POST 0012

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

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

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

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?