Historical Commentary
Semantics of Colonization and Revolution
A review
of Philippine history shows an analysis of certain events and historical
figures like Andres Bonifacio that border on the ridiculous and the
sinister.
BY
ROSALINDA N. OLSEN
Contributed to Bulatlat
Too often we transfer ourselves into what we see, hear or read. The
author’s meaning and intent can therefore affect our own predisposed
ideas. Add to this predisposition the unfortunate habit of some writers
in loosely using terminology and in blindly borrowing foreign concepts.
The result could range from the comical to the insidiously erroneous.
My favorite description of this ailment is “changing the terrain to fit
the map.”
Andres Bonifacio has been known to Filipinos as “the great plebian,” the
anak pawis (member of the toiling masses) who inspired thousands
of other anak pawis to fight the hated Spanish oppressors with
only their bolos (long knives) and the pitifully small
firearms available to them. For reasons known only to themselves,
certain writers began portraying Bonifacio as middle class, albeit
low-middle class, and not the anak pawis who led the Revolution
of 1896. To support their claim, they point to his clothes, his marriage
to the relatively wealthy Gregoria de Jesus, and his being a mason and
membership in Jose Rizal’s La Liga Filipina that supposedly
admitted only the “middle class” and the principalia.
What exactly do they mean by “middle class” in Rizal’s time? Was there
a middle class during at least three decades before the Americans
exported their brand of democracy to their new colony the Philippine
islands that they bought from Spain for $20 million through the Treaty
of Paris?
Throughout the Spanish colonial regime, there were only two distinct
classifications: the colonizer and the colonized. There were two types
among the colonizer: the Peninsular who was a Spanish born in
Spain, and the Filipino who was a Spanish born in the colony that
was then called Las Islas Filipinas. Among the colonized were
three major groups: the Indio, that is, all natives except the
Muslims in the South who were called Moro. The third was the
Sangley or the Chinese. What should have been a fourth group
consisted of the non-christian and non-moro like the Igorot, Manobo and
Tiruray who were either conveniently ignored or simply lumped together
with the Indio. Intermarriage resulted in a new type, the
mestizo. Since the Spanish regarded themselves as a people separate
– and quite a different “species” – from the colonized, the country was
peopled by two different societies. Clearly, the social classes assigned
by historians cannot apply to the country’s total population.
At the risk of being facetious, I shall use an analogy, assigning social
classes in a land populated only by cats and dogs. There could be a
middle class among the dogs and a middle class among the cats,
each specific to the species, but there can neither be a cat-dog nor a
dog-cat as an equivalent of the “middle class.”
To insist on doing so results in a species or social class that I can
only call the “hotdog.” As we know, a hotdog is neither a dog nor hot;
and the proportion between the meat and the other ingredients is better
left unexamined. To assign a middle class for the whole society of the
Philippines before 1900 can thus be described as a sandwich: the
colonizer as one piece of bread, the colonized as the other piece of
bread; and the hotdog between the two pieces.
Andres Bonifacio was a plebian as were the great majority of the
colonized, but what is a “plebian”? The latter, simply defined, refers
to the “common people.” Let us review what the inhabitants were like
before the Spaniards consolidated their rule. Chapter 8 of Antonio de
Morga’s The Philippine Islands has a description of the country’s
social structure then. On top are the chiefs in each island and province
who had their own followers and subjects. Morga wrote:
These principalities and lordships were inherited in the male line and
by succession of father and son and their descendants. If these were
lacking, then their brothers and collateral relatives succeeded. Their
duty was to rule and govern their subjects and followers, and to assist
them in their interests and necessities. What the chiefs received from
their followers was to be held by them in great veneration and respect;
and they were served in their wars and voyages, and in their tilling,
sowing, fishing, and the building of their houses. To these duties the
natives attended very promptly, whenever summoned by their chief. They
also paid the chiefs tribute (which they called buiz), in varying
quantities, in the crops that they gathered. The descendants of such
chiefs, and their relatives, even though they did not inherit the
lordship, were held in the same respect and consideration. Such were all
regarded as nobles, and as persons exempt from the services rendered by
the others, or the plebeians, who were called timaguas.
De Morga’s book was originally published in 1609 in Mexico, annotated
and republished by José Rizal, and the above quote was from the
translation of Blair and Robertson, now available at the
Project Guttenberg website. Instead of “social classes,” de Morga
used the term “conditions.” He wrote, “There are three conditions of
persons among the natives of these islands, and into which their
government is divided: the chiefs, of whom we have already treated; the
timaguas, who are equivalent to plebeians; and slaves, those of both
chiefs and timaguas. Clearly, the timagua were the freemen,
which Blair and Robertson translated as “plebian.”
Tracing the origin of the word “plebian” then places Bonifacio among the
timagua or freemen, but using that term was no longer possible
during Spanish colonization. Everyone who was not Spanish simply became
Indio who were decidedly not free and who hardly had property
rights. José Rizal – supposedly the “First Filipino” which was,
incidentally, the title of a Rizal biography written by Leon Ma.
Guerrero – belonged to the ilustrado class and his family was
among the principalia. However, his family did not own the
hectares of land that gave them wealth and high social standing. Despite
their wealth and social status, the Mercado-Rizals had “land troubles”
and they could easily have lost all their property. To use present-day
terminology, the Mercado-Rizals were in reality landless tenants because
the many hectares they farmed were only leased to them from the vast
friar estates. In short, those who were not Spanish were slaves to the
foreign colonizer. This was the slavery that “the great plebian”
Bonifacio attempted to eradicate.
Not since Bonifacio has an anak pawis inspired thousands of
common folk to pledge their heart, mind, and life to break the chains of
enslavement. More than a hundred years after José Rizal composed the
kundiman (native love song) that begins with “Tunay ngang umid
yaring dila at puso” (The tongue and heart indeed convey nothing),
the common folk are still mute, inarticulate and filled with a sense of
helplessness and hopelessness.
Instead of valor and patriotism, there exists among them a kind of
“slave psychosis,” made more tragic because the oppressor is no longer a
foreign colonizer but the slaves turned master. The enemy is from
within, not easily recognized because they are cleverly disguised.
The next attempt to organize the common folk was among the landless
tenants in the central plains of Luzon. One of the active organizers was
Luis Taruc, rightly or wrongly charged as a communist, then the worst
accusation that can be made against anyone. Thus it happened that when
the Americans were caught totally unprepared for the Japanese invasion,
Taruc’s people had the only organized groups that can be used to fight
the new invaders. They came to be known as the Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa
Hapon (People’s Army Against the Japanese) that was shortened to
“Hukbalahap” and then simply to “Huk.” Instead of getting recognition
for their war efforts in the United States Armed Forces Far East (USAFFE),
the Huks became the new enemy—hunted as communists who threaten the
established government and democracy. Ramon Magsaysay, the Philippine
President described as the “man of the masses,” came up with
not-so-brilliant idea of solving the “Huk problem” by wholesale
transport of the Huks to Mindanao.
Ironically, the Huks were deported to Mindanao in much the same way that
Rizal was deported to Dapitan in Zamboanga del Norte. As later events
proved, Mindanao as “the land of opportunity” became one of the major
causes of bitter enmity between the Muslims and the Christian migrants
that would erupt into the Muslim secessionist movements.
From a people’s organization, the Hukbalahap movement gave rise to a
political party that came to be known as the Partido Komunista ng
Pilipinas (PKP). One of their members was Jose Maria Sison who headed
its youth arm. Sison was eventually booted out of the PKP because he
had been “listening to other voices” other than that of Lenin, and he
founded his own party that he called Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) inspired by Maoism. Its military arm was the New People’s Army (NPA).
One can very well ask, “What’s in a name?” Sure, a rose by any other
name is just as sweet to quote from William Shakespeare. But that is not
so in the Philippines. The connotations of “filibustero“
(filibuster), “Huk” and “NPA” made these words more dreadful than what
they actually signify. Although “plebian” is somewhat appropriate for
Andres Bonifacio, classifying him as “low-middle class” has sinister
implications. That is tantamount to saying that the common folk or the
masses are incapable of organizing themselves and initiating collective
action that could topple a government. Shall the ordinary Filipino be
deprived of a hero that came from among their ranks? Who then shall be
their voice? (Surely not the “hotdogs”!)
The ilustrado class has been replaced by the Philippine “intelligentsia.”
The latter refer to men of letters and those who have gone to the
university to get that priceless diploma so they can attach alphabet
soup letters after their names. However, they hardly speak for the
common folk, not until they can think, speak and write in their national
language – the only way they can truly understand the heart and spirit
of Juan and Juana de la Cruz.
There is another type of “hotdog,” those who live in the United States
of America – the land of the free and the home of the brave – where they
can be Filipino-Americans or Fil-Ams who have the option of holding dual
citizenship. Frankly, I cannot understand how one can pledge allegiance
to two flags, unless in their minds the Philippines is really but an
unacknowledged function of the USA.
Andres Bonifacio never took the title “general”; nor did anybody use it
in referring to him, even if it was Bonifacio who took charge of
deploying his forces, apportioning the scant resources and planning
everything from the political to the military and down to the personal
needs of families of members of the Katipunan. Bonifacio was called the
“Supremo” (supreme head) but that was obviously to distinguish him from
the many presidents of the Katipunan councils. It should be remembered
that the Katipunan grew too slowly in numbers while they used the
three-member cell in recruitment and membership. When they shifted to
“councils,” the Katipunan increased its membership.
It is said that Rizal was the first to call himself “Filipino,” one
evidence presented being one of his letters to Ferdinand Blumentritt
where he wrote that there were many of them in Europe but they just call
themselves “Filipinos.” In the memoir of a high-ranking Katipunero,
Rizal requested the officer certifying his identity on the morning of
the execution that his designation as “Chinese mestizo” be
crossed out and changed to “Indio”. That was certainly not a
denial of his Chinese ancestry but a clear statement that he was born
Indio and will die as one.
In contrast to Rizal and Bonifacio, the two most heroic sons of the
Philippines, Emilio Aguinaldo used the title “generalissimo” almost
immediately after he was proclaimed President of the Republic. We shall
not argue here whether Aguinaldo was president of the Republic of Imus
or of the entire Philippines. But before the Tejeros convention that
elected him president, Aguinaldo held the rank of captain. It was with
an almost indecent haste that Aguinaldo used the title “President and
Generalissimo” of the republic. Obviously titles and ranks were as
oxygen to certain Filipinos then as they are now.
The saying “let sleeping dogs lie” means that one should not dig up old
and ugly issues. To let sleeping “hotdogs” lie, however, could be
interpreted in two ways. It could be taken as in the preceding
sentence, or it could be interpreted as letting the “hotdogs” continue
the lies that they have been feeding the common folk.
However one chooses to understand the statement, one has first to decide
on his or her identity: timagua or “hotdog”? Only when a person
has decided on his or her identity, who and what he or she is, can one
begin to think independently. To quote from Rizal’s essay in “To the
Young Women of Malolos,” one has to learn how to use his or her own
torch. Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2007 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.