June 8, 2009
In my post The Bangsa Moro is an International Concern, a reader, DATUAN SOLAIMAN PANOLIMBA (datuan.panolimba@yahoo.com) wrote a rather long "comment". Because of its length, I am instead publishing it in this post.
=================================
ARMED STRUGGLE OF THE BANGSAMORO MUSLIMS IN THE PHILIPPINES:
Written by: DATUAN SOLAIMAN PANOLIMBA-
North Cotabato, Philippines
Bismillaher Rahmaner Raheem. Asalamo Alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuho.
The Bangsamoro Muslims of Mindanao and its islands have fought the longest and bloodiest struggle in the entire history of mankind in the world which extends to about four hundred eighty seven (487) years already up to this writing. First, the Bangsamoro people fought, without let up, against the Spanish colonial power for 377 years from 1521 to 1898. Second, they fought a bloody war against the American imperialist from 1898 up to 1946.And third, they are still fighting against the Philippine neo-colonial power from 1946 up to the present.
In fact the present JIHAD FIY SABILILLAH waged by the Bangsamoro people is a continuation of the struggle which had been fought by their ancestors and forebears demanding for freedom and independence. The 487-year war which has been fought by the Bangsamoro is replete with historical facts.
“But what is surprising is despite of the long period of war being fought for; the Bangsamoro people are still engaged in a war for freedom and independence. The struggle which has been fought by the Bangsamoro in four hundred eighty seven years (487) had extensively covered by the Muslim historians and authors in their books such as Dr. Cesar Adib Majul in his “Muslims in the Philippines, 1973, Manila, Philippines, ” Dr. Alunan C. Glang in “Muslim Secession or Integration, 1969, Quezon City, Philippines, ” and Salah Jubair in “Bangsamoro: A Nation Under Endless Tyranny, 1997, Lahore, Pakistan.”
THE FIRST MORO WAR:
After securing the friendship with Rajah Humabon of Cebu, Ferdinand Magellan, who led the Spanish colonial adventure in the Far East, invaded the small kingdom of Mactan in 1521. The island was then ruled by Rajah Lapu-Lapu who did not want to be a friend of foreign colonizer.
It can be noted, therefore, that Visayas before was believed under the influence if not one of the principalities controlled by the Moro Sultanate of Sulu or Maguindanao at that early period of time. See Map of Moro Sultanate, principalities and areas in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao at the time of the arrival of Spaniards in 1521. (Source: London Library and Museum). Unfortunately, Magellan died in action on April 27, 1521 that drove the Spaniards back to the West and by such incident, they had narrated their fiasco under the hands of the native inhabitants.
Thus, Lapu_Lapu stood as the first native chieftain who fought against foreign attempt to colonize the Moro homeland.
The Spanish dream had yet started so that in 1522, with Captain Sebastian Del Cano at the head of the Spanish survivors, Spain became the first circumnavigator of the globe as declared.
SPAIN’S AGGRESSION:
Crown Prince Felipe, known as King Philip II of Spain, directed Captain Miguel Lopez de Legaspi, the viceroy of Mexico, to go to the Philippine island and to make it a permanent Spanish colony. He landed at Cebu where he had established the first Spanish settlement in 1565. In 1569, he proceeded to Panay where a second Spanish settlement was created.
After quelling some minor resistances staged by the native inhabitants, he sent Captain Martin de Goiti to Luzon, particularly in Manila where a well-fortified Moro principality was located. It was ruled by Rajah Solaiman and assisted by Rajah Matanda. Tondo then was ruled by Rajah Lakandula. Records has showed that these Manila chieftains where of Bornean origin. In fact, their relationship with the Sultan of Borneo was categorized as very closed to each other.
Rajah Solaiman who led the fight for freedom and independence, declared to the foreign aggressors the following words: ” WE WISH TO BE THEN FRIENDS OF ALL NATIONS. BUT THEY MUST UNDERSTAND THAT WE CANNOT TOLERATE ANY ABUSE. ON THE CONTRARY, WE WILL REPAY WITH DEATH THE LEAST THING THAT TOUCHES OUR HONOR.”Unfortunately, on June 3, 1571, Rajah Solaiman perished at the historic Battle of Bangkusay, a place off the coast of Tondo, but he left with a patriotic landmark in his defense of freedom and independence of the country. The next to fall, despite of a fierce defense by the native inhabitants, was the Muslim principality of Mindoro in 1574.
Then came the short-lived Magat Salamat Uprising in 1587. Emerging victorious over the pockets of resistance were the Spanish conquistadors. So that within a span of 11years, they were able to overlord the territory of Luzon and Visayas. Legaspi, who was appointed as the first Governor-General, had made Manila as the seat of Spanish colony in Luzon and Visayas, which was collectively called as “Filipinas” or “Philippine Islands” eventually.
“Salah Jubair succinctly wrote “it is necessary to clarify, contrary to popular perception, two important points in history: Firstly, the first group of people whom the Spaniards in 1570 called “Moros” were those in Manila and environs and not the Islamized natives in Mindanao and Sulu and secondly, the first Moro-Spanish War was not fought in Mindanao and Sulu but right in what is Metropolitan Manila.
“THE MORO-SPANISH WAR:
The 377 year of Moro-Spanish War represents an uninterrupted bloody war which had been fought by the Moros against the Spaniard’s attempt to subjugate them as a people. At first, the Spaniards thought that Borneo was more of a threat to the Manila colony than the Muslims of Mindanao and Sulu. So they invaded Borneo in 1578. However, after their Bornean expedition, the Spaniards had turned their eyes on the Moros in the South, particularly, Sulu which they were suspecting of having an alliance with the Borneans.
The Spanish colony towards the Moros was basically spelled out in the instructions of Governor-General Francisco de Sande to Captain Esteban Rodriguez de Figueroa in May of 1578. Figueroa was officially commissioned to subdue the Moro Sultanate of Mindanao and Sulu.
It was clear then from the instructions given to him, Spain sought to achieve two things with respect to the Moros of Mindanao namely: 1. Get them to acknowledge Spanish sovereignty over their territory. 2. Promote trade with them, limiting their trade to the Philippine islands and exploring natural resources of Moro land with a view to their commercial exploitations. 3. Bring an end to Moro “piracy” against Spanish shipping, and an end to Moro raids on the Christianized settlements of the Visayas and Southern Luzon. 4. Hispanize and Christianize the Moros, along the same lines followed with respect to other lowland Filipino (Indio) groups.
According to Dr Peter G. Gowing, the last line Spanish policy was the reason if not the root of the Moro’s fierce resistance to the Spaniards and their Christianized Filipino allies. Capt. Figueroa was instructed to order the Moro chief not to admit any more “preachers of the doctrine of Mahomet since it is evil and false, and that of the Christianity alone is good.” Ad-dressing himself to the “Lord of Mindanao, ” the instruction includes: “You shall tell him that our object is that he be converted to Christianity and that he must allow us freely to preach the law of the Christians, and the natives must be allowed to go and hear the preaching and to be converted, without receiving any harm from the chiefs.
“Furthermore, Figueroa was instructed to ascertain who the preachers of Islam were so that they can be arrested and brought them before the Governor-general. He was also commanded to destroy any Masjeed he founded “where that accursed doctrine has been preached and you shall order that it be not be rebuilt. “As he was instructed to meet force with force and to punish the Moros as he deemed best “taking special care not to trust them…..,” the Moros responded to such designs with violence and warfare. In 1596, during the initial Spanish campaign in Buhayan (Buayan) in the heart of Mindanao, Figueroa met his disastrous defeat.
The erstwhile Spanish conquistador suffered death at the hands of the Moro warriors led by Datu Ubal (Mangubal in Moro tradition). The initial Spanish campaign in Mindanao had ignited and caused the series of bloody encounters between the Moros and the Spaniards, in which,it was carried up to the coming of the Americans in 1899.
MORO WARS:
In retaliation to the Spanish cruelty, the Moros had carried out the war to the Spanish settlements in Luzon and Visayas. In 1599 led by Datu Sirongan and Datu Salikula of Mindanao, the Moros raided the northern islands and return home with rich war booty including several captives. The Moro actions had created fear and anxiety among the Spanish and Filipino settlements in Luzon and Visayas.
In succeeding years, the Moro buccaneers harassed Spanish shipping, and so were dubbed “pirates”. But to the Moros they believed they were fighting a war in defense of freedom and independence. Thus, Sultan Kudarat I, after his ascension to power to the Sultanate of Mindanao in 1619, declared a Jihad against Spain whom he had emboldened more than ever the Moros to fight for home, country and Islam. Their expeditions carried Jihad to the coasts of Visayas and Luzon.
From then on, the Moro war vessels periodically raided, killed and plunders Spanish settlements. Thus, it was dubbed really a bloody war. The Spaniards counter move was seen in their series of punitive expeditions against the Moros. The expeditions were made up of Spanish-led Christian Filipino forces. Which eventually, the Spaniards had succeeded to establish forts in Moro homeland, however, their colonies were only confined inside their fortified garrisons. They failed to subdue the Moros who were periodically attacking their forts.
From the 18th up to the 19th centuries of Spanish successive engagement in the “Moro Wars”, it was never followed by effective and permanent occupation of the Bangsamoro ancestral homeland. The American historian Dr. Najeeb Saleeby rightly observed that “the Moros fought for home and country, for freedom to pursue their religion and way of life, and for liberty to rove the seas whichever they would.” For over 300years, they had made a shamble of Spain’s Moro policy.
Even with the importation of Spanish war vessels in the middle of the 19th century did not stop the Moro raids of Spanish and Filipino settlements of Visayas and Luzon. Despite of being guerilla fighters, the Moro exacted a heavy toll of casualties, however, when entrenched in their ‘cota’ (fort) they simply could not be rooted out.
When situation demanded they would have readily killed their wounded and gave no quarter to the Spanish and Christian Filipino enemy. They fought ferociously, and their usual tactic was to wear down the attackers, obliging them eventually to withdraw. At the close of the 19th century, the Spanish colonial power in Luzon and Visayas was threatened by the Filipino Revolution of 1896 and the coming of the American colonial power in 1898.
Subsequently, the Treaty of Paris was concluded on December 10, 1898 between the United States of America and Spain wherein the latter had ceded to the Americans her former colony in Mexico, Honolulu and the Philippine Islands with the amount of $20 million. With this treaty, the Spaniards abandoned their colony in the north by virtue of the Treaty of Paris. So that the Moros of the south remained a free and independent people. Thus, they were not subjugated by their conquistadors.
AMERICAN AGGRESSION:
The Bangsamoro people of Mindanao were already enjoying freedom and independence when the Filipinos declared a revolution against Spain in 1896. When the Americans arrived in the Philippine islands in 1898, the Philippine Revolution was already in progress in Luzon and Visayas. The so called “Spanish-American war” was also nearing its end.
For instance, Commodore George Dewey, commanding the American naval flotilla, defeated the Spanish Pacific Squadron during “Battle of Manila Bay” on May 1, 1898. Subsequently, the United States of America assumed the authority in the Philippine Islands by virtue of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. But the Filipinos, who declared the independence of the First Philippine Republic on June 1, 1898, had to fight a new imperialist power.
Maverick as it was, the Americans sought the forging of the Bates-Kiram Agreement on August 20, 1899 with a view to neutralizing the Moros of the south while they were still engaging the forces of President Emilio Aguinaldo in the north.
After three years of Filipino-American war, the Americans were able to crush the Philippine revolution and declared a general amnesty in 1902. The Americans, after having a unilateral abrogation of the Bates-Kiram Agreement, had now turn their eyes to the Moros of Mindanao.
In May 1899, the first US Army contingent landed in Jolo, Sulu. The US troops had also occupied Zamboanga on November 16 and followed the Cotabato areas in December. This began the American occupation of Mindanao which ended in May 1920 when the Department of Mindanao and Sulu was abolished as a government unit.
MORO-AMERICAN WAR:
For all practical reasons, the American occupation of the Moro land was a direct affront to the freedom and independence of the Moros. The lesson from the Spanish policy of subjugation was still fresh in the minds and hearts of the Moros. With the Americans, the Moros have had similar views, as a threat, and a change of colonial master which had the same intention with that of their predecessor, that is, to subjugate them as a people.
Thus trouble had erupted as early as May 1899. But this time, the next generation of Moros took the cudgel. Soon various confrontations flared up in Mindanao and Sulu. This led J. Ralston Hayden, an American writer, to note that “never during the entire continental expansion of the United States had armed encounters been as frequent and serious as that between the Moros and American troops.”
The Moros’ determination to defend their religion and country had prompted the American colonizers to comment that “THE ONLY GOOD MORO IS A DEAD MORO.” Record has showed that there were at least 20,000 Moros who were killed in action from 1899 to 1916. From 1904 to 1906 alone, the Moros suffered about 3,000 killed as against 70 Americans.
Large-scale engagements were recorded between the American troops and the Moro warriors in several parts of Mindanao and Sulu from 1902 to 1935. The most serious were those staged by Panglima Hassan, Datu Ali, Datu Ampuan
Agaus and Jikiri.
Shortly after the establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth Government on November 15, 1935 with Manuel L. Quezon as the first President, the Moros had viewed it as the transfer of colonial government to a new master. It could be noted, therefore, that Mindanao and Sulu were forcefully annexed to the Commonwealth government. Again, the Moros rose in arms in defense of their freedom and independence.
The most serious armed rebellion that took place in Mindanao was happened in June 1936. It was spearheaded by Hadji Abdulhamid Bungabong of Unayan, Lanao del Sur and lasted for several years. The Moros fought gallantry and heroically in a series of wars called “COTA WARS”. The grievances were contained in a petition letter sent to the President of the United States of America. The issues presented were:
-
Moros had become second class citizens.
-
The Moro Province be segregated once independence is given to the Filipinos.
-
Acquisition of lands in the Moro Province be reserved for the Moros.
-
Islam must not be curtailed in any manner.
The uprising lasted until the dawning of the Japanese interregnums in 1941. The Moros were once again caught in the crossfire between two colonial masters. But now between the Americans and the Japanese which saw its peak from 1942 to 1945.
PARLIAMENTARY STRUGGLE:
In 1946 it saw the final annexation of the Moro land to the new Philippine Republic. Historians, in the likes of Salah Jubair, have succinctly observed that “The U.S. colonial government and the succeeding Filipino neo - colonial power have utterly failed to stamp out Moro resistance. But they have succeeded in rendering the Moro traditional power structure effete and almost obsolete.”
“The main casualties were the sultans and datus, whose authority had been squelched to the extent, that they had become mere symbols of the past and mute relics of history,” he pointed out. “The sultan-people direct dealing, ” he continued “has been almost severed and , to get rid of the evils of dual rule, meaning sultan and government ruling simultaneously, the Commonwealth government directed all state-installed officials in 1936 to take over the roles so far exercised by the sultans and datus.”
Elaborating that the disintegration of the traditional socio-political order and the ever-tightening imposition of the secular-materialistic concept of life bequeathed by the Americans, Salah Jubair said that it has created an extensively difficult situation for the Moros. Consequently, those who were won over to the American side, freely or under duress, were the ones who with their pens, slogans and orations adopted and pursued the parliamentary or unarmed way of struggle.
These crops of Moro intellectuals asked the United States government to separate the Moro Province, either as colony or as independent state. Singly or in chorus, they unanimously refused to join the Filipinos in their demand for independence. It was true that they did not succeed, neither did they achieve anything of consequence in terms of the real liberation of the Moros-that obviously, was already fore doomed from the start.
But there is no gain slaying the fact that they did their best in their own way. Yet, on the other hand, by following the unarmed way of struggle, they were deeply entangled into the Americans cobweb and continued to become subservient to the whims and caprices of the new colonial masters.
Failing to achieve their aspiration to be free and independent during the American colonial days, the Moro parliamentary struggle dragged to the post-war Philippine administrations. Couple with some isolated disturbances, armed clashes between Moro warriors and government troops were reported in various parts of Mindanao.
The off-and-on armed skirmishes continued to plague the countryside in open defiance of government authorities. Whatever it may said about the post-war pocket uprisings in Mindanao and Sulu, it could be attributed to the fact that the Moros have never abandoned their desire to be free and independent from the clutches of neo-colonialism in their sacred and ancestral homeland. Nurtured by socio-cultural discrimination, the most known of these uprisings were those led by Kamlon Hajji, Abdulmajid Panondiongan, Tawantawan and Hadjal Uh. It took billions of pesos from the national coffers in quelling these insurrections.
Such that amid cries of national neglect and apathy, Congressman Ombra Amilbangsa of Sulu Province had gone to extent of sponsoring a bill in Philippine Congress in 1961 which sought to declare the independence of the Province of Sulu from the Philippine Republic. The Moro solon was disgusted by the chronic ills and inequities prevalent in the Philippine society where the Moros were the direct victims. His bill did not merit the attention of his colleagues in Congress and his move was simply dismissed as a “drama” or “attention-calling.”
MORO STRUGGLE CONTINUED:
In 1968, the then Governor Datu Udtog Matalam of the empire Cotabato Province created the Mindanao Independence Movement (MIM) seeking the separation of Mindanao, Sulu, Basilan, Tawitawi and Palawan from the Republic of the Philippines and to establish an Islamic State in the sacred and ancestral homeland of the Bangsamoro people. But the dream and aspiration of the grand old man of Cotabato failed.
Finally in 1972, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and its military wings, the Bangsamoro Army led by Prof. Nur Misuari went public declaring armed struggle as its principal instrument in the formation of a Bangsamoro Republik encompassing Mindanao, Sulu, Basilan, Tawitawi and Palawan. It sought to liberate Moro people and homeland from Philippine colonialism.
The reverberating sounds of the firearms and mortars of the Bangsamoro Revolution
led by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) pressured the Philippine government under the then dictator President Ferdinand Marcos to entered into an agreement with the MNLF leadership in December 23, 1976. The agreement was known as “Tripoli Agreement of 1976.” It sought to establish an autonomous government for Muslims in South of the Philippines under its sovereignty and territorial integrity. But Pres. Marcos grossly violated the letter and spirit of the entire agreement.
When President Corazon (Cory) Aquino catapulted to the Philippine presidency in 1986 because of the Peoples Power Revolution against Pres. Marcos, she created the Autonomous Region Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), but still failed to finally solved the Bangsamoro problem in Mindanao and its islands.
Until in 1992, when President Fidel V. Ramos became president of the Philippines after President Cory Aquino, his government negotiated with the MNLF leadership which resulted to the creation of Southern Philippine Council for Peace and Development (SPCPD) on September 2, 1996. But still the Bangsamoro dream of freedom and independence became more obscure. It was because of the fact that all agreements entered by and between the MNLF and GRP are only a showpiece of the Philippine government in order to smokescreen the oppression, colonization, exploitation and extermination of the Bangsamoro people. This regional set-up of government is nothing but an adjunct of the Filipino colonial government. It is being used by the Philippine government to further fortify the Filipino colonialism over the Bangsamoro people and their ancestral homeland.
So that when the MNLF leadership compromised the liberty and independence of the Bangsamoro people in December 1976, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), chaired by the late Ameril Mujahideen Ustadz Salamat Hashim went public assuming and leading the JIHAD FEY SABILILLAH of the Bangsamoro people for final liberation, freedom and independence, nsALLAH SUBHANAHO WA’TAALA.
Late Ustadz Salamat Hashim, then Ameril Mujahideen and Chairman, Central Committee of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) said and we quote, “Any solution less than full independence of the Bangsamoro people will not work. Past experiences since the be-
ginning of the annexation of the Bangsamoro homeland to the Philippines in 1935, have proven that the Bangsamoro Muslims could not live a normal life under a corrupt and secular government and that the two nations, the Bangsamoros and the Filipinos, could not get along with each other because of their distinct religions, customs and traditions. It will be for the best interests of the Bangsamoros and the Filipinos if both are free” and quote.
Wasalamu Alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuho.
August 28, 2008
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 )
August 27, 2008
Below is the 6th 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 16th century. But the Moro Young Turks of the late 60s/early 70s (Abbas, Jr., Misuari, Salamat, etc.) constructed the concept of 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.
Both groups are still searching for the identity best suited for the modern times. But while the Moros are happy to have different identities, the Indios want to impose their amorphous identity on the Moros and other indigenous peoples of the archipelago.
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.
PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5
August 19, 2008
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 17th 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 20th century Christian Filipinos, the practice of juramentado was instituted only in the last half of the 19th 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.
It would be interesting how a microhistorian, who would have finished all the research mentioned above, would interpret the voice-over at the end of the film. The last sentence of the voice-over is: “Whether they (the Spaniards) succeeded (in propagating Christianity and civilization in Sulu) or not, only history can tell.” The film was set in 1618. After some 350 years, (the film was produced in the late 1960s), why could history not yet tell whether the Spanish had succeeded or not? Does this mean that the Spanish, through their successors, the Christian Filipinos, are still propagating Christianity and (Western) civilization in Sulu?
PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 6
August 18, 2008
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 16th/17th 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 19th 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
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 15th to the 19thcenturies. 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
[5] In my own experience, I have seen Christian Filipinos, including high government officials, get tongue-tied and intimidated by foreigners. In a graduate class in economics, I asked our professor, a former Secretary of Finance, if his Harvard education helped him in his negotiations with World Bank / IMF officials. He said that it helped him not to be intimidated by the Westerners. But how many Filipinos can afford a Harvard education?
August 16, 2008
Microhistory: the tool for the Filipino quests for Identity and Peace
PART 2
QUEST FOR PEACE
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND – MOROLAND
One-Nation One-History Syndrome
The Sultanates of Sulu and Maguindanao were established ca. 1400’s. According to “official” Philippine history, the Philippines (Luzon, Visayas, Palawan and Mindanao) was discovered by Fernando Magallanes in 1521. However, historical accounts say that Mindanao and Palawan were already known to the rest of the world way before that time. Even Francisco Serrao, Magellan’s relative and the man who reputedly encouraged him to go the Spice Islands, was shipwrecked in Mindanao on his way to Moluccas in 1511. Palawan was a territory of the Sultanate of Brunei until the 1660’s when Sultan Muaddin of Brunei gave Sabah and Palawan to the Sultanate of Sulu.
If one were to visit the Malacañang Museum, a guide would point out a 16th century map that he/she would describe as the oldest map that shows the Philippines. A closer look at it would reveal that the map indicates only Mindanao and Palawan. Luzon and Visayas were not yet “discovered”.[1]
The country’s “official” history is defined here as history generally taught in schools and propagated by government institutions like the NCCA (National Commission for Culture and the Arts). The official historical view claims that 350 years of Spanish rule in the Philippines included Moroland. Spanish attacks against the Moros were called “punitive expeditions against rebellions.” Moro victories over the Spanish were denied or ignored. Moro raids on the Christian natives were called pirate attacks.
This is what can be called “the one-nation one-history syndrome”. This syndrome propagates the myth that the present-day Philippines has always been one nation sharing one history. It is alleged that the only difference between the Moros and the Christianized natives (indios) was that the Moros continually resisted while the indios resisted only intermittently (Dagohoy Rebellion, Diego Silang rebellion, etc.)
There is a preponderance of evidence against this myth. While the Indios were under Spanish colonial rule, the Moro sultanates thrived. The Moros were considered sovereigns by European powers, including Spain, as proven by treaties between them. Even the US signed the Bates Treaty with Sulu thus proving that the Treaty of Paris was not sufficient or even valid in the case of Sulu. Primary sources abound in the archives not only in Manila but also in Madrid, London, and Amsterdam.
THE TERM “FILIPINO”
With regards to the Moro Problem, the confusion in the term “Filipino” is very important. By appropriating the name Filipino, the Indio identifies with the Spanish and regards the Moros not as fellow Malays fighting colonial rule but simply as “the enemy” or the “heathen”, the “infidel” or even the “Other”.
By identifying thoroughly with the Spanish, i.e., they think they were the Filipinos referred to in Spanish colonial history, the Indios or present-day Filipinos believe themselves to be the conquerors of the Moros or at least their adversary.
All historical accounts of the so-called Moro Wars clearly portray a contest between the Moros and the Spaniards. But the present-day Filipinos mistakenly believe that the conflict was between them and the Moros because of this Acute Filipino Syndrome, i.e., confusing the present-day Filipinos with the original Filipinos (the Spaniards in the Philippines).
But there is hope. Some historians may be fighting this disease. A Christian Filipino has written a well researched and objective book on Moro history during the Spanish era; namely, "The Kris in Philippine History: A Study of the Impact of Moro Anti-Colonial Resistance, 1571-1896" (Dery, Luis Camara 1997, 248 pp.) which was mostly based on "primary materials" from the Philippine archives.
The book acknowledges the fact that the Moro Wars were a fight between the Moros and the Spanish. But he underscored the role of the Indios – not as brown Spaniards or foot soldiers of the Spanish but as a people caught in between.
Dr. Dery showed the "physical and psychological impact" on the indios and how the history of the Philippines was reshaped by these wars. The indios, such as the Bicolanos in Kabikulan, were "caught between the Spaniards, who were the masters of the land and the Moros, who were the masters of the seas. "
The impact on the collective psyche of the indios of being (or the threat of being) a captive and a slave of the Moros could only be tremendous. While the Indios were caught, as it were, between the Devil (the Spanish on land) and the Deep Blue Sea (the Moros from the seas), the lesser evil would seem to be the Spanish as the indios’ fate under the Castillans was already known to them but their fate under the Moros was still unknown. And of course the fear of the unknown makes cowards of us all.
On the other hand, the policy of the Spanish (then called Filipinos) was to ransom from the Moros as many indio captives as possible since they were under the Spanish protection. This must have endeared the Spanish to the indios such that it could be said that the Indios identified with their colonial masters during the so-called Moro Wars.[2]
Whether the Indios identify with the Spanish or not, it must be made clear that the present-day Filipinos and the colonial Filipinos do not refer to the same group of people. The former are the citizens of the Philippine Republic while the latter were the Spanish conquistadors.
Thus, the quest for Peace is intertwined with the Quest for Identity. There can only be Peace in the Philippines if the Christian Filipinos will comprehend who they truly are – Malays who were subjugated by the Spaniards, and used as foot soldiers by the Spaniards in the Spanish wars against the Moros, fellow Malays who had formed in fairly advanced states, socio-political institutions called Sultanates mainly because of the introduction of Islamic religion and civilization.
For centuries, it has been inculcated in the minds of Christian Filipinos that the Moros were and are the enemies. By re-reading history, the Christian Filipinos can be made to realize that the Moros and Indios were never enemies. The real enemies were the Spanish colonizers, the American imperialists and their indio Filipino lackeys.
Quiason, in his above-mentioned prefatory statement, noted that the French journalists “viewed the Filipinos’ war in the context of other struggles for independence.” Not only should the Philippine revolution and the Philippine-American war be considered in the context of other liberation struggles, but that the Moro wars should also be seen in the context of a Malay people’s fight for freedom.
The former Dean of the UP College of Arts and Sciences, Prof. C. Adib Majul (1973) wrote:
"At bottom, the Muslim resistance against Spain in the Philippines was not an isolated or insignificant phenomenon but an essential part of the general resistance of all Muslim peoples in Malaysia
[3] against Western imperialism, colonialism and Christianity. In an important sense, the sultanates were articulations of a wider social entity, the Islamic society in the Malaysian world. It is within that context that the history of Moro wars should be seen to be better understood."
For there to be lasting peace between the Moros and the Indios, there should be a proper reading of history, in the proper contexts. It is only through understanding of the historical causes and events can the centuries-old biases and stereotypes be erased.
The Chicago Record published in the early 1900s the drawing below with the caption “The only Moros from whom we may expect no uprising.” The notion that “a good Moro is a dead Moro” has been inculcated in the minds of indios by Spaniards and continued by the Americans.
To say that the past is past and has nothing to do with the present can consider the proposition of Massachusetts state senator Guy Glodis who recently sent fliers of his colleagues on how best to fight terrorists. His suggestion was to follow the methods of Gen. John Pershing in dealing with Muslim terrorists in the Philippines in the 1910’s.
"Once in US history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.
Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The US soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs’ blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.
All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.
Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won’t make them flinch. They welcome the chance to die for Allah. According to Gen. Pershing, the Americans must show them that they won’t get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil." (from Yahoo News 1 July 2003)
And the following is the reaction of the popular (notorious) Ramon Tulfo, as published in his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer:
"American Muslims reportedly have taken offense at a suggestion by a US state senator that bodies of Muslim terrorists be buried with pig entrails to deter suicide attacks.
Guy Glodis, a Democrat and the Massachusetts state legislator, sent a flier, lifted from a US newspaper, saying Muslims were barred from entering paradise if they were buried with pigs blood, entrails, etc.
Muslims are forbidden by their religion from eating pork or having any contact with pigs. Yes, the Glodis suggestion is unfair. TO THE PIGS."
Changing what is in the collective consciousness for the past 400 years is not easy especially if the media is continually reinforcing it – not only Philippine media but more importantly, US and Western media. The level of hatred and bigotry is apparent in the above press statements by an American state senator and a Filipino opinion-maker. Only knowledge – historical knowledge — can fight such ignorance.
NEW HISTORY AND MICROHISTORY
Historiography has evolved from narration of military and political events to one involving practically everything. Robinson (1912) defined history as a study that “includes every trace and vestige of everything man has done or thought since he appeared on the earth”. As to its methodology, Robinson proposed that the historian must use the discoveries of other disciplines – anthropology, economics, psychology and sociology – to get a clearer picture of the past. This “total history” concept was promoted vigorously by the Annales historians. Burke (1991) noted that the first half of the 20th century saw the mushrooming of the history of ideas. Practically every topic has a history, including childhood, death, madness, smells, dirt, reading, speaking and even silence.
The philosophy behind this New History is that “reality is socially or culturally constituted. (Burke, p.3) By re-visiting history, the Filipino can see who constructed the “Filipino” notion, how it was constructed and why. In the same vein, the Christian Filipino will realize the whys and wherefores of the various notions of the Moro as perceived by the Christians.
Reynaldo C. Ileto (1979), formerly of UP, wrote, “the nationalist codification of history in linear and developmental terms had swept into the sidelines” other discourses like the one emanating from the people. He argued for a “history from below” and disregarded the fetish of historians for “official documents. Instead, he analyzed the folk songs, poems and traditional religious activities. From these, he argued successfully that the Pasyon (Passion Play, an account of the life of Jesus Christ as re-enacted all over Christian villages in the Philippines, usually during the Lenten season) could provide the framework for the study of revolutionary and other popular movements in Philippine history.
“New historians” like Ileto have been looking for ways to better understand the past. As a reaction to the French Annales school, microhistory developed in Italy in the 1970s by historians Carlo Ginzburg, Giovanni Levi, Edvardo Grendi, Edward Muir and Guido Ruggiero. Writing for the journal Quaderni Storici, these historians agreed with the Annales disciples that they should bring the common people or “the lost people of Europe” into history. They differ, however, on the method. These new thinkers refused to be awed by quantitative methods and historical demography. They proposed a reduction in scale – instead of studying grand events; they would rather have in-depth investigation of communities, individuals or single events. Motives behind actions and decisions could be better viewed this way, they argued. According to Muir (1991), Carlo Ginzburg had argued that “a close reading of a relatively small number of texts, related to a possibly circumscribed belief, can be more rewarding than the massive accumulation of repetitive evidence.”
Muir also emphasized the microhistorians’ alternative evaluation of history which Ginzburg called “evidential paradigm” or paradigma indiziario . In this method, unknown objects can be identified “through single, seemingly insignificant signs rather than through the application of laws derived from repeatable and quantifiable observations.” (Muir) For microhistorians, searching for the historical truth would require the skills of an art connoisseur (to detect the false from the authentic), a psychoanalyst (to uncover the underlying causes) and a crime investigator (to discover the perpetrator). All disciplines require attention to the minutest details – a task that microhistorians must do.
*******
PART 1
PART 3
[2] The kidnap-for-ransom activities of the Abu Sayyaf group must have released all repressed memories of the Filipino/Indio collective psyche. Perhaps it is also because of this psyche that the current Filipino president runs to another colonial master, the USA, to ask help against the dreaded Moros, now called terrorists.
While I support the GRP - MILF Agreement, I admit that it could be used by the present administration to manipulate the Constitution to its (specifically, the President’s) advantage. But I am very glad that the Agreement is based on International Principles like the ILO Convention No. 169 and other UN principles. Also, I like the emphasis on the Bangsa Moro identity based on history, territory and culture.
Identity is a problematic issue for the majority of Filipinos because they are still searching for one. I therefore thought of posting here an academic exercise I did for my graduate studies at the University of the Philippines. It is quite long so I am posting the continuation in my next posts. This was done in June 2003.
====================
Microhistory: the tool for the Filipino quests for Identity and Peace
PART 1
"Humans have no nature, only history"
— Robin Collingwood
INTRODUCTION
QUEST FOR IDENTITY
“Faceless for centuries, the Filipino has worn a succession of masks imposed on him by alien intruders. No one really knows the depths of his confusion and bewilderment; no one can truly measure the intensity of his hurt and shame. A moving shadow, he drifts aimlessly. Feeling unworthy of his own true self, he embraces other people’s values and claims them as his own.”[1] Thus spake Marcos (1978).
Ferdinand Marcos certainly knew the Filipino psyche. For some twenty years, he ruled the country, turning the “showcase democracy in Asia” into his private kingdom. Arguably, it was his sickness, more than anything else, which caused his ouster. To insist that in 1986 the Filipino rose from slumber and found the wherewithal to dispose of tyrants would be mere wishful thinking. The political triumphs of Marcos cronies, lackeys, wife, children and other relatives in the post-EDSA period speak volumes.
To say that after the Marcos dictatorship, the Filipino had finally found his True Self and unshackled himself to enjoy Freedom would be (again) wishful thinking. The ordinary Filipino of today is just as powerless, confused, bewildered and oppressed as their ancestors during the Spanish colonial times, the American imperial period and the Japanese occupation.
The response of the Filipino, which was institutionalised by his government, is to run – run to another country. And so the Philippines is now known as the Land of Domestic Helpers and Overseas Contract Workers. As OCW’s or OFW’s (F for Foreign, a measly attempt at euphemism), these ordinary, hardworking Filipinos buoyed up the country’s balance of payments by infusing the much-needed dollar remittances into the economy. In gratitude, the demagogues who run the government call them “Bayani ng Bayan” or the country’s heroes. If truth be said, they are more like the modern-day equivalent of slaves. It’s another case of the rulers patronizing the ruled.
How much money could compensate for the “intensity of their hurt and shame”? They go abroad as workers, not considered equals by the citizens of their host countries. They are forced to work in different climes, with people of different cultures. They are generally discriminated upon. Engineers work as technicians, lawyers as clerks, and physicians as nurses. And worse, they are separated by thousands of miles from their loved ones. And to add insult to injury, these Filipinos are even ridiculed. In a National Lampoon issue, US Senator Daniel Inouye was supposed to have said about the Filipinos:
“They are a harmless, nondescript people and nation, with no particular offensive qualities and no reason to bother anybody; they never cause concern in any way at all. What I want to know is how the fuck did they manage it? What genius?[2]
The fact that the Filipinos in the US took these statements simply as a joke, with nary a protest, is quite telling. Being harmless and nondescript may have its advantage – like being the preferred foreign workers of the world’s richer countries. But in the long run, what would that make of the Filipino people? What sort of legacy does that make to future generations of Filipinos?
In the film AMISTAD, the historical character John Quincy Adams declared: “We are who we were.” Perhaps in order to understand and remedy the Filipino’s lack of identity, one has to go back to the roots – re-investigate the Filipino history.
QUEST FOR PEACE
The on-going Mindanao conflict is now on its fourth decade. This has cost tens of thousands of lives lost, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children displaced, and millions of dollars worth of property damaged. The potential revenues from natural resource development, tourism and general socio-economic development that is sacrificed because of this war is staggering. The damage that this 30-year conflict has inflicted spells the difference between Philippines as a developing economy and Philippines as a newly industrialized country. And with no hope for settlement in sight, the development of the country as a whole will have to remain slow.
The war in Mindanao keeps military spending high – with the Defense department getting the biggest share in the national budget, keeps tourists away, discourages local and foreign investment especially in Mindanao and retards the building of infrastructures necessary in economic development.
How long can this continue? The Martial Law powers of Mr. Marcos could not stop the MNLF. On the contrary, it was he who sued for peace that culminated in the Tripoli Agreement. The “all-out war” of Mr. Estrada against the MILF has left the MILF as strong as ever. The “mailed fist policy” of Ms. Arroyo, reinforced with American advisers, against the Abu Sayyaf and MILF has not made a dent in both organizations.
And now comes the leaders of the just concluded military putsch who declared three primary reasons for their mutiny. First, they claimed that the military, specifically the Defense chief Gen. Angelo Reyes was responsible for the bombing in Davao. Second, they claimed that the military is actually selling ammunition to the MILF. Third, they denounced the massive graft and corruption in the military. In an interview with media people, Lt. Trillanes, the putschists’ spokesman said that they wanted to end war in Mindanao because they could not find any reason (walng kabuluhan ) for it. He also asked the interviewer (Karen Davila), Do you want a terrorist for a President?
The July 27, 2003 putsch is a clear indication of the gravity of the Mindanao conflict. And the Moros were not even involved.
Ever since the EDSA event, military officers have been saying that they do not war in Mindanao.[3] The leaders of the just concluded coup attempt are just the latest military people who questioned the government’s war in Mindanao. But if the country could not afford the powder keg that is Mindanao to fully explode, then why do the majority of Christian Filipinos support military aggression in Mindanao as evidenced by the increase in popularity rating of Mr. Estrada during his “all-out war” such that Ms. Arroyo is also following Erap’s “tough guy” stance to buoy up her ratings? The answer lies in History.
This paper will attempt to show that the Filipinos quest for Identity and Peace should be pursued together for only a clear and comprehensive understanding of the Christian Filipinos’ quest for Identity and the Moros’ desire to reclaim their sovereign Identity separate from the rest of the Filipinos can there be true peace in the land. And only a thorough understanding of history by all parties can bring about the needed change.[4]
To achieve peace in Mindanao, there must be a clamor by the population. For that to happen, the average Filipino must understand the real circumstances surrounding the issue. They must understand the motivations behind every group. And to understand the real issues, one must go back to history.
Philippine historiography is not exactly in a good state. Skeptics have categorized historians as those who lie, those who are mistaken and those who do not know. (Gilderhus1996) It is quite unfortunate that much of Philippine history was written by those in the first two categories. With regards to the Moros, Spanish historians (writing about Moro history) belonged to the first category; American historians belonged to the first and second; and Filipino historians belonged to all categories.
But there is hope. It 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.
HISTORY
History is “the act of selecting, analyzing and writing about the past. It is something that is done, that is constructed.” (Davidson and Lytle 1982) Historical documents from the coming of the Spaniards up to the end of their regime in the Philippines in 1898 were all about them (the Spaniards) and their activities in the Islands. Thus, the so-called Philippine history during that period is actually history of the Spanish and not of the Filipinos.
QUEST FOR IDENTITY –Who and what is a Filipino?
Spanish Colonial Period
Throughout the Spanish rule in the Philippines, the term Filipino was reserved for pureblood Spaniards, differentiated only as peninsulares (those born in the Spanish Peninsula) and insulares (those born in the Islands). The Christianized natives were never called Filipinos. They were referred to as indios or naturales. Even the mestizos (half-breeds) were not called Filipinos.
In the latter part of the 19th century, Governor-General Clavecilla ordered all indios (except Manila’s local nobility, i.e., descendants of Rajah Suleiman and Lakandula) to adopt Spanish names in pain of punishment if they refused to do so. Thus, present-day Filipinos bear Spanish names. Having a Spanish name does not make one a Spaniard.[5]
When the Aguinaldo government appropriated the term Filipino for the indios, the identification with the Spanish masters became complete. In one semantic stroke, the history of the Philippines became the history of the indios (the present-day Christian Filipinos) and not of the Spaniards (the original Filipinos).
This is a grave malady. By appropriating the name Filipino, the present-day Filipinos think that the Filipinos referred to in history indicate them and not the Spaniards. This makes them identify with the Spanish, forgetting that under Spain, their forefathers were virtual slaves – mandated to do forced labor and were considered eternal minors.
Leon Ma. Guerrero, one of the elites who constructed the “imaginary nation” called Filipino nation, had a hard time translating Rizal’s novel, Noli Me Tangere. In the novel, Rizal used the word Filipino to mean Spaniards in the Philippines which was incomprehensible to most readers in the 1950s who were brought up to believe that the term Filipino meant them, i.e. Christianized natives. Benedict Anderson (1994) wrote :
“…young Filipinos would at once see, in any straight translation from the Spanish, that they do not exist within the novel’s pages. Filipinas, of course appear, but they are exactly what today’s Filipinas are not: ‘pure-blood’ Spanish Creoles.”
Guerrero, in his attempt to fit the Noli into the elites’ “nation-state project”, effectively revised history. The Filipinos in Guerrero’s translation considered both Spain and Philippines as homes, worshipped European-looking deities, spoke foreign languages, alluded to Greco-Roman classical mythology and fell in love with Caucasian ladies. References to colonial abuse were rendered bland and ineffective. And since the modern-day Filipinos believe that they (or their forefathers) were the ones referred to in the book, it is but natural for them to imbibe the thoughts and beliefs of the Noli’s characters. In effect, Guerrero re-wrote the Noli. Jose Rizal must have turned in his grave when the translation was published and made required reading for Filipino students.
And so the confusion of the modern-day Filipinos’ identity continues.
The American Era
Much of the “official” Philippine history is a construct of the indigenous elites of Luzon who came into political and economic leadership during the American Occupation.
The biggest casualties (in terms of what I call “historical character assassination”) in this period were General Emilio Aguinaldo and his fellow Katipuneros.
There was a great fuss about the Centennial celebrations in 1998. It was supposed to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of Independence by Emilio Aguinaldo and his Katipunan. Yet Aguinaldo, who became a cause celebre in Europe during his time for daring to fight the American power, had such a bad press in his own country. He died in old age almost in disgrace.[6] Yet Rizal wrote only two novels and Bonifacio’s Manila revolt lasted for only about a week or so. It was Aguinaldo’s army who subdued the Spaniards while the Americans looked on. It was Aguinaldo who proclaimed the Philippine Republic, whose centennial was celebrated with pomp and ceremony. And it was Aguinaldo who led the fight against two-thirds of one of the world’s strongest army at that time.
Perhaps Voltaire, in his call for accurate history, was correct when he stated that history has become “a pack of tricks we play on the dead.” The Shakespeare line, “the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred in their bones”, could very well be applied to Emilio Aguinaldo and many of his co-Katipuneros.
The Aguinaldo symptom is just one of the many symptoms of the Filipinos’ historical malady. This historical “dis-ease” must be diagnosed, articulated and cured. Otherwise the Filipino can never know its true Self, its historical heritage. It (the Filipino identity) can never be at ease with itself.
The Filipino elite (the ilustrados) re-constructed Philippine history, with the aid of the Americans, during and after the American colonization. The Americans and their new wards (Quezon et al.) needed to demonize Aguinaldo and the Katipunan. Although the Americans declared the Philippine-American war as “officially” finished in 1902, some Katipuneros continued the fight led by such men as Mariano Sakay and Miguel Malvar. Gen. Artemio Ricarte chose exile in Japan over an ignominious surrender to America.
In 1899, the French journalist Gaston Rouvier had described Aguinaldo as “even to his enemies, (he is) the greatest man of the Malay race.” Recounting the Filipino victory over Spain during the so-called Spanish-American war, Rouvier wrote:
As soon as the naval victory of Dewey in Cavite was achieved… (Aguinaldo) left for the Philippines…The MacCulloch transported them. On May 19, hardly disembarked, Aguinaldo rekindled the embers of revolt across the Luzon provinces, thanks to his untiring work and a kind of magnetic influence which he exercised on his followers. He roused a rebel leader in every district. For the capture of all Spanish garrisons and outposts, he devised a campaign plan. He was Bonaparte, if his admirers were to be believed. Bonaparte, indeed, by the strange fascination that he elicited from his people. He obtained extraordinary results. In two days, his messengers covered 150 kilometres. In 36 hours, his soldiers travelled 70 to 80 kilometres. Thus, he was able to take the Spanish garrisons by surprise; he was able to take hold of arms and treasures. From May 1898 to January 1899, he led the struggle against Spain without let-up. He captured 15,000 Spanish soldiers and forced 2,000 to 3,000 others to leave Camarines, Tayabas, Batangas and Laguna for Mindoro, Panay and Cebu. – At present he still detains 6,000 Spanish soldier-prisoners in the northern provinces.
Aguinaldo as the greatest of the Malay race? A veritable Bonaparte? This would come as a surprise to many Filipinos living today who had been brought up to think of Aguinaldo as an elitist leader who sold out the masses, who killed the father of the Revolution, Andres Bonifacio, and the greatest Filipino general, Antonio Luna. Somebody, preferably a historian, should explain the discrepancy.
It seems strange that American and Filipino historians give scant attention to European eyewitness accounts of the Philippine-American war. Perhaps it was due to the fact that European journalists had been writing that only Filipinos could defeat Filipinos in that war. It is another blow to the Filipino identity.
In an interview with French journalist Henri Turot in 1899, Florentino Torres, a Filipino lawyer articulated the ideas of the ilustrados:
“There is in Aguinaldo a most serious cause for concern. You must know that the insurrectionary movement is nor only nationalist; it is above all socialist and revolutionary. The people did not want the Spanish exploiters anymore; they do not like the Americans any better, who have fooled them and dream of enslaving them. I’ll say more; they no longer want any masters of any kind. So much so that they being victorious over the Americans, they would take advantage of this victory to the limit: we would then have a kind of socialist republic…
A number of young men who studied in Europe brought back the socialist doctrine with them. Do we have to cite Luna, who frequented the socialist clubs in Spain for a long time; Sandiko, who was a propagandist in America; Paterno, a poet, a fanatic?…
And what is more frightening still is that those who surround Aguinaldo want to imitate the great French revolution and are inspired by its spirit. The day after the proclamation of the Philippine Republic, the newspaper in support of the president published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. You may be sure that they want to follow the examples of 1789 and 1793 right to the end…
Since we prefer to live under American domination rather than be ruined and stripped by a socialist republic, since we have the instinct of self-preservation which is not really surprising, we wish for no more than an honorable modus vivendi from the representatives of the United States.”[7]
The above quotation gives the underlying cause of the Aguinaldo symptom. The dominant elite — the ilustrado, abandoned the revolutionary cause and stabbed Aguinaldo in the back, as it were. And so Aguinaldo and his fellow revolutionaries had to be discredited.
Accounts by French journalists about the War in the Philippines clearly emphasized that the US wanted to conquer the Philippines from the very start. But, as Serafin Quiason, chair and Executive Director of the National Historical Institute, wrote in his preface to the volume The War In The Philippines: As Reported by Two French Journalists in 1899,
“ its story disappeared from the Filipino consciousness for two generations, thanks to the history books authored first by American teachers and then by Filipinos steeped in the colonial atmosphere of the educational system.”
It would indeed be difficult to have an identity if one is fed with historical notions constructed and re-constructed by others with vested interests – the Spanish, the Americans, the elites, etc. British historian Robin Collingwood says, “Humans have no nature, only history.” What does that make of the Filipino?
It is interesting to note that the young idealistic military officers and men who attempted a coup this July 27 called themselves the Magdalo and used the old Magdalo flag and symbol. Aguinaldo headed the Magdalo faction of the Katipunan, as opposed to Bonifacio’s Magdiwang. The soldiers denounced the graft, corruption and other traitorous actions of the government and top brass. Perhaps these officers see themselves as suffering the same fate as the old katipuneros.
The Post-WWII Republic
Perhaps to remedy the situation, some historians reacted to the grand narratives of Spanish, American and colonial-minded Filipino historians by re-visiting Philippine history. However, such re-visits to the past merely created other grand narratives, although this time, they were based on Marxist theories. These grand constructions shaped historical research according to their image, which may even be incongruent with historical knowledge. Such re-visits to the Philippine past resulted in a Philippine revolution in the image of Communist revolutions, with Andres Bonifacio, the so-called Great Plebeian, becoming a veritable Mao Ze Dong, steeped in the tenets of Marx and Lenin. The image of Rizal became that of a bourgeois who loved the arts, sports and women while Aguinaldo was nothing but a petit bourgeois stooge of the Philippine elite and the killer of Bonifacio.
The lives and thoughts of the Filipino heroes were trivialized and reduced to baseless generalizations. For a nation trying to find its identity, nothing is worse than seeing its greatest sons de-bunked.
Another impediment to historical research is the assumption of postcolonial discourses that may have nothing to do with the Philippines’ actual past. George P. Landow, Professor of English and Art History, Brown University points out that
“Colonialism and colonize, in other words, have become codewords for any relation involving exploitation. Although authors who use them thus acquire certain rhetorical advantages typical of using politically correct and politically fashionable terms, they also create serious problems as well. In particular, as Sara Suleri and Chandra Talpade Mohanty point out, such rhetorical and metaphorical uses of terms involved with colonization unfortunately (1) turn away from the specific historical realities of colonialism and post colonialism, and (2) thereby falsely imply that we know all there is to know about these realities, particularly (3) that all colonialism and colonization was pretty much the same.”
The above statements are quite true in Philippine post-colonial discourses. Philippine writers seem to believe that the colonial experience of the Filipinos was the same as those of the Arabs, the Indians or the Muslim Malays. But how could one explain why the others have maintained their sense of Identity while the Christianized Indios / Filipinos had lost it, if the colonial experience was the same for everyone?
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
[3] In a TV program DEBATE, Renato de Villa, former Armed Forces Chief of Staff, Defence Secretary and presidential candidate asked. “Kaya ba natin kung sumabog ang Mindanao?” (Can we handle it if Mindanao explodes?) It was a rhetorical question that silenced the other guests in the show, including those who applauded Mr. Estrada’s “all-out war”?
[4] Everybody claims to desire Peace. However, reality shows otherwise. The no-peace no-war situation in Mindanao has its advantages for most of the parties concerned. The top brass of the Armed Forces of the Philippines need the Mindanao conflict in order to get a bigger share of the budget pie. The top leadership of the MNLF and MILF may prefer the status quo rather than risk an all-out war which can have unforeseeable consequences, especially regarding their leadership. The new Moro leaders created by the Manila government since the Marcos era have a big stake in the continuation of the status quo. The carpetbaggers from Luzon, Visayas and even the Chinese do not want a peace agreement which might question their vast acquisitions in Mindanao. Malaysia certainly prefers the status quo. A complete victory by any party (Moros or Philippine government) or real peace between the parties endangers the Malaysian government’s hold on Sabah. And the no-peace no-war situation in Mindanao fits in with the Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) doctrine that has guided US foreign policy since its adoption by the Reagan administration. The LIC doctrine sees the real war as not between America and Russia but between “America’s LIC warriors and the revolutionary combatants of the Third World” (Klare and Kornbluh 1988). And after the 9/11 affair, the West has a more concrete enemy: Terrorism (read: Islam).
