|
Unite and Fight
for What is Right
Sen. Ping Lacson
Bro. Eddie Villanueva
=================
The National Situation
Randy David
=================
Has Revolution Now Become
Necessary?
Alejandro Lichauco
=================
The Roots of Crisis:
A Neo-Colonial State
Alejandro Lichauco
=================
Why Are We Poor?
F. Sionil Jose
=================
Filipinismo, the True Filipino
Ideology
Benigno
Aquino, Sr.
=================
Pilipinismo
=================
What We Filipinos Should Know
=================
What Nationalism?
Teodoro Benigno
=================
What is Filipino
Nationalism?
Leticia Constantino
=================
On Nationalism and
Patrotism
Emmanuel Yap
=================
Magna Carta of Social Justice and Economic Freedom
Emmanuel Yap
=================
|
|
What Nationalism?
Teodoro Benigno, Star, December 5, 2003
 Suddenly,
this word is being nudged into our consciousness and we’ve forgotten what
it’s all about.
What, honestly and
truly, is nationalism?
Okay, the easy answer. It’s love of country. It’s a return to the values of
yesteryear when the notion of nation drew us close together, particularly
the war years. Fear and loathing of the Japanese invader and occupant. The
tramp of his hobnailed boot, the terrors of Fort Santiago. Bataan and
Corregidor. The Death March. Filipinos dying by the multitudes. The sword of
Dai Nippon plunged ruthlessly into their entrails.That is the only time I
personally remember, outside of the Philippine revolution against Spain and
the insurgency against the United States, that many Filipinos were ready and
willing to die for this entity called Bayan kong Pilipinas.
The Filipino nation. Pilipinas kong mahal. Hundreds of thousands did perish
if not a couple of millions. Then and only then did love of country surge
into the Filipino soul like molten lava. La patria was the revered
fatherland. And a brace of Filipino heroes at the end of the 19th century
gave their lives – willingly, courageously, indomitably.Then the patriotic
songs –
Bayang Magiliw, Bayan Ko, Pilipinas Kong Mahal.Today?
The songs still rouse us, sometimes.
The memories still rouse us, sometimes. The myth of nationalism and
nationhood still rouse us, sometimes. But even when it was supposed to
resurge like a great redeeming flood, and set out hearts pounding like trip
hammers – like EDSA I and EDSA II –
it just wasn’t
there anymore.
When we toppled the dictator Ferdinand Marcos and the pretender Joseph
Estrada, it was not because of nationalism. We swept these two dastards out
of power because we hated their guts. We didn’t bring out the flags. We
pealed no nationalistic bells. There was no notion of nation streaking to
the heights like star shells.We
look at our leaders, our politicians. We don’t see nationalism writ on their
faces. What we see is pork barrel. What we see is the pigoty.
What we see is power hoisted to the pedestal of Bacchus, Mars and the
tinkle-twinkle thunder of a Thor turned traitor.
And so we must explain what nationalism is about all over
again.
We must go back to its beginnings, pull out its roots, and tell our
countrymen to gather at campfires all over the country. So we can recharge
as Filipinos, recharge as a nation. The battles we will have to fight right
ahead will need the torches of nationalism to light the way. We had rainbows
at both EDSAS, but they had no nationalistic booster rockets. And so we lost
our way again. With nationalism both as a guiding flare and ideological
rocket, the fights ahead will be daunting. But God willing, we shall
overcome.
So we start with the basics. Hang on. This will take some time.It’s a
strange, macabre twist of our history that the first deadly lance flung to
defend – that is the perception – our archipelago from foreign invasion as
that of Lapu-Lapu into the heart of the Spanish conquistador Ferdinand
Magellan. At the time, the archipelago was not a nation. It was a
sun-drenched splinter of thousands of islands. What they had in common was a
tribal culture, hundreds if not thousands of independent fiefdoms engaged in
all kinds of trade, primitive agriculture, fishery, handicraft, and
widespread piracy.Strange again, and macabre again. Magellan’s conquest of
the Philippines, coupled with the advent of the Roman Catholic cross,
eventually transformed, through colonization, this archipelago into a
nation. The sword and the cross made sure the archipelago came into the
imperial possession of Spain, named Las Islas Filipinas after King Philip. A
nation we may have been through imperial decree.
But Filipinos we were not.
We became
Filipinos only through colonial exploitation. We became Filipinos because we
learned to protest, to resist and to fight,
to band together in fear and in hate of the brutal conqueror. We became
Filipinos because the few learned among us, Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio,
Apolinario Mabini, Emilio Aguinaldo, the Luna brothers et al, gave flesh and
bone to the word Indio. We became Filipinos because we created
La
Liga Filipina,
the Katipunan and waged the revolution against Spain.
We became Filipinos because we fashioned our own national flag, splattered
it with Indio blood. We earned through our heroism the admiration of our
colonized peers in Asia. We proclaimed the first republic in the continent.
We showed everybody what patriotism was. What courage was. Thus was a nation
born. Thus was nationalism born.
But we have to go
far back in history to get the kind of grip we Filipinos need on this modern
phenomenon of nation and nationalism.
Long before, after Anno Domini set in, there was the universal church in the
West. The Roman Catholic Church had absolute dominion. Obeisance to the Pope
and the Vatican was writ on every Western tablet. Then the dynasties came.
There were the Normans, the Pantagenets, the Stuarts and the Tudors in
England. There was the Romanov dynasty in Russia, the Hohenzollerns in
Germany, the Bourbons in France, the House of Savoy in Italy.As they spread
through conquest and accumulation of riches and property, the dynasties
started to weaken the hold of the universal Church. Out of these dynasties
emerged the kingdoms, the monarchical states. As these states became more
centralized, more powerful and extensive, the bedrock of the nation started
to come into being. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, after the 80 Years War
and the 30 Years War, recognized the territorial sovereignty of the states.
Thus the nation-state was born. Thus began the meltdown of empires. Thus
began, as the great
Arab historian Ibn
Khaldun
said, "The mutual affection and willingness of a people to fight and die for
each other." Listen to this. Nationalism was generally expressed by the
leaders, the intellectual elite, the writers, the professionals, the middle
class, the studentry and the youth. Only much later on did the masses get
into the picture with not too much emotion. It was in France and England
where nationalism initially took deep and unshakeable root. This was the
France which shook the world with its "liberte, egalite, fraternite"
revolution of 1789. This was the England where Oliver Cromwell held kings by
their pantaloons and drove the fear of God into their thrones.
The
best definition of nation
was articulated by
Ernest Renan
of the Sorbonne in 1882:
"A nation is a
soul, a spiritual principle, two things which are in reality...one. One is
the common heritage of a people of a rich heritage of memories; the other is
the actual agreement, the desire to live together, the will to continue to
make a reality of the heritage they have received in common."
Now take heed. It was only in the 20th century when the principles of nation
and nationalism reached Asia. And upon reaching Asia, (whose colonial chains
were then being broken) spread into so many explosions of
nation-consciousness. This was certainly a reaction against the abuses and
excesses of Western colonialism, as it was a reiteration of Asia’s earlier
glory as the origin of the world’s great religions and great
civilizations.Unlike the Philippines, much of Asia could look back thousands
of years and hoist the glitter of a myriad cultures, a myriad achievements
in war and literature, philosophy and industry, architecture and the arts,
science and technology. This also probably explains why many countries in
Asia – again not the Philippines – took to nationalism like long-concealed
thunderbolts of energy to make up for lost time.
To survive, to make themselves again proud in and of their
new nationhood, they had to study, learn and master the science and
technology of the West.That was the only way they could subjugate poverty.
Restore dignity to their peoples.
The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. That first step
bolted like a screaming bullet out of the starting block. They have been
sprinting like mad ever since. We Filipinos remain stuck in a stupor and
lethargy we must annihilate. We move or we die. We embrace the flag, and
swift like a stampede across the vast plains of nationalism or we die.
We were born Filipinos. Now we must learn to be Filipinos.
We must immerse ourselves into a changed and dynamic culture. For culture is
never permanently fixed, never frozen. Like the Japanese, like the Koreans,
like the Malaysians, we must care, we must hustle, we must be proud. we must
learn. We must work hard. Science and technology were never the monopoly of
anybody, any nation, any civilization. We have to grab them.The
permanent care-givers of the world we are not. Neither are we the muchachos
and the muchachas, the utos and the utusans. And certainly, we are not the
yukis of Asia – Japayukis, or Chekwayukis or whatnot.
The Filipino can? Yes, the Filipino can.
If he wakes up and
embraces the noblest sentiment of them all – nationalism.
=====================================
What is Filipino Nationalism?
Leticia Constantino
 Nationalism
has had a long history in our country. In our struggle for freedom, there
have been periods when strong nationalist feelings fired our people to
action and other periods when nationalism seemed to be forgotten. Not only
did
nationalism as a sentiment
have its peaks and valleys,
nationalism as a
political concept
has been espoused at one time or another by different sectors of society
which projected particular nationalist goals as their own interests and
historical circumstances demanded.
The ilustrados who led the Propaganda Movement were expressing the
nationalist goals of the Filipino elite when they demanded reforms which
would give them participation in political rule and a greater share in
economic benefits. The people, led by Bonifacio, went further than the
ilustrados. They demonstrated the highest nationalist fervor when they
spontaneously heeded the call of the Katipunan and fought an anti-colonial
revolution against Spain. They had practically won their freedom when they
were confronted by a new colonizer.
Nationalism again sustained the people in their fierce resistance to
American rule. Many from among the masses fought for a decade more, even as
most of the ilustrado leaders changed sides and collaborated with the enemy.
Their goal, their ideal was independence. They equated independence with a
better life, and rightly so,
although they had
no clear idea of the economic dimensions of the independent society
they aspired for beyond the immediate demand for land to the tillers.
Nationalism at that time was
mass nationalism.
It was clearly anti-colonial; its dominant goal was political independence.
American colonial policy suppressed Philippine nationalism by military
campaigns against resistance groups - the members of which is branded as
brigands and outlaws –and by the
Sedition Law of
1901
which imposed the death penalty or a long prison term on anyone who
advocated independence from the United States even by peaceful means. The
Flag Law
prohibited the display of the Philippine flag, that symbol of Filipino
nationalism, from 1907 to 1919.
As for
Andres Bonifacio,
the leader of the anti-colonial struggle, it was only in 1921, when Senator
Lope K. Santos authored a law making his birthday a national holiday, that
he was recognized as a national hero. On the other hand, with Governor
Taft’s approval, Rizal has been proclaimed a national hero as early as 1901.
The American administration gave every assistance to this recognition
because, in the words of Governor-general W. Cameron Forbes, “Rizal never
advocated independence, nor did he advocate armed resistance to the
government. He urged reform from within by publicity, by public education,
and appeal to the public conscience.”
Rizal became the
symbol of safe patriotism.
American public policy further undermined Filipino nationalism through the
educational system which imposed the English language as a medium of
instruction, projected American society and culture as models to be
emulated,
omitted all mention of Filipino resistance to American
conquest and the cruel suppression of that resistance,
inculcated the idea that Filipinos must undergo tutelage in self-government
to deserve independence, and presented the United States as our generous
benefactor.
Although the beneficiaries of American education began to imbibe American
values and culture and to like American consumer goods, the majority of
Filipinos remained faithful to the ideal of independence. Politicians
therefore had to declare in campaign speeches that they would work for
“immediate, complete and absolute independence”, in order to get the
people’s votes. But this independence was now to be requested from the
colonizer who had promised to grant it in due time.
Actually, the major political leaders, representing as they did the landlord
class which grew rich on the export-crop economy dependent on the US market,
had become afraid of the economic difficulties independence would bring.
Hence, there were instances when leaders of the independence Missions
themselves privately requested American officials to postpone the grant of
independence preferring instead greater autonomy, that is, more political
power from themselves.
Manuel L. Quezon
himself had worked secretly against the Jones Bill. Because they had
acquiesced to the growth of a dependent economy, these leaders could not
very well explain the economic realities to the people nor could they
espouse economic independence since they were the beneficiaries of economic
dependence. Independence therefore remained a political goal.
Nationalism as anti-colonialism
was raised to new heights of necessity by the brutal Japanese occupation.
Ironically enough, this hatred for one colonizer only increased the longing
for the return of the other colonizer and our blind faith in his promises.
While an aroused nationalism and a healthy suspicion made most Filipinos see
the sham independence by Japan and correctly appraise Japan’s exploitative
designs on our economy and natural resources, we filed to recognize very
similar policies and objectives when these came from our American friends.
When our “liberators” demanded that we accord American citizens the same
rights as Filipinos, when they asked for military and naval bases on our
soil, not enough Filipinos objected. We did not see these as derogations of
the sovereignty we had just regained. Our nationalist aspirations were
satisfied with flag independence.
The economic
dimensions of nationalism were not yet clearly within the perspective of the
majority.
Soon, however, economic problems arising from the re-imposition of free
trade and the renewed domination of our economy by foreign, mostly American,
corporations would make more Filipinos realize that the task of nationalism
did not end with the attainment of political independence. In fact, American
interventions in our internal affairs and American influence on our foreign
policy made thinking Filipinos doubt that we were even politically
independent. The subservience of the Philippine government to American
dictates was most obvious under our most pro-American, and indeed,
American-made president,
Ramon Magsaysay.
Almost single-handedly,
Senator Claro M.
Recto
espoused the nationalist causes against Magsaysay’s pro-Americanism. He said
that US-bases made a mockery of our independence and would expose us to
nuclear annihilation; he advocated an independent foreign policy. Above all,
he projected the economic aspect of nationalism, opposed the granting of
special incentives to attract foreign investments and instead advocated
nationalist industrialization. On the last point, he had the concurrence of
President Carlos P. Garcia
and of Filipino businessmen who supported Garcia’s
“Filipino First”
policy.
Although the
nationalism of these Filipino entrepreneurs was based on their narrow
economic interests (they wanted the government to protect them against
foreign competition and to give them preference in dollar allocations),
Filipino First as a nationalist slogan inspired other sectors
to voice out nationalist demands in their particular fields.
Educators, for example, asked for freedom to design a pattern of education
more responsive to Filipino needs.
Recto has raised the banner of economic nationalism, and clearly showed that
the greatest obstacle to its realization is American imperialism, which
acting in behalf of corporate giants, pressures weaker states to open their
economies to penetration and control.
His definition of
nationalism is still valid today:
“…a banner of freedom proclaiming the national interests of the people, to
be protected and safeguarded by themselves so that the fruits of their
efforts and the wealth derived from their God-given resources shall accrue
to them and thus enable all of our people to rise above poverty and march on
to prosperity, contentment and dignity.”
From this definition, we can deduce the
major
characteristics of Filipino nationalism
for our time.
Nationalism is
defensive, protective.
Nationalists believe that the resources of our country should be for the
benefit of our people today and in the future. Since our economy is
increasingly being dominated by foreign corporations with the active
intervention in their behalf of their governments,
nationalism is
necessarily anti-imperialist.
This means primarily, American and Japanese imperialism though it includes
the operation of other advanced countries as well.
However,
anti-imperialism is not racism.
Nationalists are not anti-American or anti-Japanese; they are only against
those policies of governments that harm the interests of the Filipino
people, policies which these governments pressure our government to adopt.
For example,
nationalists
criticize the many incentives and privileges given to foreign corporations
which take over areas of the economy
that could well be handled by Filipino businessmen if our government gave
them preference and protection. Whereas Filipino businessmen would have no
reason to remit their profits abroad, foreign corporations are guaranteed by
our government the privilege of remitting their entire profits in dollars.
Thus, a large part of the dollar earnings of our exports only goes to
finance these profit remittances.
A second example:
nationalists
criticize export orientation
which satisfy
the needs of others rather than those of our own people. We export our best
fish and shrimps to Japan and import their canned mackerel. Our best fruits
are for export. Meanwhile, 77% of Filipino children between the ages of one
and four are suffering from malnutrition.
The
nationalist goal is the welfare of the Filipino masses;
therefore the second major quality of nationalism is its mass character.
Our people themselves must protect and advance their own interests.
Nationalism should no longer serve the interest of one or another sector as
in the past. Mass nationalism is therefore democratic; it believes in the
greatest possible participation of the people in the determination of
policy, particularly in the re-orientation of our development program.
Corollary goals of mass-based nationalism are a
more equitable
distribution of economic resources and a just and humane society.
Nationalism does not advocate economic, political, scientific or cultural
isolation.
It is not anti-development; it does not long to return to an
idealized past.
Nationalism believes that our people deserve all the ease and comfort, good
health, and access to the best products of man’s intellect and artistic
spirit that the highest achievements of modern science and art can provide.
For this reason, nationalism believes in economic, political, scientific and
cultural exchanges with other countries but it will be careful and
selective, always placing priority on the needs and welfare of the Filipino
people.
As a national ideology,
nationalism must
permeate every aspect of Philippine life.
We have been witnessing in past years heightened interest in ethnic culture
as well as local music and art. These are manifestations of cultural
nationalism. However, if this new sense of cultural identity is not
integrated with economic and political nationalism and instead is used to
divert our attention from growing foreign control of our economy, then this
cultural development is a disservice to our people.
Nationalism demands both economic and political independence.
It resists and condemns foreign intervention in our internal affairs as well
as in the conduct of our foreign policy. The US bases are an unwarranted
derogation of our sovereignty and should be dismantles. In the field of
education, the use of our national language vas the medium of instruction is
a primary nationalist demand. Instruction is always more effective in the
national language. This should not be taken as hostility to English or any
other foreign language. They should be learned as a foreign language because
that is what they are.
It is a measure of our colonial mentality that we are more
interested in understanding and being understood by foreigners
than we are in developing an efficient medium for
internal
communication. The multiplicity of Philippine language is often advanced as
an argument by those who have favor for English. Let us not forget that
these are sister languages and therefore mastery of Pilipino is infinitely
easier for a Visayan or a Pampango than mastery of English, if only there
were no psychological roadblocks arising from colonial conditioning. We must
not equate good education with proficiency in English.
Education can be a powerful weapon in propagating nationalism.
A
nationalist education would place great importance on the teaching of
Philippine history from the point of view of the Filipino people.
This will develop an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist orientation based on
our historical experience as a people. Such a history should clarify how,
why, and for whose benefit our people have been exploited and oppressed. A
nationalist education would also emphasize a
critical study of
the Philippine economy
so that as a people we will learn to be wary of economic programs proposed
by foreign governments and institutions. Moreover, we should know how the
world capitalist system operates so we will understand in what way economic
development will affect our people. In history as in economics, we must use
only one yardstick. We must
judge past events
and present developments in terms of whether or not they served or will
serve the best interests of the people.
The Filipino people have the right to decide what kind of society they want,
what is best for them. They should strive to have the fullest political and
economic independence to chart their own future.
This is the
essence of nationalism.
=====================================
Impediments to Filipino Nationalism
To think about the
Filipino predicament is to be overwhelmed.
The causes/roots and effects of existing societal problems in our homeland
are so enormous that it is much easier to ignore and/or get away from them,
i.e. emigrate out of the country if possible. We all know that we
individually already did, may be able or have the capacity to do so, but
how about the multitude who can not?
We as humans, especially we Filipinos, tend to act only if we ourselves are
directly affected.
Here's an attempt to identify the cultural and other hurdles we Filipinos
have to overcome to attain a strong feeling of nationalism, the lack of
which is a strong detriment to true Filipino nationhood, to real economic
and political democracies.
Nationalism is a
sine qua non for a people
to develop a strong desire and resolve to correct the problems brought about
by governmental/bureaucratic decisions, military, business elites and
foreign influences, and to rein in the strong tides of absolute free trade
and cultural globalization -which has brought only more misery and
impoverishment to our fellow Filipinos in the Philippines, and work towards
the attainment of the common good.
As an aside let me say that in the past, I have touched on these ideas among
friends a few of whom felt offended that I was exposing our defects as
Filipinos, that I should count my blessings, etc. I have lost some of these
friendships. But in retrospect and in a way, these issues have identified
for me my real friends who remained despite some disagreements on the same
and other more mundane issues or pursuits. As we know, we do not need
"fair-weather friends". Quality -not quantity- of friends matters. And life
is short. Anyway
These impediments or hurdles to Filipino nationalism are:
1. Tribal Mentality
2. Belief in Determinism and Immature Religion
3. Colonial Mentality and English as Medium of Instruction
4. Lack of Social Consciousness and Selfish Individualism
5. Existence of Private and Foreign Schools
6. Mis-education
7. Educational System and Lack of Critical Thinking
8. Lack of Common and/or Foreign Enemy
1.
Tribal Mentality
- it seems our deepest loyalty is mainly limited to our immediate and
extended family. The extended family is enlarged somehow through a network
created by the
"kumpare/kumadre
system".
Although this system was and is entered into for religious reasons during a
child's baptism or confirmation, it is also used for ulterior motives to get
or gain socioeconomic and political influences.
This tribal and narrow thinking is further applied and exhibited in our
loyalty to our hometown, province or region; thus anyone from outside our
circle is virtually ignored, treated with suspicion and mistrust, and easy
prey to stereotyping. We are prone to be more offended by negative comments
to our hometown, province and region than those about our country.
This tribal mentality may be explained by our geographical remoteness
(coming from various islands), different dialects, historical animosities
brought about by the divisive influences made by our foreign occupiers
(Spaniards used Filipinos in one province to fight fellow Filipinos in
another, or Americans doing same and/or planting Filipino Christians in
Filipino Muslim lands), etc.
2.
Belief in Determinism and Immature Religion
- the Spanish religious legacy of Catholicism has inculcated in our minds
throughout the generations that whatever happens is the "will of God". Thus,
we have developed a
fatalistic
attitude
as expressed in statements such as "bahala na ang Diyos", "ginusto ng Diyos",
"oras na", etc. This fatalistic attitude pervades our poor countrymen and
even the so-called educated.
We are afraid to question such long-held beliefs since we think that it is
tantamount to committing sin. We need to outgrow these childish beliefs
which are destructive to ourselves and society and have to learn and
understand more deeply our inherited religion and thus develop a more mature
Christianity. The aggregate and adverse impact of fatalism is for a populace
to throw out their hands in despair, helplessness, inaction and to seek
solace in wishful prayers which in effect only gives credence to the
oft-quoted remark by Karl Marx that "religion is the opium of the people."
3.
Colonial Mentality/English as Medium of Instruction
- The 400-year Spanish rule did not militate against us in the formation of
Filipino nationalism as much as the subsequent 50-year American
colonization. The Spaniards for the most part kept the Filipino natives
ignorant and uneducated and our revolutionary forefathers fought them
effectively and efficiently; actually almost completely defeated them until
the Americans came to fool and steal from our forefathers their pursuit of
true political independence.
After the brutal defeat of our Katipuneros and Filipino nationalists, the
American occupying forces outlawed the display of the Filipino flag, banned
nationalist publications, incarcerated or deported nationalist writers, and
used natives to pursue, fight and subjugate remnant Filipinos who were still
fighting the American forces, and label these fighters as "insurgents",
"brigands or bandits", etc.
Under the guise of preparing and teaching us in self-government, the
American imposition of public education
was designed for the Filipinos to be Americanized in their outlook and this
was greatly attained by the
use of English
as the only medium of instruction (all part of
cultural
imperialism).
During their 50-year rule, public education was given the greatest priority
and was actually run as part of the US Department of the Army to ensure
compliance!
Thus years thereafter, America was able to leave peacefully since the
educational system has guaranteed and continually produced
"little
brown brothers"
who wittingly and unwittingly thought, loyally worked and ruled for America.
America did not need anymore to have American occupation troops in the
islands!
In addition, the practiced
"free trade"
during the colonial period and its later postwar
imposition
via our co-opted ruling elites perpetuated American dominance in all
significant business and industries; and embedded our
taste for imported
goods/culture and thus practically killing any nascent native
industrialization and losing our sense of national history, unity and
national identity.
A critical study of American history will show that the
Americans came not to help free the Filipinos from the Spaniards
(the revolutionaries have them surrounded until the Americans joined in and
fooled them to stay put until their reinforcements arrived). The Americans
came because during that moment in time in history,
America saw that
they need to expand their supply and demand markets in Asia,
especially the illimitable Chinese market, and saw the Philippines as the
gateway.
Of course, we can not learn these historical truths in Philippine and
American schools
unless one goes
beyond
official school textbooks and government publications.
4. Lack of Social Consciousness/ Selfish Individualism
- The tribal mentality has resulted in this Filipino character. It is also
the product of a mixture of the historical, perennial and current
abandonment by the national government, the Filipino rich and powerful.
The resultant deprivation has molded us into just "looking
out for ourselves".
The fortunate ones who inherited lands and wealth tend to continue their
disgust and lack of concern for the poor. The others who gain wealth,
through legal and/or illegal means, or have risen above pure subsistence
level by merit or emigration similarly take care only of their circle of
family, friends and relatives. For example, numerous kababayans who migrated
to America easily co-opted to the American way of "conspicuous consumption".
We were either previously deprived; or knowing nothing better to do or
attend to, surround ourselves with material possessions since our
consciousness and thinking never rose above "wants", and have practically
equated "wants" with "needs". We seem not to know how to spend leisure time
than to go shopping or perform some other material pursuits.
Our
"hierarchy of needs" get stunted at the material level.
We are amazed that the more fortunate and truly rich Filipinos do not become
as generous to their fellow countrymen as some similarly successful
Americans are (here's one quality I admire about Americans). The cliché "the
rich only get richer or the poor want to only get rich" rings true. Forget
the saying "it is more difficult for a rich man to enter heaven...." Oh
well, who believes that.
5.
Existence of
Private/Foreign schools
- The existence of the exclusively private and/or foreign schools is a
contributory detriment to Filipino nationalism. The existence creates a
divisive effect to national unity and Philippine society.
The
exclusive, private schools, i.e. Catholic colleges/universities, etc., for
the most part create an elitist class devoid of empathy for the impoverished
public
since the students are essentially insulated from the day-to-day realities
of the truly poor. One can feel and see these attitudes and behaviors from a
significant number of graduates from these schools. Of course, there are
exceptions.
The exclusively foreign schools i.e. Chinese, American,
Korean, etc. are similarly so, they see native/malayan Filipinos as a
different race (which is true of course) and they as a different people.
Their loyalty to the Philippines may be questionable or
suspect at worst and who knows what they teach their students?
We can only hope that the aloofness and racial differences that we witness
would disappear. There is a dire and urgent need to improve public schools
but this is impossible given the priorities of the government officials,
i.e. more money for the military and/or enriching themselves via government
coffers rather than more funding for education.
6.
Miseducation
- The mis-education
of Filipinos is not easily fathomed because it was implemented without
violence. The free public educational system brought by the American
occupiers efficiently and effectively influenced generations of Filipinos to
unquestioningly believe, love, adopt, adapt and follow America and anything
American.
We uncritically copy the American way of life, its
materialist obsessions, its pop culture, teachings and economic models, its
foreign policies, etc.
The mis-education made us
forget our
forefathers and their quest for true nationhood,
to attain the objectives of their unfinished revolution. We learned to
ignore our ethnic minorities. Remember our honored "American Boy"
General/Ambassador
Carlos Romulo,
labeling the "Negritos" as not Filipinos? We are truly Americanized -if not
trying harder than an American!- without being truly Americans (how can we
be, when we historically are seen as "niggers" too?). That is why other
Asian neighbors, who have maintained their national identity, national pride
and culture (I do not mean just their equivalents to our "tinikling" dance),
do not respect us.
What a shame. Or
do we not care about that too?
7.
Educational System/Critical Thinking
- Our existing educational system seems to have
failed and
continues to fail to develop in us an ability to think critically
as applied to socioeconomic and political issues, which in the short and
long run define and affect the lives of our people and future generations.
Aside from a few schools such as the UP or a few other progressive ones, the
graduates lack appreciation of what is described as
"liberal
education".
We seem to have countless bright minds who turn out to become successful
engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc but ignorant, if not very
ignorant, of critical analysis beyond their professional expertise.
Furthermore, during the Marcos dictatorship, the IMF/World Bank dictated how
and where the Philippine educational system has to be directed, i.e. serve
foreign investor interests.
Thus, we see a lot
of us quite naive, ignorant and distant about the predicament of the
Filipinos in the Philippines.
At best, we mouth or think based on what we have heard or seen in the
popular media. Or at worst, who cares (the “since I am ok, I do not care if
they're not ok” mentality) as I have encountered in a few.
8.
Lack of Common/Foreign Enemy
- In the history of nation-states, almost each nation has gained national
identity, unification and sovereignty through battles and wars against a
foreign enemy. Our Filipino forefathers rose against the Spaniards, our
400-year foreign occupiers. However, their revolution was hijacked by the
cunning Americans whom they also fought but failed to defeat.
The
Americans left us with their local substitutes: mis-educated fellow
Filipinos, who govern, think and work for American interests.
Our fathers united against the Japanese invaders during WW2 and then
post-war, their politicians came back to remove from elected office the
handful of nationalist fellow countrymen who were identified/labeled and saw
(thanks to our mis-education by the Americans) as only plain
"communists";
never mind their years of suffering and struggles for more humane treatment
by their absentee landlords.
Fast forward today, we are enjoined to see and label the Filipino rebels as
"terrorists",
thanks to the recent foreign policy dictates of America. We see our
Philippine Constitution and sovereignty ignored and will be seeing more US
troops directly hunting not just the Abu Sayyafs but the MILFs/MNLFs and
NPAs in our lands soon.
We do not have an identifiable foreign enemy because our enemy today is not
foreigners roaming our homeland typically garbed in combat uniforms.
The
physical absence of a foreign enemy makes common and nationalist causes
difficult.
Our difficulties to the attainment of national unity, our past, present and
future dangers to nationhood and common good are brought about by our
own
people in business and government who are serving foreign interests by
continually selling out our patrimony, whatever is left of our fully
exploited natural resources, and destroying whatever is left of our national
agriculture and nascent industry.
These foreign and local business partners essentially imply:
Damn the native Filipinos in the Philippines.
We have to maximize profits, maximize our shareholders equity,
to
hell with Filipino nationalism
-which to them is obsolete, a business constraint that need to be demolished
and not necessary in these times of globalization via WTO, that is,
perpetual dominance by American, Japanese and European transnational
corporations. Inasmuch as
THE ENEMY IS US
for allowing such conditions,
the task is much, much more difficult, but not insurmountable.
=====================================
|
