 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
epistle
language
erniet1erniet2erniet3erniet4erniet 5erniet6erniet7erniet8erniet9erniet10erniet11erniet12erniet13erniet14erniet15erniet16erniet17erniet18erniet19erniet20erniet21erniet22erniet23erniet24erniet25erniet26erniet27erniet28erniet29erniet30erniet31erniet32erniet33erniet34erniet35erniet36erniet37erniet38erniet39erniet40erniet41erniet42erniet43erniet44erniet45erniet46erniet47erniet48erniet49erniet50erniet51erniet52ernie53erniet54erniet55erniet56erniet58erniet59erniet60|
|
| Pampanga |
| ||||||
| In Defense of the Macabebes (continued) absolut_vanilla2000@yahoo.com.au writes: Subj: [AkademyangKapampangan] On why we are divided Date: 9/16/2005 6:09:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: absolut_vanilla2000@yahoo.com.au Reply-to: AkademyangKapampangan@yahoogroups.com To: AkademyangKapampangan@yahoogroups.com Sent from the Internet I wrote: >>"Why do you think that even after independence from those foreign powers that we so detested, the Philippines is still divided and there have been 3 EDSA revolutions already, not to mention the many coup attempts against the establishment? Why did we have a civil war between the Huks and the government during the 40s and 50s, and now an NPA insurgency? If all these have happened after our independence, and Filipinos still fight fellow Filipinos now despite the nationalism that should have fostered unity among them, what more could you expect during those "Indio" days when there was no nationalism yet?" You wrote: >Why are we divided? No, I'm not asking on why we are divided! That's not at all the question posed in my last sentence if you notice. I was trying to justify the actions of the late 1800's people, the Macabebes in particular, on why they acted the way they did. Like I say, some Indios like the Macabebe Scouts were not yet imbued with a sense of nationalism during their time. If our politicians nowadays, after 10 years under a commonwealth regime and another 60 years of true independence, are still deeply divided and one side (the minority) is trying to destabilize the government, what more during that era, and what better sort of unity would you expect then for God's sake? What I mean is, why would we have expected the Macabebes to have sided with Aguinaldo and his forces instead of with the Americans? What valid reason would they have for doing that? After all, the Americans seemed to have given them hope for a better life. If the Americans did not take over and teach us democracy among other things, would we have become number two as an economic would-be tiger in the orient during the fifties? We would have been even poorer than we are now even with just a small population then. In 1900, we were not actually ready for independence at all. And this can be proven by the type of society we have even now - with this attitude problem of ours. But again, this is not at all the point I am trying to get across to you. You see, Vanilla, Aguinaldo was looked upon by the Macabebes as an adversary... and as a rebel. And they looked at themselves as loyal vanguards of the established government then - something they helped build for well over three centuries. (This would remind one of Alec Guiness in the Bridge on the River Kawii, who wanted to save the bridge that he and his men had so skillfully built, and did not want it blown up with dynamite even if such was a strategy to stop and delay the advancing Japanese soldiers.) Anyway, since Aguinaldo had always been seen by them as their enemy, why would they not just choose to stay put as soldiers under the new management whom they did not anyway regard as an enemy? Remember that there was a deal struck between the foreign powers. There was no real fighting in Manila before its fall. It was just a mock battle, a face-saving feature on the part of the Spaniards (and Macabebes) who knew too well that they were of no match to the Americans but had to show that they nontheless resisted and tried defending the city. A surrender was already virtually in store even before the fight began. They had a white flag ready. On top of this, the Treaty of Paris provided for the purchase of the islands by the Americans from the Spaniards, not to mention the fact that the Philippine independence proclaimed in Kawit on June 12, 1898 was never recognized by the international community. (I am writing this not because I did not want the Philippines to become free from the clutch of colonial powers. I am just saying what was true then.) For analogy, let us say for instance that you are an employee of Chuck Taylor, and Nike bought your company and decides to just retain the same staff for convenience. Would you bolt the company because it is now run under a new management and try to apply for a job at Adidas which has been keenly competing with you through the years? That was exactly what the Macabebes did, aside from maintaining their loyalty to the government they, along with their fathers and forefathers before them, had served devotedly for years and years. With no nationalistic spirit in their hearts to guide them, they chose to just go on fighting the other Indios just like what they had been doing even before the coming of the Americans. Remember, there was no oneness among ethnic groups then, no such thing as what we now call "Filipino". It was true that we, Indios, were all brown-skin and the Spaniards were white, but should the Macabebes have resorted to racial discrimination? To them, the Spaniards were their brothers, especially when they were treated like they were fellow Castilians. Their long association with the Spanish made them lose any such inferiority complex other Indios may have been apt to harboring as a character trait. Hence, the ease with which they mingled with other whites. Some of us today, just to shed off colonial mentality, have lingering hatred towards foreigners especially those that used to govern us. But how sure are we that fellow Filipinos have governed us better than the Spaniards did, or the Americans? Have we been in heaven since 1946 just because we have been ruling ourselves since then? Was Quezon right when he emotionally said in the senate, "I prefer a country run like hell by Filipinos to a country run like heaven by Americans."? If so, why do some Filipinos from time to time clamor for Philippine statehood in the U.S.? Why are they being nostalgic and longing for the good old days? And going back to the Macabebe issue....well, they helped round up their fellow Indios, an act that eventually resulted in our unity as a people now called Filipinos. Because of them, a nation was born. About the only adverse effect of this however, and which we in DILA unanimously agree as detrimental, is that many of us would, because of this, lose their immediate identities. We are all lumped together even after the foreign powers already left us. Yes, to the extent that our cultural diversity is now threatened. We (Kapampangans, Cebuanos, Ilonggos, Warays, Bicolanos, Pangasinanes) all have remained as captive nations, to recapitulate what David Martinez in his book, "A Country of Our Own", has so eloquently portrayed in black and white. Language-wise, we are now in an even worse situation than during the colonial times when our languages were free and not endangered like they are now. These controversial Macabebes, they can only be loved and hated. And it all depends upon whose point of view. Vanilla, In my past messages I thought I already defended the Macabebes in their action and in fact even recommended that they be honored with a large, panoramic monument in front of the provincial capitol in San Fernando! But apparently you don't believe me, and would rather believe this person (Burgos) that is making disparaging remarks related to our (and Gloria's) being "dugong aso". This is both mud-slinging and character assassination. Okay, let me explain this again although my previous posts were for sure much better if you just reread them instead. The term "dugong aso" originated in the katagalugan region for sure as otherwise it would have been "dayang asu" or something else. Very likely too, despite the fact that the pet dog is known for its bravery and loyalty, that is not what it implies since it was hurled in contempt and in disdain. It implies "canine devotion", the Macabebes being so loyal to their masters, the Spaniards. I reckon the name-calling or taunting was especially common in the 1890's, before June 1898 when Aguinaldo and his men were still trying to get the Kapampangans to their side. (That's because the strength of Spain depended much on the Kapampangan.) In June 1898, the Kapampangans did fight against the Spaniards, resulting in the complete liberation of their province in just one month. Still branding them "Dugong Aso", especially after they had joined the revolution, is illogical and borders on stupidity! Those who called them as such should know that they were just ahead of the Kapampangans by a few years in shedding off the "'dugong aso" tag. Before 1896, they themselves, the Cavitenos, Batanguenos and Bulakenos were "dugong aso" too just like the Pampanguenos and Tarlakenos. Remenber the ones referred to as "wicked accomplices" in Nick Joaquin's The Aquinos of Tarlac? The triple alliance? Then, remember too that there was no sense of nationalism or national unity among the people in the Philippines then. It was not just because of the "Divide and conquer" policy, but because the archipelago was actually composed of "captured nations" of different kinds of tribes of Malay-Polynesian race. There was no such thing as "Filipino". We were just called altogether as Indios. And the term "Indio" did not carry any special pride that would wake up the senses of the natives. It was only when fellow brown-skinned Indio propagandists living and studying in Europe, such as Rizal, del Pilar, Jaena, Luna and our own Alejandrino wrote their writings asking for reforms that the spirit of nationalism started to take shape. So, Aguinaldo's insurectionists and the Macabebe scouts never looked at each other as brother Filipinos during those years. With the Americans taking over the islands, the Macabebes were recruited again as soldiers. Many Macabebes volunteered, as after all, Aguinaldo was their enemy, just as all rebels fighting against the Spanish-led government were enemies. That was the reason why they did not harbor any guilty feeling when they helped Gen. Funston capture him in Isabela. If you fight an enemy, would you be considered a traitor? Certainly not. If it were the Spaniards that they had turned their backs on after 300 years of loyal service, well, that was what would have been a real treachery! So they did not actually betray Aguinaldo because they regarded him as their enemy. One can only betray a friend or ally but not a foe. So, this "dugong aso" matter was a farce and should once and for all be junked in the garbage of history. Loyalty (since they stuck with Spain for over 300 years) and heroism, and not treachery, is how the Macabebes should be remembered. Anyway, if we take a close look at history, we would find the real traitors. Even if, for the sake of argument, we take for granted that being an Indio was already enough to spark a sense of nationalism, who were responsible for the split of the Katipunan into two factions? Who were responsible for the deaths of fellow Indios, Andres Bonifacio (who was executed on a hill in Marogondon, Cavite) and Gen. Antonio Luna (who was assassinated in a convent in Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija)? If an Indio could kill a fellow Indio within their own army, why couldn't the same rule be applied on the Macabebes when they battled against their fellow Indios who were then their real enemies? There have been so many people that have committed treachery since time immemorial and even in present-day politics, this is very prevalent. If treachery is what keeps dwelling in your mind, just think of those appointed officials that resigned and went against the President. But of course, like what Lynn says, you were already anti-Arroyo even before these allegations against her were filed. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
 eiturla@aol.com |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00107 |