Miyerkules, Nobyembre 25, 2015

More On the Term Filipino



 

 
Your Name Is Your Identity

 
Pepe wailed that I have yet to make a clear-cut definition of the term Filipino. Says he with a palpably suppressed vehemence:

 
But Royeca, for FAILING to CATEGORICALLY define what a Filipino is, simply opted to beat around the bush. Nevertheless, I should not be too hard on him even if he belittled my use of poetry as a source material. After all, he has already boxed himself to the shock of encountering Fr. Chirino’s definition of Filipino. So I’ll just let him enjoy this refractory period of his.
 

“Remember, boys and girls: declaring a historical evidence to the public to point out something is not enough. It always has to be interpreted with a good amount of critical thinking. And to end this, Royeca (and his partner Nonoy Regalado) should understand that IDENTITY has to stand on what you call YOURSELF and not what others CALL YOU.”

 
I wonder where Pepe picked up this rule: “IDENTITY has to stand on what you call YOURSELF and not what others CALL YOU.”

 
Pepe must know that when it comes to identity, this is the universal rule and practice: Once a baby is born, his parents give him a name, and that name becomes his identity, even if he still does not know that it is his name and it is the name that he is supposed to call himself. This rule and practice has been with humanity since the emergence of civilization. While the rule Pepe wants to inject into our veins is a recent philosophy.

 
Let us make Pepe himself an example for this universal rule and practice. When Pepe was born, his parents gave him the name Pepe. Since then, that has already become his name, his identity, and what he is supposed to call himself. But being an infant then, Pepe was not yet aware that it was already his name, his identity, and what he was supposed to call himself.

 
Just because Pepe was not yet aware then that Pepe was his name, his identity, and what he was supposed to call himself, then Pepe was not yet his name, identity, and what he was supposed to call himself?

 
When will Pepe finally become his name, his identity, and what he is supposed to call himself? Only when he becomes aware that it is his name, his identity, and what he is supposed to call himself?


 

The Term Filipino

 
            I have already made my concrete stand on what a Filipino is and who the first Filipinos were on this blog, The Term Filipino: A Question of Identity. Let me repeat what I said on this blog about the term Filipino:

 
“The manner of using the term Filipino to refer to the natives of the Philippines is similar to the manner of giving a new-born baby his name.

 
“When a baby is born, his parents give him a name; for example, Mark. Although the baby is not yet conscious that his name is Mark and that he is thus called, that name is already his identity. It would be senseless to assert that because the baby is not yet aware of his name, his name is not yet his identity and that his name will only become his identity once he becomes aware that it is indeed his name.

 
“Only the brainless will say: ‘This baby is named Mark, but his name is not yet his identity because being a baby, he is not yet aware of his name.’”


 

An Established Fact

 
Pepe charged that I was merely making an opinion when I said that “poems belong to the ambit of creative literature; they can be purely fictional.”

 
I was not endorsing an opinion there. I was restating an established fact. Poems are really fictional creations. Even if they are written in a straightforward language, they are still not definitive material for historical research, unless the subjects of the research are the poems themselves.

 

 
Poetry: Unreliable Source

 
We, students of history, learn that poems are not primary sources; hence, they cannot be reliable material for historical research. The historian may cite them to indicate what people believed in during a particular period of history. For example:

 
“Ancient Filipinos believed that the first man and the first woman came out of reeds, and this belief is recorded in their epic poetry.”

 
The historian may write stuff like that, but no historian in his right mind would dare make an embarrassing blunder like this:

 
“The very first Filipino man and the very first Filipino woman were undeniably created out of reeds, because the epic poetry of ancient Filipinos said so.”

 
As to the poem of Luiz Rodriguez Varela, a historian may quote it and elucidate something like this:

 
“An insular from Tondo, Manila, Luis Rodriguez Varela, wrote a poem in 1812 which flagrantly declared that the first Filipinos were the peninsulares.”

 
But again, no historian whose sanity has not yet fallen towards his bottom will claim a supposition like this:

 
“It is indisputably clear that the first Filipinos were the peninsulares because Luis Rodriguez Varela, an insular from Tondo, Manila, wrote a poem in 1812 which said it so.”

 

 
Varela vs. Chirino et al.

 
For Pepe, the poem of Luis Rodriguez Varela is more authoritative than the accounts of Spanish missionaries like Fr. Pedro Chirino, Fr. Francisco Colin, Fr. Ignacio Francisco Alcina, and Fr. Juan Francisco de San Antonio.

 
Pepe must also be reminded that during Spanish rule of the Philippines, the Church and State were united to act as the government of the Philippine Islands. The act of one had the knowledge and consent of the other.

 
The accounts of Spanish missionaries were official because those missionaries were working under the Spanish colonial government of the Philippine Islands. Thus, those accounts are authoritative.

 
Varela must not have read those accounts. Hence, he wrote a poem which innocently or stupidly stated that the first Filipinos were the peninsulares. And now we have a Pepe who holds firm—with a die-hard passion—to that innocent or stupid mistake of Varela. Says Pepe:

 
These were Miguel López de Legazpi and those peninsular Spaniards, both military and friar, who were with him, who opted to stay here and die here. In effect, they ceased to become Spaniards. They became Felipenos or those who saw King Felipe II as their sovereign (in the same vein that the vassals of Carlos XI of Sweden were called Carolinos, the vassals of King Fernando VII Fernandinos, and so on and so forth).”

 
Can Pepe show any document proving that Legazpi and the other first peninsulares in the Philippines called themselves Felipenos? If there is such a document, then that is a primary source, our discussion will be put to an end, and Pepe wins the argument. But if Pepe can only cling on to a pedestrian poem, then we are in danger of being fed with another defective theory in Philippine history.

 

 
Jose and José

 
Let me point out that the name Jose is not spelled incorrectly. Rizal usually used José, but there were instances when he also used Jose. Pepe should consult books which contain facsimiles of Rizal’s handwritten letters, manuscripts, and other writings, like the following:

 
Diarios y Memorias por Jose Rizal

Cartas Entre Rizal y los Miembros de Familia

Cartas Entre Rizal y el Professor Fernando Blumentritt

Escritos Politicos e Historicos por Jose Rizal

Facsímiles de los Escritos de Jose Rizal

 

 
Individual Opinion

 
We live in a country whose Constitution guarantees freedom of expression for the citizens. With this rock-solid civil right, everyone is entitled to his own thoughts and opinion.

 
As one person who prefers a genteel discourse and abhors mobocracy, I always respect other people’s beliefs and preferences. And so, to make Pepe gravitate towards my findings on what the term Filipino is and who the first Filipinos were, I will not lift a slab of concrete, present it before him, smash it on his head with all my might, and tell him, “Hey, this is what really happened!”

 
Let individual opinions—including shoddy opinions—stand.

 

Martes, Nobyembre 24, 2015

Opisyal na Nagkaroon ng Araw ni Bonifacio Dahil sa Isang Amerikano



OPISYAL na nagkaroon ng pagdiriwang ng Araw ni Bonifacio (Bonifacio Day), dahil sa isang batas na inaprubahan ng isang mananakop na pinunòng Amerikano.
Noong 1921, nilagdaan ng Amerikanong Gobernador Heneral na si Francis B. Harrison ang batas (Akta Publika Blg. 2946) na nagdedeklara sa ika-30 ng Nobyembre (araw ng kapanganakan ni Bonifacio) bílang Araw ni Bonifacio, dahil ayon sa batas na ito, si Bonifacio ang “bayaning pangalawa kay Rizal” at “bayani sa gawaing para sa kalayaan at kasarinlan.”
Ang batas na iyon na nilagdaan ni Harrison ang kauna-unahang batas na nagtatakda sa ika-30 ng Nobyembre bílang isang pambansang pista opisyal. Ang mga sumunod pang batas tungkol sa Araw ni Bonifacio ay pagtalima na lámang sa pinasimulan ng batas na iyon—ang pagdiriwang sa ika-30 ng Nobyembre bílang isang pista opisyal.

Ang Paggawa ng mga Batas
Sa panahon ng pananakop ng Estados Unidos sa Pilipinas (1898-1946), ang kagawaran ng pamahalaan na may kapangyarihang magpanukala, magbalangkas, at magpása ng mga batas ay ang batasan na tinatawag na Philippine Assembly (Kapulungan ng Pilipinas) noong 1907-16, Philippine Legislature (Batasan ng Pilipinas) noong 1916-35, National Assembly (Batasang Pambansa) noong 1935-40, at Congress (Kongreso) noong 1940-46. Ang mga kasapi nito ay mga Pilipino na inihahalal ng mga botanteng Pilipino.
Subalit ang may kapangyarihan na sang-ayunan o i-veto (hindi aprubahan) ang isang panukalang batas ay ang Gobernador Heneral na Amerikano, na siya ring tumatayông pinunò ng Pilipinas. Kung sang-ayon ang Gobernador Heneral sa isang panukalang batas ng mga mambabatas, lalagdaan niya iyon upang maging ganap nang batas. Kung ibe-veto niya, hindi magiging batas ang isang panukalang batas.
Sa panahon ng panunungkulan ni Harrison bílang gobernador heneral (1913-21), limang panukalang batas ng Philippine Legislature ang kanyang nai-veto. Ang pumalit sa kanya na si Leonard Wood ay may nai-veto na 16 na panukalang batas sa unang taon nito. Mahigit 100 panukalang batas ang nai-veto lahat ni Wood sa loob ng kanyang panunungkulan (1921-27).

Inaprubahan ng Isang Amerikano
Si Sen. Lope K. Santos ang nagpanukala sa Batasan ng Pilipinas ng isang batas na magdedeklara sa ika-30 ng Nobyembre bílang Araw ni Bonifacio. At si Harrison ang nag-apruba sa panukalang batas na iyon.
Kung hindi nilagdaan ni Harrison, hindi magiging batas ang panukalang iyon. At kung sakaling ang panukalang batas na iyon ni Santos ay napabílang sa limang batas na nai-veto ni Harrison, hindi talaga magkakaroon ng Araw ni Bonifacio. Subalit dahil nga sa pagsang-ayon at lagda ng isang mananakop na pinunòng Amerikano, nagkaroon ng gayong pista opisyal.

Ang Opisyal na Pagtatanghal kay Bonifacio Bilang Bayani
Upang opisyal na maitanghal na bayani ang isang tao, may mga batas na ipinapása at ipinatutupad ang pamahalaan. Hindi kasi maaaring ang isang dakilang tao ay manatiling bayani sa salita lámang. Kailangang maging opisyal ang pagkilala ng pamahalaan at sambayanan sa pagiging bayani niya sa pamamagitan ng mga batas.
Ang mga sumusunod na batas at hakbang ay isinagawa upang opisyal nang maitanghal na isang bayani si Bonifacio:
1. Akta Publika Blg. 2760—ang batas na magpapagawa ng isang Pambansang Monumento ni Bonifacio sa Lungsod ng Caloocan. Nilagdaan ito ng Amerikanong Gobernador Heneral na si Francis B. Harrison upang ganap na maging batas noong 1918.
2. Akta Publika Blg. 2946—ang batas na nagdedeklara sa ika-30 ng Nobyembre  (araw ng kapanganakan ni Bonifacio) bílang Araw ni Bonifacio (Bonifacio Day), dahil ayon sa batas na ito, si Bonifacio nga raw ang “bayaning pangalawa kay Rizal” at “bayani sa gawaing para sa kalayaan at kasarinlan.” Nilagdaan nga rin ito ni Harrison upang maging ganap nang batas noong 1921.
3. Akta Publika Blg. 3602—ang batas na naglalaan ng ₱97,000 para sa Pambansang Monumento ni Bonifacio sa Caloocan. Nilagdaan naman ito ng Amerikanong Gobernador Heneral na si Dwight F. Davis upang maging ganap na ring batas noong 1929.
4. Nob. 30, 1933—Binigyang-parangal na ang bágong-gawa na Pambansang Monumento ni Bonifacio sa Caloocan.

Isang Kasinungalingan
May isang kasinungalingan tungkol kay Bonifacio na matagal nang ipinakakalat ng ilang tao. Noong panahon ng pananakop ng Estados Unidos sa Pilipinas, hindi raw pinayagan ng mga Amerikano na maideklarang isang bayani si Bonifacio, dahil banta raw sa pananakop ng Estados Unidos ang imahe niyang mapanghimagsik.
Kapag ginaya raw ng mga Pilipino ang imahe ni Bonifacio, magrerebelde raw silá laban sa pananakop ng Estados Unidos. Kayâ, sa pangkalahatan, hindi raw hinikayat ng mga Amerikano na dakilain bílang bayani si Bonifacio. Ipinagwalang-bahala at isinantabi raw siya.
Subalit kítang-kítang naman mula sa mga talâ ng kasaysayan na pinayagan ng mga mananakop na Amerikano na ituring si Bonifacio na isang bayani. Kung banta si Bonifacio at ang kanyang diwang mapanghimagsik sa pananakop ng Estados Unidos sa Pilipinas, kung ang imahe ni Bonifacio ay ang makipaglaban para sa kalayaan at kasarinlan, at kung hindi hinikayat ng mga Amerikano na dakilain bílang bayani si Bonifacio, bakit pumayag ang mga Amerikano na si Bonifacio ay:
1. Maitanghal bílang ang “bayaning pangalawa kay Rizal” at “bayani sa gawaing para sa kalayaan at kasarinlan”?
2. Magkaroon ng isang pambansang pistal opisyal?
3. Maging isa sa dadalawang Pilipino na may pambansang pista opisyal (ang isa pa ay si Rizal)?
4. Magkaroon ng isang pambansang monumento—monumento na makikíta at titingalain ng mga Pilipino?
5. At maging isa sa dadalawang Pilipino na may pambansang monumento (ang isa pa ay si Rizal)?

Mga Argumento
Ang argumento ng mga anti-Rizal ay si Rizal daw ay American-sponsored national hero o ang pinili ng mga Amerikano na maging pambansang bayani, dahil naging pambansang bayani raw siya sa panahon ng pananakop ng mga Amerikano at mga Amerikano raw ang nag-apruba sa kanyang pagiging pambansang bayani. Kung susundan ang argumentong iyan, mabubuo ang panibagong argumento na ito:
Dahil naitanghal si Bonifacio bílang isang bayani sa panahon ng pananakop ng mga Amerikano, at mga awtoridad na Amerikano pa ang sumang-ayon sa pagtatanghal sa kanya bílang isang bayani, masasabi bang si Bonifacio ay isang American-sponsored hero o bayaning ang pagiging bayani ay inimbento ng mga Amerikano?

Talâsanggunian
Agoncillo, Teodoro A. History of the Filipino People. Lungsod ng Quezon: R.P. Garcia Publishing Co., 1960.
Public Laws, Annotated. Lungsod ng Quezon: Unibersidad ng Pilipinas. Sulpicio Guevarra, patnugot.

Zaide, Gregorio F. The Pageant of Philippine History. Ikalawang Tomo. Maynila: Philippine Education Company, 1979.

Renato Constantino’s Erroneous Interpretation of Apolinario Mabini’s Letter Dated December 17, 1898



SOMETIME in the latter part of 1898, Apolinario Mabini received a letter from an old friend, Emilio Jacinto. Mabini was then serving as the top political adviser of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, president of the Philippine Revolutionary Government. The government was then headquartered in Malolos, Bulacan. Jacinto was the former right-hand man of Andres Bonifacio, founder of the Katipunan who was arrested, tried, and executed in May 1897 for his alleged rebellion against Aguinaldo’s government.

In his letter, Jacinto was asking Mabini if he could come to Malolos to enroll in a law course at the Literary University of the Philippines, which had just been established by Aguinaldo’s government. Jacinto also requested Mabini to ask Aguinaldo if “what had happened before” (the Bonifacio-Aguinaldo rivalry) would not affect his stay in Malolos.


Response

Mabini answered Jacinto in a letter, which runs thus in full:


“Malolos, December 17, 1898

“MR. EMILIO JACINTO

“My very dear Friend:

“Many thanks for your present. During the first days, I pretended not to remember you, fearing that they would not approve of our friendship. I needed, then, all their faith in me so that I could give the stamp of regularity on the progress of the government, although I did not accomplish this fully.

“When I received your letter, I sent someone to ask Captain Emilio whether you could stay in Malolos with the assurance that nobody would trouble you for what had taken place before. He answered yes, adding that you should forget everything.

“Regarding your matriculation fees, it is necessary that you come personally because, having lost your certificate, you have to present an affidavit, signed by two witnesses, to the effect that you have finished First Year Law and you were actually taking up Second Year course. There is still time. December 1st is the deadline.

“I am glad of your coming because I am confident that you can be of great help to us.

“I am ever at your service in anything that I can be of help.

“AP. MABINI”

(Source: The Letters of Apolinario Mabini, Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1965, p. 81.)

In his own letter, Mabini was 1) assuring Jacinto that nobody would cause him any trouble in Malolos; 2) telling Jacinto to forget the sad events of the past; and 3) instructing Jacinto how to enroll in a law course at the Literary University.

Those contents of Mabini’s letter are very clear.


Misinterpretation

In his book The Philippines: A Past Revisited (Quezon City: Tala Publishing Services, 1975), historian Renato Constantino quoted the said Mabini’s letter and concluded:

“Emilio Jacinto, for one, was still operating independently and as late as after the Malolos government had already been organized he was still being invited by Mabini to join Aguinaldo” (p. 212).

Constantino erred in his interpretation of Mabini’s letter because in the said letter, Mabini was not inviting Jacinto to become part of Aguinaldo’s government. It was Jacinto who was willing to come to Malolos to pursue his law studies and fulfill his childhood dream of becoming a lawyer.

Huwebes, Nobyembre 12, 2015

Renato Constantino’s Erroneous Interpretation of the Philippine Independence Proclamation Document on June 12, 1898


ON the afternoon of Sunday, June 12, 1898, from the front windows of his house in Cavite el Viejo (now Kawit), Cavite, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed Philippine independence from Spanish rule through cries of “Viva la independencia” (Long live independence). The event was witnessed by government officials, military officers, soldiers, and town residents. As a written proof of the proclamation, a document titled Acta de la proclamación de independencia del pueblo Filipino (Act of Proclamation of Independence of the Filipino People) was signed by more than 100 persons.

In his popular book The Philippines: A Past Revisited (Quezon City: Tala Publishing Services, 1975), historian Renato Constantino claimed that what was proclaimed on June 12, 1898, was not full independence but a protectorate. Protectorate means a territory, colony, or nation under the sovereignty or rule of another nation. Below is Constantino’s affirmation on p. 211 of his book.

“Part of the declaration says:

“And summoning as witness of the rectitude of our intentions, the Supreme Judge of the Universe, and under the protection of the Mighty and Humane North American nation, we proclaim and solemnly declare, in the name and by authority of the inhabitants of all these Philippine Islands, that they are and have the right to be free and independent, that they be free from all submission to the Crown of Spain, that every political tie between the two is and must be completely severed and annulled. . . .

“As the passage indicates, while the June 12 statement was a declaration of independence from Spain, it put the United States in the special position of protector of that independence.”

For Constantino, the passage “under the protection of the Mighty and Humane North American Nation” meant that the United States became the protector of Philippine independence, and so the heading of this subject in his book is “Protectorate Proclaimed” (p. 211).

 

Misinterpretation

What an erroneous interpretation.

If that passage and the entire Acta are read carefully, it would clearly be seen that it was not independence which was under American protection, but we: the signers of the document or the Filipino revolutionary leaders. While summoning God as witness and while under the protection of the United States, they (the signers) declared independence. It’s very clear, isn’t it?

And summoning as witness of the rectitude of our intentions, the Supreme Judge of the Universe, and under the protection of the Mighty and Humane North American nation, we proclaim and solemnly declare … .

There was no protectorate proclaimed. The Acta itself clarified that the Philippine Islands, “like all free and independent States, … have the full authority to declare war, conclude peace, celebrate mercantile treaties, contract alliances, regulate commerce, and realize all other acts and things that all Independent States have the right to do.”

The phrase all free and independent states put the Philippines on an equal footing—not under—with all free and independent nations of the world, including the United States.

Aguinaldo clarified that in his proclamation of January 5, 1899:

“I sincerely declare that never in Singapore, Hong Kong, or even here in the Philippines have I ever favored any treaty, by word or in writing, to recognize the sovereignty of America in this land (La Independencia, January 5, 1899, p. 1).”

Below is my published essay on this matter.