Reflections on the Bangsa Moro

Microhistory: the tool for the Filipino quests for Identity and Peace

 Part 7

©Datu Jamal Ashley Abbas

MORO VIS-A-VIS FILIPINO IDENTITY

            FILM: BAGONG BUWAN  (2001)

Direction: Marilou Diaz-Abaya

Screenplay: Marilou Diaz-Abaya, Ricky Lee, Jun Lana

Actors: Cesar Montano, Caridad Sanchez, Amy Austria

Producer: STAR Cinema

SYNOPSIS: Ahmad is a Moro medical doctor who is forced to return to village because of the death of his child as a result of an attack by militiamen. Continued attacks by the military forced Ahmad and his family to evacuate to the house of their leader Datu Ali. The threat of a military attack on Datu Ali’s village forced Ahmad’s family to flee again, leaving Datu Ali to defend his house alone. Ahmad’s family proceeds to go to his brother’s place. His brother is an MILF commander. Encounter between Ahmad’s brother’s group and the military ensues. Ahmad, while trying to save a boy, is caught in the crossfire.

This film would be an interesting text for social historians, sociologists, anthropologists, ethnologists, etc. This could be also a great starting point for a microhistorian who would like to know more about the Mindanao problem, especially its historical roots and relation to present political circumstances. It is the first time a film questions conventional Philippine nationalist discourse. Contrary to dominant discourse, this film portrays the Bangsa Moro (Moro nation) as a nation, an historical people distinct from the majority – the “Christian Filipino nation”– and justifiably seeking self-determination.

The film starts with a narration, which was also written on the screen, that says: “Sa loob ng maraming siglo, naging mailap ang kapayapaan sa pagitan ng mga Kristiyano at Muslim. Sa Pilipinas, kung saan nakakarami at namamayani ang mga Kristiyano, matagal ng ipinaglalaban ng mga Muslim ang karapatang itaguyod ang kanilang natatanging kultura at pamahalaan ang kanilang sarili.” (For centuries, peace between Muslims and Christians has been elusive. In the Philippines, where the Christians outnumber and rules over the Muslims, the Muslims have long been fighting for their right to exercise their unique culture and self-determination.)

From the very start, the film tells the viewers unequivocally that this is a story about the Muslims’ (Moros’) fight to preserve their culture and regain self-determination.

The film challenges the Filipino ‘theory of reality’ as portrayed in Memories of a Forgotten War and other films like Muslim Magnum .357, another film produced and directed by Poe, Jr. Bagong Buwan portrays the clash of two cultures and two nations which go against the dominant nationalist discourse that there is only one nation and one culture in the Philippines.

But of course at least one major character has to air the government’s nationalistic refrain. The young lieutenant says: “Lahat ho tayo Pilipino, iisa ang ating watawat, iisa ang ating kinabukasan kaya magtulungan tayo, magkaisa tayo sa kapayapaan. Para ho ito sa ikauunlad ng bayan.” (We are all Filipinos. We have but one flag, one future thus we have to help one another, to unite for peace. This is for the progress of our nation.)

But this time, the Moro protagonists reject this argument. The young rebel, Rashid, insists that he is a Moro and not a Filipino. The elders like Datu Ali and Bai Farida, conforms to Moro customs and traditions and are very suspicious of Filipinos (as represented by the military). The lead protagonist, Ahmad, even ends up killing Filipino soldiers.

The microhistorian can study how effective has the government been with regards to the Moros in using the concept of nationalism to maintain hegemony.

Another common postcolonial discourse is the westernization of the Filipinos. Prof. Joel David (1998) noted that “no other Asian country has put up less resistance to the influx of Western culture than the Philippines did…”(p.82) This film as well as Perlas ng Silangan  proves that this could not be true of the Muslims in the Philippines. But in most Philippine discourses, the non-Christian groups like the Bangsa Moro are either ignored or denied. The Filipinos were fond of saying, for example, that the Philippines is the only Christian nation in Asia. The recent independence of East Timor has put a stop to this Filipino refrain.

The audience reception of the film would also be of interest to a microhistorian. For example, columnist Cu-Unjieng (2001), writes:

“It’s a gutsy move to persist and make this film a Metro Manila Film Festival entry in these times…the film has Muslims as all its main protagonists and takes an unflinching Moro / Muslim point of view. Then, this point of view is used searingly to debunk a lot of the preconceptions and vague generalities that may abound about the conflict in Mindanao…this Muslim POV is not one that a lot of people may be very sympathetic to right now.” (emphasis added)

The film irked the top brass in the military, too. The Defense Secretary, Gen. Angelo Reyes, was “dismayed” because the film “might further stoke the fires of conflict in Mindanao”. (Phil. Daily Inquirer, 30 Dec 2001)

And yet many rather liked the film as evidenced by its box office sales.

As to the socio-cultural determinants of the industry, it would be interesting to analyze why Bagong Buwan lost to an evidently inferior film, Yamashita, for the Metro Manila Festival’s Best Picture Awards despite having been given the rare distinction of an “A” rating by the Film Ratings Board.

And of course, the film highlights the crucial role of history in the Mindanao conflict. In the film’s “preamble”, it declares (or the character Fatima narrates): “Sa kasaysayan nakatala ang kanilang pakikibaka laban sa pangangamkam ng Espanya, Estados Unidos at Hapon sa lupain ng kanilang mga ninuno…”. (History is a witness in their struggle against the greedy annexation of Spain, the U.S. and Japan of the land of their ancestors…) The characters and scenes refer to historical antecedents every so often.

MICROHISTORY, SOCIETY AND CINEMA

Nation and history are both constructed, the latter to serve as the memory of the former. But with the information technology revolution, individuals are now bombarded with so much information that a myriad questions come up which the once cohesive History could not answer. Using knowledge from all disciplines, thinkers began studying society from another perspective – from below, from everyday life, and beyond the history of grand events. And so microhistory was born.

Studying the discourse of those who were left out by history can put these absent sectors back into center stage. If European history had left out the common people of Europe, the so-called Philippine history had left out the Filipinos – Moros, indios / naturales and the other indigenous peoples (Igorots, Aetas, Manobos, etc.). Microhistory can thus help create a history of the Filipino peoples (with an s).

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

Films contain all sorts of social and cultural imagination. As a source of research, a film can be a map to guide and focus (within its borders) studies on the formation and evolution of a nation’s or a society’s cultural identity from a non-traditional perspective.

Oudart (1977) introduced the concept of suture. In film theory, this refers basically to the idea that the audience is “stitched” or sutured into the fabric of the filmic text. Even excluding Lacanian psychoanalytic discourse on the effects of films on the audience’s psyche, it can be concluded that films are powerful tools in shaping an audience’s Weltanschauung.

Metz (1982) and other film theorists say that the cinema inclines the spectators to identify with the images. If true, then the film Bagong Buwan will indeed revolutionize the Christian spectators’ consciousness. If the Christian Filipinos can, even for just the duration of the film, put themselves in the Moro characters’ shoes, then perhaps there will be hope for peace in Mindanao.

As Dudley (2000) wrote; “In order to have access to the plenitude that is the basis for identity, the subject must give up something of its own in order to be ‘hooked up’ with the Other, the visual field…”(p.168) The average Christian Filipino would have to give up, even for a moment, centuries of collective memory of anti-Moro/Muslim indoctrination, while being bombarded with shifting positions in order for him/her to obtain coherent meaning.

But theories are only theories. Philip Co-Unjieng, in the same article mentioned above, wrote: “It will not be that facile a matter to have people identify and sympathize with the main characters of this film.”

CONCLUSION

History is a construct. History is used as the “memory” of another socially and culturally constructed concept, the nation. But what is constructed can be re-constructed. For the Filipino nation to find his its Identity and be at peace with the Moros, it is high time that it’s “memory” be re-investigated. Philippine history does not need re-construction. It merely needs re-discovery. And the best approach to historical re-discovery is called microhistory. It is done in small scale, and does not need millions of pesos for research.  It can be done in any discipline and can use various sources – even films.

(end)

PART 1           PART 2           PART 3           PART 4           PART 5           PART 6

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbas, Datu Jamal Ashley (2000) A Peek at History: Mindanao and the Spice Islands

The Philippine Post, March 11, 2000 

_____________________ (2000) Milestones in Moro Historiography The Philippine

Post , April 1, 2000

Ahmed, Akbar (1992) Postmodernism and Islam: predicament and Promise 

Routledge:London

Anderson, Benedict (1993 first published 1983) : Imagined Communities: Reflections on

the Origin and Spread of Nationalism London:Verso

________________(1994) Hard to Imagine: A Puzzle in the History of Philippine

Nationalism from Cultures and Texts by Petrierra, Raul and Eduardo Ugarte, eds.  Quezon City: UP Press

Andrew, Dudley (1984) Concepts in Film Theory, London: Oxford University Press

Appel, Henrik   A Microhistorical Perspective

http://www.hum.ku.dk/histnet/publikationer/arbejdspapirer3/appel.html

Barker, Martin (1989) The Lost World of Stereotypes from Comics: Ideology, Power and

the Critics Manchester: Manchester University Press

Babha, Homi K. The Other Question: The Stereotype and Colonial Discourse, Screen

26.6 (Nov-Dec 1983): 18-36

Cabagnot, Ed Delos Santos Paano Ba Talaga Manood ng Pelikulang Pilipino?

                                    MEGA Magazine, 1994
Che Man, W.K.   Muslim Separatism: The Moros of Southern Philippines and the Malays

                                    of Southern Thailand, Quezon City: AdM U Press, 1990
Cohen, Warren I. Reflections on Orientalism: Edward Said, Roger Bresnahan, Surjit

Dulai, Edward Graham, and Donald Lammers. East Lansing: Asian Studies Center – Michigan State University 1983

Cu-Unjieng, Philip (2001) Film Review: Bagong Buwan: An exercise in courageous

filmmaking (The Philippine Star, 22 Dec.)

David, Joel (1998) Wages of Cinema: Film in Philippine Perspective, Q. C.: UP Press

Elsky, Martin (2000) Microhistory and Cultural Geography: Ben Jonson’s "To Sir Robert

Wroth" and the Absorption of Local Community in the Commonwealth Renaissance Quarterly, Summer 2000 v53 i2 p500 

Fanon, Frantz, (1967, first published 1961) The Wretched of the Earth 

Suffolk: Chaucer Press

Feliciano, Gloria and Crispulo Icban, Jr. (1967) (eds) , Philippine Mass Media in

Perspective, Capitol Publishing House: QC

Hill, John and Pamela Church Gibson (2000) eds., Film Studies Critical Approaches,

London: Oxford University Press

Huntington, Samuel (1993) The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs v.72,no.3,

Ileto, Reynaldo C.(1979) Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines

1840-1910, Ateneo de Manila University Press: QC

Klare, Michael and Peter Kornbluh, (1988) eds. Low Intensity Warfare New York:

Pantheon Books

Kogler, Hans Georg, (1996) The Power of Dialogue: Critical Hermeneutics after

Gadamer and  Foucault, trans. by Paul Hendrickson,

Massachussets: MIT Press

Krippendorf, Klaus (1989) The Power Of Communication And The Communication Of           

Power: Toward An Ethical Theory Of Communication The Annenberg School of Communication University of Pennsylvania        

Laarhoven, Ruurdje (1989) The Triumph of Moro Diplomacy : The Maguindanao

Sultanate in the 17th Century Quezon City: New Day Publishers

Littlejohn, Stephen (1999) Theories of Human Communication, 6th ed Albuquerque:

Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1999

Majul, Cesar Adib (1973) Muslims in the Philippines (Quezon City: UP Press)

Maslog, Crispin (1990) A Manual on Peace Reporting in Mindanao

Manila: Phil. Press Institute

Metz, Christian (1971) Film Language: A Semiotics of Cinema , trans. Michael Taylor

New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Mongia, P. (ed) (1996) Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A Reader  London: Arnold

Muir, Edward (1991) Introduction: Observing Trifles, in Edward Muir and Guido

Ruggiero, eds., Microhistory And The Lost Peoples Of Europe Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

Univ. Press, pp.vii-xxviii

Mundo, Clodualdo del (1998) Native Resistance: Philippine Cinema and Colonialism

1898-1941 Manila: De La Salle University Press

Noone, Martin J.,  SSC (1986) The Discovery and Conquest of the Philippines, 1521-

1581 Manila: Historical Conservation Society, p. 362

Pareja, Lena (1994) Cultural Center of the Philippines Encyclopedia of Philippine Art,

V-VIII Manila:CCP Press

Perkins, Tessa (1979) Rethinking Stereotypes from A. Kuhn and J. Wolff (eds) Ideology

and Cultural Production, Croom Helm:British Sociological Association

Robinson, James Harvey (1912) The New History , New York

Rouvier, Gaston (1899) The War in the Philippines (1896-1898) in The War in the

Philippines: As Reported by Two French Journalists translated by E. Aguilar Cruz (1994), Manila:National Historical Institute

Said, Edaward (1978) Orientalism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul)

Sicam, Edmund (2001), Marilou Diaz-Abaya on the making of ‘Bagong Buwan’,

(Philippine Daily Inquirer, Dec.22)

Tan, Samuel (1973), The Muslim Armed Struggle in the Philippines, 1900-1941

                                     (PhD dissertation, Graduate School of Syracuse Univ, NY)

Thomas. R. (1971) Muslim But Filipino, The Integration of Philippine Muslims 1917-

 1946, (PhD dissertation, Univ. of Pennsylvania )

Below is the 6^th installment of my paper Microhistory: the tool for the Filipino quests for Identity and Peace. With the current Christian Filipino uproar against the MILF and Moros in general, perhaps it would be wise to sit back and analyze why the Muslim (Moros) and Christian (Indios) natives of this country feel so different from each other.

Realizing and accepting such difference could lead to a better understanding of each other. This is better than the Indios’ (who now call themselves Filipinos) insistence that the Moros should share their enthusiasm of being Filipino.

The Moros have their identities as belonging to the Maranao nation or Tausug nation or Maguindanao nation, etc. since the 16^th century. But the Moro Young Turks of the late 60s/early 70s (Abbas, Jr., Misuari, Salamat, etc.) constructed the Moro Nation (Bangsa Moro).

On the other hand, the Indios have lost their Malay culture while their elites (the ilustrados and principalia) have been busy constructing the Filipino identity which are patterned after Western (Spanish and American) values.

Microhistory: the tool for the Filipino quests for Identity and Peace

 Part 6

©Datu Jamal Ashley Abbas

MORO AND FILIPINO IDENTITY VIS-A-VIS AMERICA

FILM: MEMORIES OF A FORGOTTEN WAR

GENRE: DOCUMENTARY

FILMMAKERS: GRIGGERS and DALENA

SYNOPSIS:

The narrator looks through some old photographs of some old photo album. Her grandfather was an American while her grandmother was Filipina. They met in the Philippine Islands in a war that nobody remembers anymore. The narrator then tells the story of this war – a war between the giant America and the pygmy Philippines. It shows scenes of rustic beauty, still photographs of a fin de siecle Manila as well as Filipinos and Americans of the time. It then features a local Christian wedding and the massacre of the people in that wedding. Finally, it shows a local Moro wedding and the massacre of the people in that wedding. Both massacres were done by the Americans.

The short film Memories of a Forgotten War purports to remember the Philippine-American War. The filmmakers lament the fact that this war is now practically forgotten by the present generation of Americans, including Filipino-Americans.

The film gave no new insight into the war. In fact, it merely puppets the dominant (or ‘hegemonic’) codes and readings of the war – the strong white man (the US) coming to Philippine shores and destroying the country. The bride (representing the Philippines), was not even raped, she was just killed – condescension of the American soldier (America) was absolute. And the Filipinos, mostly represented by women, went headlong to their deaths at the hands of the white men like mindless zombies.

While the films LapuLapu and Perlas dealt with the Spanish vis-à-vis the Indios and the Moros respectively, this one deals with the US vis-à-vis the Indios and Moros. A mocrohistorian working on the theme of Filipino Identity can mine so much information from this film if it interweaves it with actual historical facts, political economy of the production, audience reception, etc. 

The filmmakers are Ms. Griggers, an American whose grandmother was a Filipina and Ms. Dalena, a Filipina who used to teach at the UP College of Mass Communication. Ms. Griggers said during an open forum after the film showing at the University of the Philippines Film Center that in order to have an accurate democracy, one must have an accurate history. A microhistorian might probe deeper into her beliefs and her historical knowledge and correlate it with the fact that her film is full of historical inaccuracies.

The film supports and perpetuates the traditional (American, American-trained elite) historical reading of the Philippine-American war as not a “real” war but merely a rebellion or an insurrection. Prof. Bien Lumbera had to comment in the same forum that there was substantial resistance from the Philippine Army to merit the appellation war. He said that he is even doing a stage play about some of the Philippine triumphs of that war.

McKinley’s ‘Manifest Destiny’ and the US government’s annexation were premised on the assertion that the Filipinos were uncivilized and therefore could not govern themselves. To support this assertion, the imperialists brought to the States Aetas and other G-stringed Philippine natives.

The film seems to support this assertion by showing G-stringed Igorots. A General Abaya, supposedly a Philippine-American War hero was portrayed as an Igorot.

The film remakes history according to the biases of the filmmaker (Ms. Griggers), whose grandfather sired but refused to acknowledge Filipinos. Unfortunately, the prejudices of the grandfather passed on to the granddaughter; although, the latter is more patronizing.

The narrator mentions something like the Filipinos owned their lands and other resources only to be taken away by the American conquerors. This is absolutely false. The Spanish took the lands and resources away some 300 years previously. The Filipinos regained these lands only to be taken away treacherously by the Americans. In one film sequence, the filmmakers erased the glorious Filipino Revolution against Spain. It thus supports the Spanish contention that the Filipino Revolution was nothing but a “conspiracy”. The film insists that America bought the Philippines for 20 million dollars from Spain, Filipino revolution notwithstanding.

The makers of this supposedly documentary film also decried the actuality films done by Edison Company depicting the Philippine-American War.

Americans called these newsreels “actuality films”, a cross between documentary and drama (more like fantasy).[1] “Advance of Kansas Volunteers at Caloocan” and “US Troops and Red Cross in the Trenches before Caloocan” were produced on 5 June 1899 depicting the 20th Kansas Volunteers annihilation of some 17000 inhabitants of Caloocan.

It is quite common for Filipino film critics (Roland Tolentino, for example) to blame these US actuality films for multifarious sins in their post-colonial film discourses.

Perhaps a microhistorian researching this project could have a definitive conclusion whether these films, done in late 1890s, really have an effect on the minds of people 100 years or so later. Could these films be the reason why Filipinos of today (like Ms. Dalena) still do not have a high opinion of Aguinaldo’s army?

With respect to the Moros, the dominant codes and readings is that Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan have always been one with Luzon and Visayas. The Spaniards have always insisted the same, even though the historical facts said otherwise.

The Memories of a Forgotten War speaks of the Philippine-American War of 1898. Officially, it ended in 1902. The Moros were never a part of the Malolos Republic nor of the Philippine Republican Army. The Moros were therefore never a part of the Philippine-American War. There was of course, another war which could be properly called the Moro-American War.

The short film’s last segment was about the Massacre of Bud Dajo. The film correctly narrated that it was an old crater, but it was depicted as if it were an ordinary village where even datus lived and celebrated occasions like weddings.[2]

First, the US made a treaty (ratified by the US President) with the Sultan of Sulu, thus proving that Sulu was not part of the Philippines, which the US obtained through the Treaty of Paris. Second, technically speaking, it could not be part of the Philippine-American War because the Philippine Army, be they of Aguinaldo or Malvar or even of Sakay were not involved. In fact, even the Sultan and datus of Sulu were not part of that event. It was an American police action (much like the one in Afghanistan and probably in the near future against the Abu Sayyaf in Mindanao) that had terrible consequences.

The film also tried to impress the people that the American press only portrayed the good side of the Americans. The rather active anti-imperialist lobby led by people like Mark Twain was deemed non-existent.

The Bud Dajo episode showed that many Americans were against imperialism, especially against unequal wars. General Wood was replaced as Governor of the Moro Province in the same year, which brought relative peace in Mindanao until the coming of another bloodthirsty governor. Wood was, however, made Governor-General of the Philippines in 1921 until his death in 1927.

It would be interesting to note that while there was some indignation in America about the Bud Dajo massacre, not a pipsqueak was heard from Filipinos in Luzon and Visayas or from their leaders, Quezon and Osmena, who claimed to represent the interests of the Moros in Mindanao, which they claimed was part and parcel of the territory known as the Philippines.

A microhistorian might conclude that this documentary is as much anti-Filipino as it is anti-American. It is certainly historically inaccurate although the filmmakers believe otherwise. A so-called documentary that can dismiss the Philippine Revolution against Spain as practically non-existent and the Philippine-American war as analogous to a fight between an armed soldier and a helpless bride and still be highly praised by most Filipinos certainly can tell much about Filipino identity or lack of it.

Microhistory: the tool for the Filipino quests for Identity and Peace

 Part 5

©Datu Jamal Ashley Abbas

MORO IDENTITY as SEEN BY CHRISTIAN FILIPINOS

FILM: PERLAS NG SILANGAN (Pearl of the Orient)

Producer: FPJ

Director: Pablo Santiago

Cast: Fernando Poe, Jr., Susan Roces, Vic Vargas

SYNOPSIS

Ahmed, a captive of the Spanish, escaped during one of the so-called “expeditions” to Sulu. The waves brought him to the shores of his hometown. He was recognized as the lost son of a datu killed in an attack by a rival datu. He has a birthmark and he is a mestizo (half-Moro and half-Spanish). He is welcomed by the community. He falls in love with the Sultan’s niece and heiress. But he had to fight for the hand of the princess through a contest of strength and wit with another rival. He wins the contest.

The rival datu, with all his male followers decide to commit juramentado. They go the mosque, shave off their heads and tie knots all over their bodies including their testicles. They then attack Ahmed and the Sultan’s place. The juramentados  were defeated. Ahmed and the princess are married. With the ceremony still going on, the Spaniards attack. A fight ensues. When the Moros are about to retreat, the Spaniards calls a halt to the fighting and lay down the arms. The  Moros do the the same. Then a Voice Over say: Ang mga dayuhan ay isinikap na ipaunawa na ang tunay nilang layunin ay palaganapin ang Kristiyanismo at kabihasnan sa mapayapang paraan. Kung sila’y nabigo o nagtagumpay ay kasayasayan lamang ang makapagpatunay. (The foreigners tried to impress (on the Moros) that their true purpose is to spread Christianity and civilization in a peaceful manner. Whether they failed or succeeded, only history can tell.)

The movie was produced in the late 1960s with the husband and wife superstar team of Fernando Poe, Jr. and Susan Roces. Just a few years previous, both starred in another film about Moros, Zamboanga, a re-make of a film starred by Poe, Jr.’s late father, Fernando Poe. At about the same time as Perlas, another film Mindanaw was made, which starred another top action star, Bernard Belleza, among others.

The late 60s was a tumultuous time all over the world – the civil rights movement in the US, the Paris riots, the student riots in Thailand, the hippie anti-Establishment movement, the protest against US intervention in Vietnam, the sexual revolution in the Western world. The Moros were becoming vocal and critical of government moves. The Moro demonstration in protest of Moshe Dayan’s visit to Manila turned violent, with the students burning a car in front of the Israeli embassy. By the end of the decade, the Muslim Independence Movement (MIM) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) were organized.

After 20 years of sharing the same Republic (the Moros were not part of Aguinaldo’s Republic except in the imagination of Christian Filipinos), the Christians (aside from those who went to Mindanao as homesteaders and workers), were finally getting curious about their fellow citizens. The film Perlas ng Silangan reflects the Christian Filipinos knowledge about the Moros.

Unlike the film Lapu-Lapu, this had no pretension of being historically accurate. The story was set in 1618, almost a hundred years after the Magellan–Lapu-Lapu historic encounter. At that time, the Sulu Sultan was Sultan Muwallil Wasit known to the Spanish as Rajah Bongsu, who ruled Sulu from 1610 to 1650. His daughters married Qudarat, Sultan of Maguindanao and Baratamay, Rajah of Buayan.

The so-called Moro Wars began in 1565 and ended in 1898. From 1599 to 1604, Moro raids against Spanish territories netted the Moros an average of 800 captives a year. (Majul, p.135) Rajah Bongsu was related to the Sultan of Borneo and had an alliance with the Dutch. In 1616, when a Dutch squadron came to attack Manila, Bongsu and his men attacked the Spanish shipyard in Pantao, Camarines burning 3 unfinished ships including a galleon. They then proceeded to attack the Cavite shipyards and captured some Spaniards.(Majul, p. 138) In 1627, Rajah Bongsu with 2000 men attacked the new Spanish shipyards in Camarines. One of the captives was a Spanish lady, Doña Lucia, who became a favorite of the Sultan.[1] A letter was left behind for the Spanish Governor-General saying that the attack was in retaliation for the maltreatment and robbery of the Sultan’s ambassador Datu Ache by the Spaniards three years earlier. (Majul, p.141)

The above is historical fact. The film Perlas…is historical fiction. While Muslim and foreign historians know and write about these facts, Filipino historians seem to prefer the version of Perlas ng Silangan. The film’s setting is supposedly Sulu. [2] This Sulu is almost like Rajah Humabon’s Cebu in the film Lapu Lapu. While the actual Sulu in the second decade of the 17^th century included the Sulu archipelago, Zamboanga and Basilan, the film shows a mere village or two as the realm of the Sultan. (Later, the Sultanate added Sabah and Palawan) While the historical Sultan, Rajah Bongsu was closely coordinating with his relative, the Sultan of Brunei, as well as the Moluccan sultanates, and the Maguindanao and Buayan sultanates, the film’s sultan was old and dying and concerned only with the fate of his beautiful niece. The actual Sultan allied himself with the Dutch and coordinated with other Malay sultanates in attacking Spanish territories in Luzon and Visayas.

In the film, Ahmed’s rival, Datu Kiram, boasted that he had just repulsed a Spanish force in a neighboring island, and that nobody else in the realm could match his feat. On the other hand, the historical datus during that time, like Datu Ache, had successfully raided several Spanish territories in the archipelago as well as the native Camucones in Borneo. Rajah Bongsu himself led Moro raids to the Visayas and Luzon, including destroying the shipyards in Camarines and Cavite. The fictional character’s exploits are nothing compared to the exploits of the actual datus in Sulu during that era.

Datu Kiram, the villain of the film[3] and his warriors became juramentados because the datu lost in his bid for the princess’s hand. Unknown to practically all 20^th century Christian Filipinos, the practice of juramentado was instituted only in the last half of the 19^th century when the people felt that the Sultan could not anymore continue the fight against the Spaniards. Hence, the individual Moro warriors had to take matters into their own hands. They were encouraged in this endeavor by the panditas or religious men.[4]

A microhistorian can make the film as a starting ground for microhistorical research. He can research Sulu history during that period – ca. 1618 and compare it to the film, as done in a simple manner above. He can then study the historical accounts of Sulu in that period as found in schoolbooks or any published materials. He can then discover the discrepancy and ask himself why.

He can then focus on the determinants of the film. He can interview the producers, director, cast and crew on their experience in making the film in the late 1960s.

Then he can correlate that with the present—more than 30 years later. He can ask the very cast and crew of the film if their idea or knowledge of the Moros had changed. He can do some surveys and FGD’s on the perception of the film by today’s viewers. (The film was re-released in the late 1990’s and a VCD version was produced in 2003.)

With a little sleuthing, the microhistorian would discover that the Moros protested some scenes in the movie. Scenes of the mummified Sultan and the juramentados – two of the most important scenes in the movie – were greatly shortened.[5]

In the film, the lead actress and some actors were made up to appear darker. The Moros were supposed to be dark. The lead character, Ahmed, was made to be a son of a datu and a Spanish lady so as to explain his fair complexion.

In the 1990s, the same actor who played Ahmed, Fernando Poe, Jr., starred in another “Moro” film. But this time, he was a Moro pureblood. After 30 years, the Christians have realized that the Moros were not all dark. They have a fair share of fair-skinned people, too.

A microhistorian who would weave his investigations on the Sulu history ca. 1618, the historical accounts of Filipino and foreign historians, the film, the political economy surrounding its production, audience reception during its two releases (late 1960s and late 1990s), and perception of Moros by Christian Filipinos of the late 60s and today can come up with very interesting findings that would be useful in understanding Moro-Christian Filipino conflict and which could even help resolve this conflict.

PART 1           PART 2           PART 3           PART 4                    PART 6

Microhistory: the tool for the Filipino quests for Identity and Peace

Part 4

MICROHISTORY and FILM

Elsky (2000) analyzed Ben Jonson’s poem “To Sir Robert Wroth” in order to better understand “the Absorption of Local Community in the Commonwealth” in 16^th/17^th century England. A microhistorical study of the Wroths and their shire before the poem was written was done. His study concluded “that humanist education did not create a national identity that superseded regional identity, as has often been claimed, but that national and regional identities were interwoven in those who attended humanist educational institutions.”

Films, too, can be sources for microhistory. Aside from film’s aesthetic qualities, cultural studies have indicated one more reason to study films, i.e., to study a society’s way of life and value systems as revealed through the medium of film.

Graeme Turner (1993) says that “implicit in every culture is a ‘theory of reality’ which motivates its ordering of that reality into good and bad, right and wrong, them and us, and so on.”(p.133) The belief system produced by this ‘theory of reality’ is called ideology. Film is such a great medium for bringing ideology to the masses that Lenin described it as the greatest of the arts.

Films are supposed to indicate trends within popular culture (Easy Rider or Trainspotting), or are seen as “documentary evidence of movements within social history, or even as a reflection of the dominant values and culture. Turner has a wider view of the cinema. For him, films, :"like any other medium of representation, constructs and ‘re-presents’ its pictures of reality by way of codes, convention, myths and ideologies of its culture as well as by way of specific signifying practices of the medium." (p.131)

Films can be studied textually or contextually. A film or groups of films (or a genre) are usually studied as a text and the researcher unearths cultural information from the text(s). Or, films can be studied contextually by including the cultural, political, industrial and institutional determinants of the national film industry.

Ideology and history are both social constructs. Turner says, “Ideology works to obscure the process of history so that it appears natural, a process we cannot control and which it seems churlish to question.”(p. 134). For the Marxists and structuralists, film, a pre-existing structure, is an ideological state apparatus (ISA).  It hails and interpellates the subject (audience). (Althusser 1984). The post-structuralists, on the other hand, admit that the subject is constituted but add that it is also constituting, i.e., the spectator is both an effect and agent of the text. How well-informed the audience is thus becomes a factor.

The “nation-state” project began in the 19^th century in Europe and became in earnest all over the world after the two world wars. The dominant elites subscribe fully to this project and the film industry participates in the construction of the “nation”. (Turner). Hegemony by the elite is maintained primarily through the media, including films. Turner defines hegemony as:

the process by which members of society are persuaded to acquiesce in their own subordination, to abdicate cultural leadership in favor of sets of interests which are represented as identical, but may actually be antithetical, to their own. The subordinated are persuaded by the ideologies on offer rather than the particulars of their material conditions (which might be the practical result of such ideologies). Hegemony’s aim is to resist social change and maintain the status quo. (p.136)

For anyone interested in questions of national identity, films can prove to be rich sites of discourse.  Microhistorians can analyze films both textually and contextually to discover the socio-poltico-cultural information they contain.

Microhistorical approach using films may give answers to the Filipino psyche and the Filipino quest for Identity and Peace.

MICROHISTORY AND FILMS – PHILIPPINE SETTING

SOME STARTING POINTS FOR MICROHISTORICAL RESEARCH

ON THE QUESTION OF IDENTITY

FILM:  LAPU-LAPU (2003)

Producers: Calinauan Cineworks / Seeds of Zion Films / Clasic Films

Director: William G. Mayo

Cast: Lito Lapid, Joyce Jimenez, Vic Vargas

SYNOPSIS OF THE FILM

 

Raha Humabon is the chief of Cebu while Raha Lapu-Lapu is the chief of Mactan, a little island off Cebu. Humabon wants to conquer Mactan so he could give it to his vassal Datu Zula. Humabon and Zula, with their followers, attack Cebu but are repulsed. Zula hatches a plot – to order his men to harass, kill and rape the people of Mactan.

 

Magellan with his giant ship arrives in Cebu. Humabon welcomes him. Humabon and his wife embrace Christianity while Magellan claims Cebu for the Spanish King (Carlos I). Humabon asks Magellan’s help in subduing Lapu-Lapu. Magellan, despite the protests of his colleagues, leads an attack on Mactan. Lapu-Lapu kills Magellan and the foreigners leave. Lapu-Lapu gains the admiration of Humabon but not of Zula. Zula and his men surreptitiously attack Lapu-Lapu while he is hunting game (wild boar). Lapu-Lapu is killed while being ignominiously tortured.

 

This film was one of the entries to the 2002 Metro Manila Film Festival. This was touted as a film with the biggest budget in the filmfest. The Director was interviewed on TV where he said he was quite happy about the historical research done by him and other members of the team.

HISTORICAL INACCURACIES

According to Mario Bautista in his Malaya column (1/06/03) “the script has been approved as authentic by the National Historical Institute.” However, he could not help but add, “ But they obviously took a lot of liberties in telling the story, so we’re not sure where artistic license ends and real history begins.”

It is difficult to imagine what the National Historical Institute means by historically authentic. Perhaps the dates were correct as well as some of the names of the protagonists. But that is as far as I would go.

This film could have been a great vehicle for present-day Filipinos to celebrate their Identity as a people who dare fight for Freedom.  Lapu-Lapu, a warrior-leader who defeated Ferdinand Magellan, a Portuguese who sailed under the Spanish flag. At that time, Portugal and Spain had just divided the world between them, as if they rule the world. Lapu-Lapu could have been portrayed as the first Filipino freedom fighter, unafraid of Westerners and their modern weapons. The story of Lapu-Lapu and Magellan should be a source of pride for the Filipino. The film could have showcased the Filipino’s finest culture. Instead, it was another case of Filipino-bashing.

The Filipinos represented in the film were savages interested only in their petty quarrels. Humabon and Zula were obsessed with ruling Lapu-Lapu’s Mactan. Rape and murder were normal practices. With the coming of the Spaniards, the viewers could only sigh with relief and hope that the Europeans could put some order in the natives’ madness.

The Spaniards were shown to be gentle and wise. Magellan’s companions were even against fighting Lapu-Lapu. The audience could not even savor the victory of Lapu-Lapu over the Spanish because almost immediately Lapu-Lapu was tortured and killed by his fellow Indios.

Is there any historical truth in the movies’ narrative?  Probably none.

If the filmmakers just limited themselves to historical documents – the most important of which was Pigafetta’s eyewitness account, they could have made a great movie that would make Filipinos proud of having a non-Western Identity.

A better filmmaker would have shown an Eastern principality living in peace and harmony until the Europeans came, with all their arrogance and self-importance. The film could have presented Humabon’s conversion to Christianity as mere political expedience or even diplomatic savvy. And Lapu-Lapu would have represented the Easterner’s refusal to bow down to foreigners and determination to fight to the last drop of blood for the sake of freedom. (In the film, Humabon and Zula, both natives, were even worse than the foreigners.)  according to Pigafetta’s eyewitness account, when Lapu-Lapu proved victorious against the foreigners, (Humabon’s men did not join the fight, a great diplomatic move) Humabon realized that the Europeans were just ordinary men and so he had them invited to a farewell feast and massacred them. These would be historically accurate and would be a great boost for the Filipinos’ search for Identity.

The film supports the dominant discourse that the Filipinos will never be united because they never were. As former President Ramos averred, the Philippines was just a confusion of barangays before the coming of the Spaniards. The dominant discourse would have Filipinos believe that without “Mother Spain” and “Mother America”, the Filipinos would still be living in the Stone Age. It is interesting to note that Rajah Humabon was represented as wearing some sort of grass skirt or G-string. His contemporary rajahs and sultans in Mindanao, Brunei and Manila wore silk trousers, shirts and robes. Is it really difficult for Christian Filipinos to believe that before the Spanish came, their forefathers were already wearing pants and silk robes?[1] Or is it the elites (who believe that their forefathers were Spanish) who perpetuate such ideas about pre-Spanish natives?

Why was the film not done the way it should be done? This is where the microhistorian can come and analyze the text and context and to probe deeper into historical reasons. A film entitled Lapu-Lapu was also made in the 1950s. It starred matinee idol Mario Montenegro. But there is no copy available. A microhistorian could include the production of that film (script, interview of cast, crew and producers, news clippings, etc.), if not the film itself, in his research.

MASSACRE OF MAGELLAN’S MEN

Why is the massacre of the Europeans (Spanish and Portuguese) not included in the film? In fact, why is that quite important episode not mentioned in history textbooks?

Very few Filipinos know that Humabon had some 26 of Magellan’s companions, including the new Captain-General, Duarte Barbossa, killed. Lapu-Lapu and his men only killed 9, including Magellan. Why is there a “news blackout” of this historical event?

The answer is obvious. The Spanish and their colonial minded lackeys would never promote such publicity. Humabon and his wife are known as the first Filipino (Indio) Christian king and queen named after no less than the Spanish king and queen. Humabon’s later action proved that he was never a Christian in the real sense of the word.

In one Filipino website, the death of Magellan’s companions were explained thus:

Disputes over women caused relations between Raja Humabon and the remaining Spaniards to deteriorate. The Cebuanos killed 27[2] Spaniards in a skirmish and the Spaniards, deciding to resume their explorations, departed Cebu.[3]

           

 

In the New Millennium and in the Information Age, withholding or corrupting a seemingly harmless bit of historical information, almost 500 years old, is quite amazing. It would be a fertile ground for microhistorians to dig for the whys and wherefores.

LAPU-LAPU’S RANK OR TITLE

Filipino historians seem to prefer to deal with ambiguities than dig for the truth. Is Lapu-Lapu a rajah or not? In the film, Lapu-Lapu was a rajah. Rajah is Sanskrit for King. Rajahs are kings. Humabon was the Rajah of Cebu. Mactan is a small island but still a part of Cebu. There cannot be a Rajah of Mactan because Mactan was a territory of Cebu. Besides, Datu Zula was also a leader of Mactan, coequal with Lapu-Lapu.  A mere datu cannot be the equal of a rajah and there can only be one rajah in a territory. More importantly, Pigafetta used the title el rey (King) only for Humabon and not for Lapu-Lapu.

So what is Lapu-Lapu’s rank or title? In the Philippine Declaration of Independence, Lapu-Lapu was mentioned as Cali Pulacu. Cali is derived from the Arabic Qadi, which means judge or religious leader. Today, the rank and title of Cali is still used in Moro societies. Pigafetta himself spelled Lapu-Lapu’s name as Cilalulapu. Filipino historians pass this off as a minor mistake. They claim that Pigafetta must have heard people say Si Lapu-Lapu  and thought that Si was part of the name. But would it be possible that Pigafetta actually intended to write Cali but got the vowels mixed – a simple typographical error? This would be again a good starting point for a microhistorian.

Some historians claim to know even the names of the parents of Lapu-Lapu and Humabon.[4] Knowing the rank and title of Lapu-Lapu should be easier to discover.

LAPU-LAPU’S RELIGION

Lapu-Lapu exemplifies the Moros’ stubborn fight against Western colonialism. In fact, Many Moros believe that Lapu-Lapu was a Moro. And some Christians have an uneasy feeling that Lapu-Lapu might turn out to be a Moro.

First, the Moros were everywhere in the Indo-Malay archipelago during that time. Pigafetta even mentioned that their group met and held hostage the king (rajah) of Manila and his son/nephew when they (Magellan and company) passed by Borneo.

Second, the rank/title of Cali is a Moro word for judge, usually a man learned in Islam. Third, when Legazpi arrived in Cebu, the people of Mactan refused to pay homage to him, just as the generation before them did. (Noone: 1986) This means that Mactan’s resistance to Magellan was not due solely to an individual (Lapu-Lapu) but to something else (perhaps religion as in the case of the Moros).

Fourth, at about the same time, historical papers in Kawayan (Leyte) indicate a Capitan Basio who fled Mactan because of harassment from the Spanish and the Moros (Historical Data Paper for the Town of Kawayan, in Historical Data Papers - Leyte [Vol. V]). This puts the Moros right in Mactan.

THE GLOBETROTTING SLAVE

The case of Enrique, Magellan’s slave, can also be an issue. In the film, the character identified himself as Enrique de (from) Malacca, native of Sumatra. Yet he was also the lover of Lapu-Lapu’s sister. He was therefore not a stranger to Mactan (yet for some reason, he was a stranger to Cebu and Humabon’s people.) Are the filmmakers trying to support the assertion made by some Filipinos that Enrique was a Cebuano?

Before the Filipinos’ hopes go up, the basis for this hypothesis was the fact that in Pigafetta’s book, Enrique used some Cebuano words. Anybody who knows a bit of Malay and a bit of Cebuano will notice immediately similar words. For instance, bulan is the word for moon in both languages. In fact, there are numerous words in Tagalog, Maranao, Maguindanao, TauSug, etc. that can be found in the Malay language.

To argue that Enrique was Cebuano because he was able speak to Humabon would be futile. Pigafetta wrote that Enrique could only speak to the rulers and traders. He noted that in his experience, practically all rulers in the Malay-Indonesian archipelago spoke several languages. It is historically documented that Malay was the ligua franca in practically all Indo-Malay royal courts. In Mindanao, Malay was the court language from the 15^th to the 19^thcenturies. Pigafetta also described Enrique as Moro, i.e., Muslim Malay.

But what is the reason for the recent insistence on Enrique? Does the Filipino prefer to be known as the globetrotting slave of Magellan rather than his slayer and perhaps the first freedom fighter of the Malay race? A globetrotting slave would indeed be a great icon for the nation of Domestic Helpers and Contract Workers. Is this another tactic of the elites (former Education Secretary Alejandro Roces is a strong supporter of the “Enrique was Cebuano” claim) to instill in the minds of the people that it is better to be a slave than a freedom fighter?

A microhistorian can mine gems by analyzing the film Lapu-Lapu as a text, within the context of socio-political and historical determinants of the film industry and the society as a whole, and its relationship with historical facts. And it can give clues or even answers to the Filipino search for Identity.

The whole event surrounding Magellan and Lapu-Lapu is crucial to the Filipino’s sense of identity. Do they want to continue to thank God for Magellan’s “discovery” of the Philippines and consequently, the laughing stock of the non-Western world? Or would they prefer to be the first defender of Indo-Malay values against Western encroachment? Would they continue basking at the reflected glory of the Spanish empire or hail Lapu-Lapu and Rajah Humabon, whose roots trace back to the glory of the Sri Vijaya empire? Do they want to insist on claiming Enrique, the globetrotting slave thus courting the disdain of the Muslim Malays who consider Enrique as their own?

FILIPINO AMBIVALENCE

The film Lapu-Lapu reflected the ambivalence of the Filipino attitude. It showed the fierce independence of Lapu-Lapu but it also showed the pettiness and even savagery of the indios. Magellan and his colleagues were treated with respect. Enrique was made to introduce himself as from Malacca and native of Sumatra but at the same time a long-time lover or suitor of Lapu-Lapu’s sister.

Such ambivalence (or is it confusion?) is exemplified by a congressional bill that seeks to declare March 16 as Magellan Day to commemorate the “discovery” of the Philippines, and April 27 as Lapu-Lapu Day to celebrate Filipino resistance against invasion.

How the Christian Filipino perceives Lapu-Lapu and Magellan has a big effect on the Moro-Christian Filipino conflict in Mindanao. Magellan is seen as the bringer of Christianity to the Islands. Filipino identification with Magellan is inimical to his relation with the Moros, recognized as staunch defenders of their faith and homeland.

But Christian identification with Lapu-Lapu might make them realize that an Easterner can stand up to a Westerner and even overcome him. They might start to actually pull the Westerners off their pedestals. They will be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with foreigners. [5]

And from Lapu-Lapu, they can proceed to identify with another freedom fighter in Philippine history, Rajah Suleiman (Raha Soliman), the last King of Manila. Suleiman was a Muslim. [6]

And from Suleiman, the Christian Filipinos might be able to have some understanding of how the Moros feel and think then and now.

 

 

PART  1

PART  2

PART  3

PART 4

PART 5

---

[1] In the play Lorenzo Ruiz, a Spanish officer complemented Ruiz on his wearing trousers instead of the usual Chinese dress, “O ngayon, mukhang tao ka na!” (Now, you look like a human being!). The Western-style trousers were supposed to represent civilization.  The Filipino playwright did not realize that the Chinese were already wearing trousers when European men were still wearing skirts and gowns.

[2]  Actually only 26. Enrique, Magellan’s slave was not killed according to Pigafetta but his name was listed in the official (Spanish government) list of those who died in Cebu.

[3] http://www.barkada.de/docs/spanish_era.html

[4] According to Gonzales, Baltazar in his book De Los Delitos (Madrid: 1800) Datu Mangal, was the father of Lapu-Lapu, while Humabon was the son of Bantug Lumay, son of Sri Batugong.