Postscript to an essay on Rizal

Postscript to an essay on Rizal

Ni Roberto Lavidez

(Commentary about the discussions that followed after the author delivered his essay in Tagalog at the symposium held by Rizal Society of Ontario on July 8, 2006 at Aristokrat restaurant in Toronto.)
I still feel the need to follow through the fruitful exchange of ideas from last Saturday’s RSO symposium. I’d like to thank everyone for having the patience of listening to my bombastic ‘pananagalog’, exclamations of passion deriving from a sensitive subject of Rizalism and pagpapaka-Pilipino (Philipinoness).

To Ed, on your comment before the symposium – that my essay in Pilipino reminded you of the speeches at rallies during the first quarter storm. It is indeed the language spoken at the parliament of the streets. We ask ourselves, bakit nga ba magkaiba ang lengguwahe para sa masa (Tagalog) at ang sa kongreso (Ingles)? The answer seems obvious. But I suspect that even the educated class is oblivious to the fact that the American sponsored language is intended to isolate the governed, just as Castilian was used by the Spanish authorities, for power control. The language of power silences the poor who had to depend on a bilingual student leader (a future congressman perhaps) to translate the laws into Tagalog or whatever dialect, which do not benefit the poor in any way. Niluto na sa mantikang Ingles ang mga batas para sa proteksiyon lamang ng mga burgis.

To Guy, on your side comment before the symposium, about your exposure to Tagalog by reading Tiktik magazine. I should say that I would not have improved my Tagalog if I had not read Tiktik. But the point I’d like to make is this: the localized usage of what is supposed to be the national language, caters only to the banality of existence, pang masa ika nga. The hierarchy of language does not allow higher learning to be taught in Tagalog. I had the privilege of taking Philosophy courses in Tagalog which prepared me in my personal search of Filipinology. It goes without saying na napukaw din ang pagiging creative ko sa pagbabasa ng Tiktik.

To Ricky, on your question as to what we should do to improve the Philippine condition. This requires another symposium and gathers enthusiastic minds to reevaluate the present system, and welcome enlightened proposals from the community. My take on this and I know I have given you a brief answer, which is education, I was referring to the overhauling of the present educational system which should bring the best out of every Filipino. It should be socialized in such a way that the poorest of the poor get the same access to knowledge and information as everyone else (granting that we don’t kill our young through malnutrition). And also, only the right education can politicize and empower the masses. It is not enough to have a high level of literacy. Education should liberate and not enhance the slave mentality inherited from friar teachings.

The educated Filipino should be able to forge his own destiny.

To Romy, on the question of oppression. Any third world country that continues to rely on dole outs from the more affluent nations for food and medicine is a victim of the oppressive structures of imperialism. By preserving the status quo, the rich maintains the gap (if not make it worse) with the poor – a large market for low quality goods and services, a repository for rejected technology. Only Cuba can afford to cure the sick because of its enormous supply of medical services. They could even afford to send thousands of doctors and nurses to Venezuela in exchange for oil. Fidel’s revolution might be oppressive to those who resist the revolution, but health care works. The point is, the Philippines could be a lot more oppressive than these socialist and communist countries by not attending to the needs of the poor. If infant mortality rate is constantly high and the mortality rate is just as bad (considering that your life is not shortened by a bullet from the new Marcosian regime), the poor health system compounded by the neglect of poverty issues is symptomatic of the oppressive structures inherited from a long history of repressive administration.

To Manny, on the issue of independence. I ended the discussion with my word pun ‘Indiopendence’ which poses a challenge as to whether the nation can ever be independent (bayan para sa mga indios). It might be wishful thinking as where the country stands right now, unable to break the umbilical chord with neo colonial America, but the wishful might turn into wishfulfilment. We may not have the oil of Hugo Chavez but had he not invoked Simon Bolivar in his rhetoric, people and other leaders of Latin America would not think of the impossible – autonomy. And so when I say Indiopendence, I encourage everyone to invoke the spirit of the Indios Bravos from our colonial past. We do not have a Bolivar. Should we settle for Rizal? Given the argument that Rizal and his Indios Bravos were for assimilation and not for independence, the challenge is still for us Filipinos to fight for our survival and our right to exist as a nation with dignity. Slaves must learn to outwit their masters.

To Joe on whether the ilustrados were writing for the masses or not. The bulk of their literary and journalistic writings was penned in Castilian and was intended for liberal minded readers. Marcelo del Pilar would incite the masa with his Tagalog invectives against the prayle, but generally speaking, the ilustrado class of propagandists in Spain were intoxicated with Spanish liberalism that they could not distinguish whether they were speaking on behalf of native Filipinos or as patriots for Mother Spain. Contrary to the emotional content of Katipunan ‘flyers’ which came directly from the aggrieved masses, the calculating ilustrados’ had their own politics to address to. Wanting to prove that you can govern yourself and not be governed at all are two different things. The ilustrados wrote in ink, the katipuneros in blood.