa dalawang aklat na NOLI at FILI para makatipid sa pagpapalimbag. Ito yata yung "ELIAS AT SALOME". Mainam na pag-debatehan ang awtentisidad ng ikatlong aklat.
-Isa ito sa interes ko: Bakit hindi nadala agad nina Rizal ang Marxismo-Sosyalismo sa Pilipinas? Masyado bang avant-garde ang mga sulating nasabi at hindi maunawaan o gamay ng ating mga PROPAGANDISTA?
-Totoo bang binanggit ni Rizal ang salitang "ROBOT"?
-Totoo bang tatlong bagong bayaning bangkay kada araw ang dumadating sa NAIA?

POST 0003

2010-06-30T13:36:00.000-07:00

Hulyo 01, 2010 4:37am

============================================================
THE TRUE HISTORY OF PILIPINAS WITH EMPHASIS ON THE KATIPUNAN SECRET SOCIETY & THE 1896 REVOLUTION WHICH GAVE BIRTH TO THE PILIPINAS NATION-STATE: A CABALISTIC-CONSPIRATORIAL PERSPECTIVE
OR
"ANG TUNAY NA KASAYSAYAN NG SANIPILIP AYON KAY NOSI BAYASI"
(BATAY SA KANYANG TEORYA AT MEMORYA NA NABABAWASAN NA)
============================================================
(n)-niNAKAW mula kay WALANG PAG-ASA [El Presidente del PNP (Partido Nuebe de Pebrero*)]
[Played to the tune of YOYOY VILLAME'S "MAGELLAN" song followed by JUDAS "TAYO'Y MGA PINOY"]
*Nov. 9 is NOT A DATE - it is an ADDRESS!:D

CRUSADES (WESTERN CALENDAR just started registering FOUR DIGITS)

TWO IBERIAN-EUROPEAN RIVAL WORLD POWERS, PORTUGAL & SPAIN, DIVIDE THE WORLD BETWEEN THEM thru TREATY OF TORDESILLAS 1494 [Rest of the GLOBE, especially the realm of MUSSULMANS (MUSLIMS), is considered NOT PART of EUROCENTRIC WRITTEN HISTORY]

The NEW WORLD, the AMERICAN CONTINENTS (named after Italian AMERIgo Vespucci) originally inhabited by REDSKINS (native American Indians), is discovered for the WEST in 1492 by CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS (who was financed by QUEEN ISABELLA, the CATHOLIC QUEEN of SPAIN), colonized & gradually populated by WHITE European migrants, also BLACKs from AFRICA arrive as SLAVES

PORTUGUESE take MALACCA in 1511
SPANIARDS ARRIVE in SAMAR 1521 - a Portuguese explorer who took part in the previous event, FERNAO DE MAGALHAES (hispanized FERNANDO MAGALLANES or anglicized FERDINAND MAGELLAN), & working for the KING OF SPAIN, discovers for the IBERIANS a WESTWARD ROUTE to the EAST avoiding rival/MUSLIM-held territories; EUROcentric HISTORY credits him as the 1st CIRCUMNAVIGATOR of the GLOBE. BUT equally if not more qualified are ENRIQUE DE MALACCA & SEBASTIAN DEL CANO

SPAIN begins COLONIZATION & CHRISTIANIZATION of what is now the PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO; Similar activities of PORTUGAL elsewhere
RISE OF EUROPEAN NATIONS with their corresponding COLONIAL PROJECTS - DUTCH, ENGLISH, FRENCH, ITALIAN, even GERMAN & RUSSIAN

MEANWHILE in the NUSANTARA (DUNIA M'LAYU/MALAY WORLD/OCEANIA)
Using VISAYAN allies as shock troops, SPAIN takes LUSONG kingdom from TAGA-ILOGs by defeating RAJAH SULAYMAN of MANILA. RAJAH ACHE MATANDA of SAPA & LAKANDULA of TUNDUK, the RULING FAMILIES are BLOOD-RELATIVES of the SULTAN OF SULU (SULU SULTANATE presently DORMANT/SUBSUMED under AUTONOMOUS REGION FOR MUSLIM MINDANAW as SULU PROVINCE) & the SULTAN OF BRUNEI (SULTANATE now a SOVEREIGN SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATION)

TONDO CONSPIRACY 1588
Former MUSLIM rulers, already CONVERTED TO CATHOLICISM, attempt to organize a REBELLION & overthrow the Spaniards expecting SUPPORT from BRUNEIAN RELATIVES, PLAN is EXPOSED by SPANISH INTELLIGENCE from tactical INFORMATION in CALAMIANES between MANILA & BRUNEI; CABALISTS CAUGHT & EXECUTED, some EXILED TO MEXICO: Magat Salamat, Felipe Salonga, Geronimo Basi, Antonio Tuambasan, Pitonggatang, atbp

NATIVE ISLANDERS SPLIT INTO INDIOS, MOROS, INFIELES, AETAS ETCETCETC
------------PLEASE CONSULT HISTORY BOOKS---------------------
SPANISH-MORO WARS
LONG PERIOD OF UNORGANIZED INDIO RESISTANCE AGAINST SPAIN, ISOLATED REBELLIONS & REVOLTS FOR VARIED GRIEVANCES & REASONS NOTABLY:
FRANCISCO DAGOHOY IN BOHOL
HERMANO PULE IN TAYABAS (NOW QUEZON PROVINCE)
BASI REVOLT
MALONG REVOLT
DIEGO & GABRIELA SILANG of ILOKOS
ETC ETC ETC
CAVITE MUTINY 1872
GOM-BUR-ZA (DIRECTLY AFFECTED RIZAL & others)
-------------------------------------------------------------
DUTCH & CHINESE ATTACKS
BRITISH SACKING OF MANILA
ETCETCETC

LAST DECADE of 19th-CENTURY
STIRRINGS OF NATIONALISM AMONG INTELLIGENT NATIVES

RISE of ILUSTRADOs (EDUCATED CLASS of INDIO NATIVES & MESTIZOS) & PROPAGANDA MOVEMENT based in SPAIN seeking REFORMS - Included such PERSONALITIES as MARCELO H. DEL PILAR, JOSE RIZAL, MARIANO PONCE, LUNA BROTHERS, GRACIANO LOPEZ JAENA ETCETC

RIZAL ARRESTED & EXILED TO DAPITAN

RIZAL's LA LIGA FILIPINA DISSOLVED & BREAKS UP INTO TWO GROUPS:
MABINI's moderate CUERPO DE COMPROMISARIOS & BONIFACIO'S militant SECRET SOCIETY, KATIPUNAN. The former consists of members from upper classes of society while the latter are from middle & lower working classes, even mass-based.

FOUNDING of KATIPUNAN (KKK or KATAAS-TAASAN at KAGALANG-GALANGANG KATIPUNAN ng manga ANAK nang BAYAN) on JULY 07, 1892 (the evening of Rizal's deportation to Dapitan) in a house along ELCANO ST. & AZCARRAGA in present-day DIVISORIA; KATIPUNAN allegedly traces its origins up to the TONDO CONSPIRACY some THREE HUNDRED YEARS EARLIER; OBJECTIVE is FULL INDEPENDENCE & COMPLETE BREAK AWAY FROM SPAIN
NOTE VERY WELL: RIZAL was a REFORMIST, BONIFACIO was a REVOLUTIONARY

RIZAL NABBED while on the way to CUBA as volunteer doctor & INCARCERATED in FORT SANTIAGO; ACCUSED of INCITING SEDITION &/or FOMENTING REBELLION through his BOOKS NOLI ME TANGERE & EL FILIBUSTERISMO which primarily attack the Catholic FRIARs & not so much the SECULAR civilian or military administration

KATIPUNAN EXPOSED after PERSONAL SPAT between TEODORO PATINO & APOLINARIO DE LA CRUZ leads latter's sister to report to religious authorities. He CONFESSES to FR. MARIANO GIL about existence of cabal with KKK receipt printing paraphernalia & knife in DIARIO DE MANILA printing shop as evidence. Gil REPORTS to HIGHER AUTHORITES including the GUARDIA CIVIL & the GOVERNOR-GENERAL.

MANILA ALARMED, KATIPUNEROS HUNTED, Many Manilenos including some elite are taken in for questioning, imprisoned & even executed. Leaders decide to launch REVOLUTION. KATIPUNEROS tear their CEDULAs as EXPRESSION or SYMBOL of DEFIANCE. Full-blown FIGHTING, Start of 1896 PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION, the first by an ASIAN nation against a WESTERN COLONIAL POWER

Many SUSPECTED cabal-participants executed in BAGUMBAYAN including such personalities as DON FRANCISCO ROXAS, TEODORO PLATA, LUIS VILLAREAL, JOSE DIZON, DIONISIO VILLARUEL, even a few junior officers of the SPANISH ARMY

RIZAL EXECUTED in BAGUMBAYAN (LUNETA) on DECEMBER 30, 1896
Allegedly, as he falls, he makes a final effort to turn around & face the firing squad (consisting of natives!) to show his innocence
A HISTORIC BLUNDER by SPAIN [Like US BUSH ATTACK ON IRAQ]

SPAIN declares STATE OF WAR & MARTIAL LAW in EIGHT PROVINCES including MANILA - the SUN's EIGHT RAYS in THE PHILIPPINE FLAG. Various BATTLES, BONIFACIO'S MANILA-MORONG group face numerous defeats on the ground while AGUINALDO's CAVITENOS win through BETTER ORGANIZATION & aided by such talents as EDILBERTO EVANGELISTA, a BELGIAN-TRAINED ENGINEER who built reliable TRENCHES

TEJEROS CONVENTION
Internal POWER STRUGGLE among REVOLUTIONARY LEADERS threaten to SPLIT THE RANKS in the MIDDLE between the MAGDALO & the MAGDIWANG factions. First ELECTION CHEATING in Pilipinas on record.

BONIFACIO BROTHERS are NABBED, TRIED for TREASON, SENTENCED to DEATH & EXECUTED by AGUINALDO'S MEN particularly LAZARO MAKAPAGAL, AGAPITO BONZON (who allegedly raped BONIFACIO'S WIFE & KATIPUNAN LAKAMBINI, GREGORIA DE JESUS) & GEN. JOSE PAUA, the CHINESE General in the PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION.

AGUINALDO takes over both de facto & de jure LEADERSHIP of PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION; MABINI becomes SECRETARY OF WAR/FOREIGN MINISTER

INTERNATIONAL/GLOBAL SCENE: 1898 SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR
BATTLE OF MANILA BAY between U.S. NAVAL FORCE under Admiral GEORGE DEWEY & SPANISH NAVY under Admiral PATRICIO MONTOJO. SPANISH FLEET obliterated. BEGINNING of RISE of U.S.A to WORLD POWER STATUS

"FARCE SURRENDER OF MANILA" - to save face, Spanish troops surrender not to native Filipinos but to fellow whites, the Americans

TREATY OF PARIS 1898, SPAIN cedes/sells PILIPINAS (now ANGLICIZED to "PHILIPPINES"), including MOROLAND which it never conquered, to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for 20 MILLION U.S. DOLLARS [ORIGIN of MORO PROBLEM in MINDANAW - MOROs SOLD & BOUGHT BY TWO THIEVES!]

"FILIPINOS" CONTINUE TO FIGHT, this time against a new FOREIGN INVADING POWER, AMERICA, against which the MALOLOS CONGRESS FORMALLY DECLARED WAR [FILIPINO-AMERICAN WAR relatively-INVISIBLE as in UNEMPHASIZED or GLOSSED OVER in HISTORY BOOKS used or taught in PHILIPPINE primary & secondary schools]

Filipinos gradually DEFEATED by Americans through latter's superior organization & technology; Crumbling LEADERSHIP flees northwards

BATTLE OF TIRAD PASS where GREGORIO DEL PILAR, the youngest general & AGUINALDO'S REAR GUARD tasked to delay the enemy was KILLED-IN-ACTION thru alleged TREACHERY of a NATIVE who revealed a SECRET ROUTE to the Americans

AGUINALDO CAPTURED in PALANAN, ISABELA after a long chase/march
running through TARLAC, PANGASINAN, LA UNION, ABRA, BENGUET; CAPTORS relied on MACABEBE SCOUTS from PAMPANGA, a mixed NATIVE FILIPINO INDIO & HISPANIZED MEXICAN INDIAN MERCENARY FORCE, to penetrate through AGUINALDO's inner cordon. Aguinaldo swears ALLEGIANCE to America.

OVERALL COMMAND of WAR/RESISTANCE TAKEN OVER by GEN. MIGUEL MALVAR of BATANGAS who continues to resist until 1903 when FRANKLIN BELL adopts SCORCHED EARTH policy in his province forcing the former to surrender to stop further suffering & massacre of NATIVES.

Scattered ORIGINAL KATIPUNEROS under EMILIO JACINTO & others who refused to recognize AGUINALDO, including CARREON & SAKAY, who had retreated to MORONG (RIZAL PROVINCE today), continue ORGANIZED RESISTANCE against Americans.

MACARIO SAKAY CONTINUES TO DEFY AMERICANS & HEADS THE "REPUBLIKA NG KATAGALUGAN" with a few ORIGINAL KATIPUNEROS; Guerilla Warfare; "FIRST VIETNAM"; Skirmishes, raids, & ambushes continue for a few more years; Americans apply counter-insurgency ZONING to such areas as BATANGAS to contain SAKAY's forces; Similar resistance elsewhere

AMERICANS TRAP SAKAY, by using another FILIPINO, DOMINADOR GOMEZ, he was lured with FALSE PROMISES to go down from the mountains & enticed to attend a DINNER PARTY; SAKAY TRIED & EXECUTED UNJUSTLY as a TULISAN (a mere CRIMINAL & NOT a REBEL or POLITICAL FIGURE!)
(IMPORTANT LESSON: NEVER ATTEND A PARTY HOSTED BY YOUR ENEMY:)

AMERICAN-SPONSORED GOVERNMENT, Beginning of PHILIPPINE BODY POLITIC
& Governance, AMERICAN EDUCATION of "LITTLE BROWN BROTHERS"; PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY (Today's PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE!!) created by Americans to watch & police the natives. "P.I."

NACIONALISTA PARTY (NO CONNECTION to latter day NP) organized by some of the original LEADERS of the REVOLUTION including SAKAY associates CARREON, VILLAFUERTE, etc, FEDERALISTAs, P.K.P. etc

ELECTIONS: AGUINALDO is DEFEATED by QUEZON when the latter, exploiting the exhumation of alleged bones of the SUPREMO, revives the ISSUE concerning BONIFACIO's DEATH [EARLY DIRTY PHILIPPINE ELECTION TACTIX]

PHILIPPINE COMMONWEALTH GOVT. under MESTIZOs QUEZON (Tagalog) & OSMENA (Cebuano)

WORLD WAR II, ASIAN THEATER OF WAR: JAPAN INVADES SOUTHEAST ASIA
GEN. ARTEMIO RICARTE (nom-de-guerre: VIBORA), [An original MAGDIWANG KATIPUNERO & PHILIPPINE REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL who fought BOTH SPAIN & AMERICA, & who together with APOLINARIO MABINI & MARIANO LLANERA were exiled to GUAM; after persistently refusing to swear ALLEGIANCE to America ended up in HONGKONG, CHINA & YOKOHAMA, JAPAN] finally RETURNS HOME as a JAPANESE MILITARY OFFICER. He DIES in the mountains of BENGUET still RESISTING AMERICA up to the very end. He organized & headed the PRO-JAPANESE MAKAPILI.
[NO SURRENDER: Filipino Gen. RICARTE & Japanese Lt. HIROO ONODA of LUBANG ISLAND FAME]

RETREAT to BATAAN of USAFFE; MACARTHUR ESCAPES TO AUSTRALIA, QUEZON FOLLOWS & GOES TO U.S. where he dies of TB at SARANAC LAKE N.Y. in 1944. AMERICAN forces overall command taken over by GEN. JONATHAN WAINWRIGHT who surrenders & announces over Radio KZRH the capitulation & calls on all fighting units to give up.
[MNLF comment: PINOYS FOND OF CELEBRATING "FALL" of Bataan, "FALL" of Manila, WATERs FALL etcetc INSTEAD of "VICTORY" OVER etcetc]

JAPANESE OCCUPATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, GEACPS, KALIBAPI, JAPANESE ECONOMIX & MONEY, PUGO & TUGO(?:)

GUERRILLAS CONTINUE DEFYING JAPANESE; MARXIST-ORIENTED ANTI-JAPANESE, PRO-CHINESE HUKBALAHAP; SAKDALISTA, ETC

LITTLE BOY & FATMAN devastate HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI; JAPAN SURRENDERS UNCONDITIONALLY; WORLD WAR II ENDS

PRES. MANUEL ROXAS, GRANDFATHER of defeated 2010 VP CANDIDATE MAR ROXAS, DIES of HEART ATTACK in CLARK AIR FIELD HOSPITAL

PHILIPPINE ELECTIONS of 1948/1949 won by ELPIDIO QUIRINO, allegedly the MOST CORRUPT PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT [PERSONAL INFO myself]

RAMON MAGSAYSAY as DEFENSE SECRETARY captures the whole POLITBURO of LAVA-led PARTIDO KOMUNISTA NG PILIPINAS (PKP) in LIGHTNING RAID. Among those CAPTURED was an AMERICAN New Yorker, WILLIAM POMEROY

1957 PRES. MAGSAYSAY DIES IN CRASH IN MT. MANUNGGAL CEBU
His DC-3 airplane was named MT. PINATUBO after a mountain in his province; A journalist NESTOR MATA survives the crash.

SUCCESSION OF ELECTED PHILIPPINE-PRESIDENTS INCLUDING CARLOS P. GARCIA (Filipino-First Policy), DIOSDADO P. MACAPAGAL (Land Reform), FERDINAND E. MARCOS (This nation shall be great again.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*CONSULT OLD NEWSPAPERS DURING THIS PERIOD ESPECIALLY MANILA TIMES*
etcetc
HARRY STONEHILL CASE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
RUBY TOWER EARTHQUAKE
MAGGIE DE LA RIVA RAPE CASE
FORBES PARK BUTLER HOSTAGE-TAKING
PLAZA MIRANDA BOMBING of LP STALWARTS
JABIDAH MASSACRE
FOUNDING OF MNLF, CPP-NPA
U.P.'s FIRST QUARTER STORM
1972 DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW
NEW SOCIETY
"SA IKAUUNLAD NG BAYAN, BISIKLETA/DISIPLINA ANG KAILANGAN"
DAILY EXPRESS NEWSPAPER
KABATAAANG BARANGAY
etcetc
PATIKUL MASSACRE
etcetc
SNAP ELECTIONS Marcos-Tolentino
1986 PEOPLE POWER REVOLT against MARCOS, ACTUALLY a FAILED COUP initiated by a faction of the MILITARY particularly the RAM of junior-grade officers led by Lt. Col. GRINGO HONASAN, plus Defense Minister ENRILE in CAMP AGUINALDO & Chief of Staff RAMOS in CAMP CRAME, was defended by civilian MASS-SUPPORT of METRO PEOPLE called by MANILA ARCHBISHOP CARDINAL SIN via RADIO VERITAS; Successive turn-about by military personnel against MARCOS who flees MALACANANG. He dies in HAWAII.
etcetc
CORY AQUINO takes oath as president, opts for revolutionary gov't.
etcetc
CAMP CAWA-CAWA INCIDENT & RIZAL ALIH
etcetc
COUP D'ETAT vs. CORY AQUINO GOVERNMENT led by RAM-SFP-YOU
etcetc
FIDEL RAMOS elected as PRESIDENT; Allegedly massive cheating in ARMM to defeat MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, the alleged real winner
etcetc
GRP-MNLF FINAL PEACE AGREEMENT (Final DAW!)
BAGUIO EARTHQUAKE 1990
ERUPTION OF MT. PINATUBO 1991
CLOSURE OF US BASES AT SUBIC & CLARK
etcetc [CONSTRUCTION OF MALLS & NEW METRO RAILWAY SYSTEMS, "MEGA"]
EDSA 2 removes PRESIDENT-ELECT ERAP ESTRADA replaced by VP GMA, DIOSDADO's daughter
OAKWOOD MUTINY led by MAGDALO officers
HELLO GARCI, NBN-ZTE DEAL
etcetc
MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE
etcetc
2010 SEMI-AUTOMATED PHILIPPINE ELECTIONS
IT'S MIDNIGHT & I FEEL SOOOO SLEEPY HISTORY TEMPORARY ON HOLD
=======

*PLEASE CLICK ON IMAGE TO MAGNIFY*
N.B.:
Note the three prongs of historical development WITHIN what is now PILIPINAS. What VIETNAM experienced in the 1960'-70's & what IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN are just undergoing at present were experienced by PILIPINAS 100 years ago. The "Pilipinos" effectively struggled & fought against the de facto WORLD POWERS during that time: namely, SPAIN then followed by AMERICA. THEREFORE, any rising GLOBAL POWER today will have to deal with PILIPINAS & its always-defeated-&-dominated-but-never-really-completely-subjugated NATIVE inhabitants.

"HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE VICTORS."- ANON.

"MAN IS A POLITICAL BEING."- ARISTOTLE

"WAR IS DECEPTION."- SUN TZU

"ANG KASAYSAYAN AY DAPAT KATAKUTAN."- ORIANG de Jesus, KKK LAKAMBINI

"ANG HINDI LUMINGON SA PINANGGALINGAN
AY HINDI MAKARARATING SA PAROROONAN."
(One who does not look back to his origin
will not reach his destination.)

"ANONG GAGAWIN MO KAPAG MAY PULIS SA LIKURAN MO?"- TAKBO, The Youth

"SAAN KA MAN NAROROON... KAYTAGAL MO NANG NAWALA, BABALIK KA RIN... SA NAKALIPAS NA PANAHON, SA IYONG KAHAPON, SA ALA-ALANG NAGHIHINTAY SA 'YO"- BABALIK KA RIN, Gary Valenciano

"LOVE ME WITH ALL OF YOUR HEART..."- Engelbert Humperdinck OOOPS!!

The influence, if not actual involvement or participation, of FOREIGN ENTITIES, e.g., Muslim Fundamentalists/Islamists on the separatist BANGSAMORO struggle, possibly TAIWAN aboriginal nationalist groups on the CORDILLERA people's movement, foreign Marxists support of NPAs or militarists/fascists of right-wing putschists, etc is a POLITICAL REALITY that must be taken into account. In fact, there is a claim that any present-day "local" REVOLUTIONARY movement will need the support of a foreign SOVEREIGN power to succeed. Proxy-war between regional or bigger GLOBAL powers complicates matters. Historically, TONDO CONSPIRATORs sought the help of BRUNEI SULTAN, KATIPUNAN sought JAPANESE support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
***PAID ADVERTISEMENTS***
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WANTED DEAD NOT ALIVE
---------------------
NAME: DR. ANDREW D'CASTRIO BONIFACE, Doctor of REVOLUTION
ALIASES: "WITH HOPE", "SUPREMO"
SPECIALIZATION/: Political Surgical Operations, Underground Cabal EXPERTISE Organizing, Initiation of Social Upheaval, Revolt, Insurrection, Rebellion, Sedition, Coup d'etat
COVER: Selling CANES & HATS, PRINT AD-DESIGN, MESSENGER, WAREHOUSEMAN/STOREKEEPER
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT: The PNP (Partido Nuebe de Pebrero) is holding its plenary meeting tonight. All members are enjoined to participate. Top Agenda is the upcoming 2010 AUTOMATED SANIPILIP SELECTIONS (A.S.S.). Officials of the COMSELEC & technical representatives from GLOBEMATIC will be in attendance. Contact El Presidente for details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSING/ESCAPEE: The PUBLIC is hereby WARNED that the individual in the picture (see PHOTO), JOHN DOE BALL CROST, is an escaped patient of the Sanipilip N.M.H.; Missing since last year; Solitarily-confined in padded Cell 69, Ward 13 of Bldg 2, patient has long history of involvement in violent & bloody altercations. Likes to talk & argue about the PAST, public-oration, texting, blogging. Goes by many aliases such as "NO HOPE", Jose Lizard, Bonny Anderson, etc. Penchant for wearing red, curved jackets & 19th-century military uniform. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WHEN ARMED & PROVOKED. CASH REWARD shall be given to anyone who can provide INFO on his whereabouts. Please notify DR. VAN LOONY at CP#0918273645 or NOV. 9 INSTITUTION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S HOROSCOPE
by LING MI TAN-ONG ng Programang "I-tan-ong mo-kay Ling-Mi" Radyo DZZZ 1896 outside your radio dial
SABITARYUS: Huwag kang dadalo sa anumang kasayahan o pupunta sa matataong lugar. Mapanganib.
BEERGO: Iwasan ang makipag-argumento. Delikado.
KAPRECORN: Ito na ang hinihintay mong pagkakataon. Gawin at isakatuparan ang matagal mo nang pinaplano.
JIMMYNAY: Ngayon na ang iyong "one moment in time". Aksyon na.
ULCER: Madilim ang iyong gabi. Magdala ng plaslayt. Mag-ingat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TXT MSG & GREETINGS/MGA PAGBATI (FREE 2 ALL JEJEMARS):

Happy Anniversary kay Tito K. Tumawag po yng Pnuno nyo may meeting daw po kaU mamyang PM - Bin

4 JDB: 'Tol, dumating na yung PINYA at 9M/45 na PnaBli mo. +100 bilogs. Ang bigat nga eh. Daanan mo na lang. El Ticol

TNX 2 U Cool-Shack

Choy, Etxt @ isama mo C DALDAL sa miting para masaya, Ko-Aks

Toks, He-2 na nman ang opor2nidad 4U ma-praktis sa DEBATE Attend ka mmyang gabi sa grupo nmin Nvite & Sagot kita OK? Vice

Argo, Dalo ka mamya. Hehe Tyak GULO dahil tata-pun C Toktok- Mento

Prof matatawa k pag nakits m ang get-up ni chief. Namumulang kamatis! De-Boga pa! Parang Brit officer noong panahon ng US Civil War. Hahaha. Pero Tpong HAYBLAD. C U sa miting 2nayt! Doc

Pat, Tie tayo, Jan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WORD FOR TODAY: rumble
rumble - n. gangfight, free-for-all, confusion, panic, mayhem
Ex. Red Rum Rose is revved up, roaring, and ready to rumble tonight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TV/MOVIE SKED:

WATCH TONIGHT's PREMIERE of "AQUA OXIGENADA" ABC-DEF Channel 69

"JOSALKA: Ang JOSANG May KURBA"[re-issued "JOSALKA, DUMERECHO KAW!"]

"BRITIS LIIT" Starring Delma Santa (X-mayor ngayon govna sensadoka!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
===================================
ANO?! AUDIENCE KA LANG O SASALI KA?
HINDI ITO TV GAME SHOW, HA!
===================================
(n)Ninakaw kay Nosi Bayasi
SUPREMO ng KKK (KiKilitiin Kita)

POST 0002

2010-06-30T13:34:00.000-07:00

Hulyo 01, 2010

LYRICS OF PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ANTHEM IN TAGALOG & ENGLISH

LUPANG HINIRANG (1950's & later)
---------------
Bayang Magiliw
Perlas ng Silanganan,
Alab ng puso
Sa dibdib mo'y buhay.

Lupang hinirang,
Duyan ka ng magiting;
Sa manlulupig,
Di ka pasisiil.

Sa dagat at bundok,
Sa simoy at sa langit mong bughaw
May dilag ang tula at awit
Sa paglayang minamahal.

Ang kislap ng watawat mo'y
Tagumpay na nagniningning
Ang bituin at away niya
Kailan pa ma'y di magdidilim.

Lupa ng Araw ng luwalhati't pagsinta,
Buhay ay langit sa piling mo,
Aming ligaya na pag may mang-aapi,
Ang mamatay ng dahil sa 'yo.

PHILIPPINE HYMN (AMERICAN OCCUPATION OR REGIME)
---------------
Land of the morning
Child of the sun returning
With fervor burning
Thee do our souls adore

Land dear & holy
Cradle of noble heroes
Ne'er shall invaders
Trample thy sacred shores

Ever within thy skies & through thy clouds
And o'er thy hills & seas
Do we behold the radiance,
feel the throb,
Of glorious liberty.

Thy banner dear to all our hearts
Its sun & stars alight,
Oh, never shall its shining field
Be dimmed by tyrant's might!

Beautiful land of love,
O land of light,
In thine embrace 'tis rapture to lie
But it is glory ever,
When thou art wronged,
For us, thy sons to suffer & die.

PROVIDED FREE & EASY TO THE GENERAL READING PUBLIC WORLDWIDE (WEB)
by: NAKS

POST 0001

2010-06-29T18:57:00.000-07:00

June 30, 2010 Gregorian Calendar
Sanipilip

WELCOME TO MY BLOG
TULOY PO KAYO SA AKING BLOG

========================
http://ki-kilitiin-kita.blogspot.com
========================

Dapat ay lalagyan ko na ito ng una kong artikulo na may titulong "SANIPILIP" subali't kulangna ang oras ko... Kulang na rin ang pera ko... Baka aku maglakad pauwi nito. Mga 3 kilometro lang naman ang layo sa bahay namin. :D

NOSI BAYASI