“We practically own everything in the Philippines”, our former first lady, Imelda Marcos, said in nine-part series which appeared in the Inquirer on December 5, 1998. From electricity, telecommunications, airlines, banking, beer and tobacco, newspaper publishing, television stations, shipping, oil and mining, hotels and beach resorts, down to coconut milling, small farms, real estate and insurance.[1]
Taking this powerful phrase out of its contextual meaning and putting the thought of it in good usage for this paper, it was truly evident that the Philippines was rich with its natural resources—all of the minerals like gold and copper, turned into pieces of jewellery, ornaments, home decors, ritual items, etc. The country was also fertile in agricultural products that pave way for the barter trade. The culture and societal practices were very intertwine with their religion and was truly important for the people to follow stringent laws by the governing power—the datus.
For the first two readings, it was written before the total Spanish occupation. Though Antonio Pigaffeta’s account was dated 1521, the year that the Spaniards came to the island of ‘Zamal’, it was specifically different from how the priests wrote about the Philippines in their time. Pigafetta’s journal was very explicit in defining how the life in the country, the physical appearance of the natives, their clothes and their way of transporting—comparing the ‘balangay’ to their Spanish ship. He even talks about the food that the natives were eating, the different tattoos and piercing of the natives, and the intricate designs of the cloth that he saw. He was very particular about the minute details, considerably, that he wants his journal to be a graphic and vivid account for the Spanish people and so as for the government. It was this reason that he wants to prove that Philippines is a probable asset for their country.
On the other hand, the ChenChing-Ho account was dated way back in 1225 or earlier—the pre-Spanish Philippines. The overall tone of the account was particular about the trading system that took place before the Spanish occupation. It described the cloths that had intricate details, cotton, wax, coconut-heart mats, gold that was used in all things possible—household, religious matters, rituals, accessories, personal small containers, and small weapons—that were traded with porcelain jars, jarlets, silk, rattan baskets, and umbrellas. If the prices of the goods were not agreed upon the two parties, the foreigners will retain on board one or two natives as hostages. They were particular on the number of days the ship will have to be in the shore, maximum of four days. While the longest stay that the foreigners—Chinese traders—was about nine months in the country. For this particular account, though a part of it described that the natives were gullible and credulous about the items that the Chinese traded with them, it has a more naïve tone about the Filipinos being an inferior culture to them. Sensing the tone that was used, the account was more concerned about the items that were traded, the barter system, and its customs more than anything else.
The next three accounts were written by Father Pedro Chirino, SJ in 1604 and Father Francisco Colin, SJ in 1663, and Friar Juan de Plasencia, a Franciscan in 1589. I can articulate that they have a similarity in writing their accounts. First, they will describe how the social life in the Philippines, how the laws were imposed, the division of labour among the natives, the caste system (maharlicas, commoners, and the slaves), the marriage customs, the judicial customs, the way of writing and reading (baybayin), their literature, etc. One author disclosed that he was able to write his account because of an interpreter that gave him what he can write about. It is not surprising that the other two authors have interpreters as well. This is important to take note, though they were physically at the town with the natives, they were not able to experience things first-hand. Everything was based on their interview with their own interpreters and their own observation. These priests stayed longer than those of the Chinese and other traders and Pigafetta—since he was able to return his journal back to Spain.
Second, they will now try to explain how the religion of the natives and their religious practices were truly unorthodox and unpractical. Treating it as if it was the work of evil since it was very different from what they have believed in and what they have brought—Christianity. Plasencia wrote that it was their ‘project’ to save these natives from the discourse of evil. While Colin recorded that the rituals performed by the natives were truly barbaric, savage, and considered it as a false religion. Towards the end, the general tone of their accounts was prophetic—in a way that their presence will save these savage people from crashing into idolatry. It was evident that they dislike the religion that the natives had and in the process of baptizing they will be born in a better life.
To answer what was the Philippines before the Spaniards arrive: we are not anarchists, as most of the colonial writers put in their works. We had a sense of governance, though different from the western idea that a governing power needs to be centralized, we had a form of small governing power that were echoed all throughout the country. This can be backed up with the pre-colonial artefacts found in the different parts of the country[2]. We had rich natural resources that were very catching to traders. We had culture and traditions that were practiced way before the occupation. And to tie everything together, what Imelda Marcos said that we own everything here in the Philippines—before any foreign feet or hands that touched our land, it was ours and ours alone that we can say it with pride and dignity.
[1] Arzadon, Cristina. "Imelda Marcos leaves decision on husband’s resting place to ‘divine plan’." newsinfo.inquirer.net. newsinfo.inquirer.net/12036/mrs-marcos-leaves-decision-on-husband%E2%80%99s-resting-place-to-divine-plan (accessed November 24, 2011).
[2] Chua, Michael Charleston B.. "The Manunggul Jar as a Vessel of History : Philippine Art, Culture and Antiquities." Artes de las Filipinas: Philippine Arts, Antiques and Culture. http://www.artesdelasfilipinas.com/archives/50/the-manunggul-jar-as-a-vessel-of-history (accessed November 24, 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment