SAVE OUR LANGUAGES THROUGH FEDERALIZATION - Languages - http://maxpages.com/defender/solfed

To the Honorable Representatives of the House:

"Your Honors We Urge You To Vote Against House Bill 1563."

We urge you to vote against a bill (House Bill 1563 authored by Gabriela Rep. Liza Masa, Bayan Muna Reps. Satur Ocampo, Teodoro Casiño and Joel Birador and Anakpawis Reps. Crispin Beltran and Rafael Mariano) filed to make 'Filipino' the main medium of instruction in Philippine schools.

The bill does not benefit our economy, and will eventually adversely affect the chances of our overseas workers in their job applications abroad, degrade our communication skills in the field of international business and trade, and lower our standards in the sciences. Some would even say that the bill is a subtle form of economic sabotage, and markedly contrasts to the revived efforts of our neighboring Asian countries such as Malaysia, Taiwan, and Japan to teach English to their populace, in an effort to boost their economy. The bill rationalizes that 'Filipino' is easier to learn than English; yet if we are to be consistent in the use of this logic, then the non-Tagalog languages are the easiest languages for their native peoples in their tradtional areas to use in their schools. Even the definition of 'Filipino' is subject to dispute.

Most serious of all, the bill is a direct threat to the existence of practically all of our ethnolinguistic peoples. A vote for this bill is a vote for the eventual extermination of the non-Tagalog languages and peoples of the Philippines. Please oppose it for the sake of our ethnolinguistic peoples. Take a look at the summary, based on NSO surveys, below.

THE DYING PEOPLES OF THE PHILIPPINES

(AS % OF THE PHILIPPINE POPULATION)

14

1948

1960

1975

1990

1995

15 Tagalog

19%

21%

23%

28%

29.29%

16 Cebuano

25%

24%

24%

24%

21.17%

17 Ilocano

12%

11%

11%

09%

09.31%

18 Ilonggo

12%

10%

09%

09%

09.11%

19 Bicol

08%

07%

06%

05%

05.69%

20 Waray

06%

05%

04%

04%

03.81%

21 Pampangan

03%

03%

03%

03%

02.90%

22 Pangasinan

03%

02%

02%

01%

01.01%

23 Others

12% 13%

12%

13%

In ever-increasing numbers each generation, parents are ceasing to teach their native language to their children right in their native areas, and migrants from the majority ethnic group do not learn the native language of the area that they migrate into. Such language niche grabbing, which is causing our native peoples to go extinct, can occur because of the majority privileged status that the Philippine State has given 'Filipino' speaking citizens. This Bill will, without a shadow of doubt, exacerbate this trend. Yet we, the non-Tagalog peoples of the Philippines are as Filipino as the Tagalog people. As one patriotic Cebuano would say, "I am 100% Filipino and I love Cebuano. Why discriminate against me and my people?" Indeed, why are we being subjected to linguistic ethnic cleansing in our own country?

It is natural and good that we respect the existence and diversity of the ethnolinguistic peoples of the Philippines. Without diversity, Creation would have no meaning. The diversity of Creation is natural and good. We, the peoples of the Philippines, have been in natural existence before the Philippines attained nationhood, and do not owe our existence to it, nor to the Spanish and American colonizers who defined its territory. When the Philippines was created, we have already been there, and we are an intrinsic part of it. We cannot accept a future 'Philippines' whose ethnolinguistic peoples, except one, have all been exterminated, and just imagining such an abomination makes our guts twist in horror. We, the peoples of the Philippines, have the right to exist.

Finally, and this is crucial to politicians, language, rather than simply provincial or regional origin, plays a key role in politics and elections The latest presidential elections, were particularly sharply divided along ethnolinguistic lines, and exploded the myth of the 'masa' vote (a phenomenon limited to the Tagalog Region). It goes on to follow that the expansion of one ethnolinguistic group, the one whose language is the basis of 'Filipino,' will inevitably have increasing political repercussions for the rest of the country.

Detailed information is given in the attachment hereto.

Respectfully Yours,

SAVE OUR LANGUAGES THROUGH FEDERALISM, Foundation, INC. (SOLFED)

(SGD) Dr. Jose P. Dacudao, SOLFED National President

(SGD) Valeriano S. Avila, SOLFED National Vice President, Private Sector Representative Regional Development Council 7

(SGD) Reverend Father Joesilo Amalla, SOLFED National Executive Director and President Butuan Chapter

(SGD) Atty. Manuel Lino G. Faelnar, SOLFED Vice President for Liason Metro Manila

(SGD) Santiago Villafania, SOLFED Vice President for Liason Pangasinense, Business Manager - Ulupan na Pansiansia'y Salitan Pangasinan, poet of literary Pangasinense

(SGD) Roderic Rama Poca, SOLFED Vice President for Liason for Cebu , Professor in the Department of Political Science University of San Carlos-Cebu

(SGD) Rolando Espina, SOLFED Vice President for Liason for Negros, Member Negros Occidental Historical Society

(SGD) Judith P. Buyco, SOLFED Vice President for Liason Panay

(SGD) Honorable Francis Frederick 'One Ton' P. Palanca, SOLFED President Victorias Chapter, Vice Mayor Victorias City Negros Occidental

(SGD) Timilou Feliz P. Guemo, SOLFED National Secretary, former Auditor UAP-SA Visayas

========================================================================

ATTACHMENT

Main Argument For Preserving Our Languages:

Language defines a people. A Visayan who cannot speak a Visayan language, even if he or she was born and grew up in the Visayas-Mindanao area, where there have been Visayans for more than a thousand years, is not Visayan. He has been cut off from an ancient cultural identity that remains one of the oldest in the world. Or how can a person be an Ilocano if he cannot speak it? You can't speak Kapampangan? Then you are not Kapampangan. Ditto for Bicolanos, Warays, and all the rest. Without our language, we have no culture, we have no identity; we are nothing.

No one can artificially create an ethnolinguistic people. Only the Creator can. The survival of our ethnolinguistic peoples in a Creation of diverse beauty is not even a matter of right or wrong but a matter of existence or oblivion. A hundred years from now, any debate as to whether the existence of an ethnolinguistic people is right or wrong when it has ceased to exist is completely inutile, because what is being discussed is already dead.

Likewise, any discussion on the so-called ancestral lands issue loses its essence when the ethnolinguistic people involved has ceased to exist because of the death of its language. For example, a Manobo is by definition as a person whose native language is Manobo. So how can you talk of the ancestral lands of Manobos when the Manobos have been obliterated with the death of their language? How can you talk about a people’s ancestral lands if the people do not exist?

Will you make your faces identical with those of your neighbors and seatmates just because an ideology says we all would look nicer if we had the same face? Of course not, as we were created with different faces and personalities. Similarly with languages, will we homogenize all Philippine languages just because an ideology says we ought to? Of course not! Instead we must accept that there is something wrong with that ideology, even if it has been taught to us since elementary school by a system that does not respect its own peoples.

The basic argument for preserving a people is the same as that for preserving a species, that is, a conscious decision to stand for the diversity of Creation. A renowned paleontologist once said: I can see and study the fossil bones of now extinct birds, but never will I see the colors of their feathers nor hear the sweetness of their songs. Costumes and artifacts are dead things we keep in museums and show to tourists, but the living soul of a people is its living identity carried by its language. A government that makes a minority people wear native costumes and dance in front of TV cameras for the sake of attracting tourists, but does not teach its language in schools, is utterly hypocritical and exploitative. If we are sincere in helping our ethnolinguistic peoples to survive, we must teach their language in schools in their traditional areas. Once a people is dead, we will never ever see the bonds that they formed, nor ever hear the melody of their tongue.

Another Argument For Preserving Our Languages:

There is another argument for preserving the diversity of Creation, albeit a more practical and perhaps selfish one. We can never know the possible future uses of a specific species or language. A plant that seems to have no practical use now may suddenly be the source of an important antibiotic in the future. The following are examples of the use of a specific language:

1. Some languages, especially those which are difficult to learn, can form the basis for codes. During World War II, the Americans suddenly found Navajo (a native North American tongue spoken by the Navajo people) a useful language in creating a code that the Japanese never broke, because Navajo is a difficult language to learn and no Japanese knew Navaho.

2. Some languages, which are intrinsically user-friendly, can form the basis of a trade or scientific language in the future if the need arises. A few examples: Latin is in some ways easier to learn for a non-native speaker than English, mainly because English has so many irregular verbs. Likewise, almost any Philippine language is intrinsically easier to learn for a non-native speaker than any Chinese language because of the tonal characteristic of Chinese languages, wherein differences in pitch distinguishes different meanings in what are otherwise the same words. As an example among Philippine languages, Hiligaynon, which is the closest linguistically related language to 'Filipino', is much easier for an outsider to learn than 'Filipino,' because Hiligaynon has a relatively simpler conjugation pattern.

Tagalog Nationalism:

The bill in issue is the epitome of Tagalog nationalism. Tagalog nationalism is a unitarian ideology based on the the precept of unity in uniformity. In brief, Tagalog nationalism tries to create a Philippines whose citizens all speak the same language. It is a nihilistic ideology because it annihilates the self respect of our natural peoples and eventually their very identities, and it is chauvinistic because it stomps on their dignity and promotes a pathetic sense of inferiority complex and colonial mentality amongst them. It turns all non-Tagalog Filipinos into second class citizens, and is hostile to their existence. It transgresses the language rights of the more than 150 ethnolinguistic peoples in the Philippines. It violates one of humanity's basic freedoms, one that is protected in our Bill of Rights, the freedom of expression.

The main issue here is the very survival of the non-Tagalog ethnolinguistic peoples of the Philippines, at least 3 of which have become extinct since 'Filipino' was forcibly rammed into our educational system in World War II, ironically by Japanese colonizers who wished us weaned off from English. Successive census figures show that practically all ethnolinguisitic peoples of the Philippines, except the one whose native tongue is 'Filipino,' is decreasing as a percentage of the population.

Tagalogs vs. Tagalistas:

The Tagalogs are an ethnolinguistic people, who have the right to preserve and develop their language. In the same context, so do other ethnolinguistic peoples in the country. For example, the Kapampangans also have the right to preserve and develop their language. Tagalogs and Kapampangans are equal, and are equal to the other Philippine ethnolinguistic peoples. The State should not institute laws and practices that will make one of them in social majority over the rest, as this will mean that the rest will become social minorities and second class citizens. More seriously, such a discriminatory policy eventually pushes the neglected languages into extinction.

Thus we are not against Tagalogs as an ethnolinguistic people. If by a twist of history, the Tagalog language becomes endangered sometime in the far future, we should come to their succor. On the other hand, Tagalistas desire to spread the ideology of Tagalog nationalism, unity in the uniformity of the Tagalog language. Tagalistas do not have to be Tagalogs themselves; there are many Visayan Tagalistas for example, native Visayans who adhere to Tagalog nationalism.

We love the Tagalog ethnolinguistic people for what they are. If the state were to legislate a law inimical to the existence of the Tagalog ethnolinguistic people, we surely would oppose it. On the other hand, Tagalistas do not respect the language rights of the peoples of the Philippines, and who, if they have their way, will kill off all the other ethnolinguistic peoples of the Philippines in the name of their perverted sense of nationalism. If we are to oppose a bill that is inimical to the existence of one of the peoples of the Philippines, the Tagalog people, surely we should oppose a bill that is inimical to all the peoples of the Philippines, except one.

Language vs. Dialect:

Is Filipino a separate language? Dialects are mutually intelligible versions of a language and cannot exist outside the context of a language. For example, Batangueno and Bulakeno are mutually intelligible tongues, and thus are dialects or versions of the same language, which we call Tagalog. Similarly, Cebuano exists as several dialects. Thus Cagayan Cebuano and Boholano are clearly different in accent, vocabulary, and idioms, but are mutually intelligible, meaning their speakers can understand each other without previous language lessons. Thus, Cagayan Cebuano and Boholano are dialects of the same language, which is called by linguists as Cebuano. On the other hand, no Tagalog dialect is mutually intelligible with any dialect of Cebuano. Thus Tagalog and Cebuano are two separate languages, and co-equal to each other.

All international linguists (including the linguists of the highly regarded Summer Institute of Linguistics in the Philippines), adhering to international standards, agree that Filipino is a Tagalog dialect. Filipino is mutually intelligible with all Tagalog dialects and mutually unintelligible with all non-Tagalog languages. Given the differences in vocabulary, grammar, syntax, idioms, conjugation patterns, and even accent and intonation that make each language unique, it is impossible to create a Filipino from all the Philippine languages without retaining each component language’s unique identity. Unity in diversity means giving freedom to the peoples that these languages define to preserve and develop their own languages. Unity in uniformity means killing all of them except one, whether that language is an existing one or an artificial one.

Are Our Languages Really Dying?

Yes.

One, there is a dearth of literature and official use of the provincial Philippine languages. Many of these languages do not even have a written literature, and are not used in government and schools in their own territories. Residents can hardly read and write in their own language. New songs, movies, TV shows, essays, poems, and books are not being composed in the provincial languages, and the few that are being made, because of the minority status attached to them by state policy, are not being patronized by their own speakers.

Two, National Statistics Office surveys shows that every Philippine ethnolinguisitic people is decreasing in percentage of the Philippine population, except the one that speaks 'Filipino' as its native tongue. When the natural birth rate of these peoples finally approaches zero, as is the trend at present, their absolute numbers will also decrease, eventually to extinction if we do nothing now.

Three, minority peoples are losing territory fast to the center’s ethnolinguistic group. For example, Puerto Princesa in Palawan, which used to speak Cuyonon, no longer does, and the Cuyonons (a Western Visayan people) are becoming confined to a small group of islands off Palawan and will inevitably die out should we do nothing. Same story for the rest of the native Palawan and Mindoro languages. Likewise, the rich array of native languages of Romblon (including Romblomanon, Unhan, Asi, Odiongon) are dying out. Even traditionally big and influential ethnolinguistic peoples such as the Kapampangans of Pampanga and the Bicolanos of Camarines Norte are in the process of getting wiped out.

Banalities and Bogeys of Tagalistas:

A. Filipino is not a Tagalog dialect. Wrong. It is. This has been answered above. Tagalistas often use this bogy, honey-coating one Philippine language (Tagalog) as “Filipino” to justify imposing monolingual uniformity in a way that avoids hostile reaction among the non-Tagalog peoples.

B. We need “Filipino” as a national language because we are one nation. There are three models that refute this banality.

One: It is an empirical fact that the USA does not have a national language (because any national language in the minds of the founding fathers of the USA infringes on an even more fundamental freedom, that of the freedom of speech and expression), and each local State is free to choose its official languages, or none at all. Thus there is no legal barrier to, say, the teaching of Spanish or a Native American language like Navajo. Many such native languages in North America, as well as Hawaii, are now being taught in the schools, and as a result their native speakers are fast increasing in numbers. This policy of teaching the minority languages in American schools has saved their peoples from extinction.

Two: Many countries with a keener sense of justice have multiple official languages, in recognizance of their native peoples. For example, India has almost 20, Switzerland has four, etc. Why can’t we?

Three: Many areas of the world, including pre-WW II Philippines, use a neutral language as a common means of communication for its leveling effect. (A neutral language is an outside language that is not spoken as a native language by any of the ethnolinguistic peoples in a common area.)

Tagalistas insist that we need one common national language in order to communicate with each other, and this is simply false. It is an empirical fact that we, the peoples of the Philippines, have been communicating with each other for more than 300 years before there was a national language, and even long before there was a Philippines. How did 20th century Filipinos communicate before WWII? (It was ironically the Japanese who actually popularized Filipino in Philippine schools in an effort to wean us off from English). We used English, which happened to be the language of the American colonizers but which also fortunately happened to be the international language of science and trade, and multiple Philippine languages. If you were an Ilocano and went to trade in Cebu, you quickly learned Cebuano, and so on. Filipinos, including Tagalogs, respected the local culture of the region that they went into, by learning the native tongue. The usage of a neutral language like English also made for a leveling effect among Philippine languages; none was socially superior to the rest. Today, in many multilingual areas in Africa and Asia, English and French are used for their leveling effect, thus protecting the status of smaller ethnolinguistic peoples who would otherwise be pushed into oblivion had a neighboring tongue been imposed on them.

Because t

Sign Guestbook

View Guestbook

Visitors: 01058

Page Updated Fri Oct 8, 2004 11:01pm EDT