patayin ang ‘pilipinas’ ?!?

believe it or not.  the komisyon sa wikang filipino (KWF), based in malacanang, and headed by national artist virgilio almario aka rio alma, saw fit to pass a resolution last april 12 that would change the nation’s name, from philippines (of american times to today) and pilipinas (of lope k. santos’ time to today) to filipinas (of spanish times only).  why?  read Patayin ang ‘Pilipinas’ by almario himself.

not surprisingly, pinagtawanan ito sa social media. paano na nga naman: it’s more fun in filipinas?  it’s more fun in the filipinas?  in las filipinas?  any of the above, ang fangit.  but seriously, i share the sentiments of these facebook friends:

Zeus Salazar: hindi ko yata mabibigkas ang ‘ep’. ito naman ang kabulastugang ifinalulunok sa atin dahil sa kabulastugang ifinalunok sa atin noong dekada 1970 nang pinalitan ang ‘pilipino’ ng ‘filipino’ para di-umano maging katang-tanggap ang wikang pambansang base sa tagalog sa lahat. hanggang ngayon pilipino o tagalog ang tawag dito ng nkararaming pilipino. mamaya-maya tatawagin naman ng mga may pakana nito ang ‘pilipinas’ na ‘filipinas’ kahit na hindi natin mabigkas ito. wala na ibang magawa sila, yung may katuturan naman at intelehente. kung lagi na lamang mapapalit kung anu-ano, ano ba ang magiging permanente sa atin. pasiya ba ito ng bayan?

Adam David: Nais ko ring magsangguni ng pagpapalit ng paggamit ng pangngalan/pangalan na simpatiko at romantiko sa ating kasaysayan ng kolonyalismo: “comfort women” imbis na “biktima ng panggagahasa sa panahon ng digma.”

Nawa’y ipagpatibay ang paggamit ng katagang ito para sa ikauunlad ng modernong bansang Filipinas.

 Marck Ronald Rimorin: …this should be made clear: the key stakeholders in the name of a nation are the people, not the office in charge of language (or the poet in charge of that office). “Filipinas” may be correct, but that doesn’t mean “Pilipinas” is wrong. And any sort of “pagpipigil” to use the latter is another height in the peaks of apog.

Adam David: I dunno, Ser Rio, China and Japan seem pretty unified to me, despite various names for their countries/nations/citizens even within their respective countries all these centuries. Try again after another twenty years?

Marck Ronald Rimorin: To be out of touch with the people’s language is to be out of touch with the people. The ivory tower is often just a pile of lime.

i agree too with neil garcia’s response to jerry gracio’s fb status:

Jerry Gracio: Okay, I signed KWF Resolution No. 13-19, s. 2013, so I am for “Filipinas”. Dahil may “F” na sa Filipino alphabet at dati nang may “F” ang mga katutubong lengguwahe sa Filipinas tulad ng Ivatan, Tiruray, Bontoc, Igorot, Bilaan, Tiboli, etc. Maniwala kayo, hindi ito dahil sa mga layuning pambakla: para matanggap na sa lengguwahe ang “fafa” at “fadir”. Mareremedyuhan nito ang problema kung bakit Philippines ang bansa natin pero Filipino ang ating nationality at wika. Totoong hindi nito masasagot ang iba pa nating problema, tulad ng kahirapan, korapsyon, etc.–rebolusyon ang kailangan natin para matapos ang mga ito. Nahihirapan tayong tanggapin ang “Filipinas” dahil maiksi ang ating memorya: naalala natin ang “Pilipinas” na lumitaw lang noong ika-20 siglo at lumaganap noong 1950s, pero hindi na natin maalala na “Filipinas” ang pangalan ng ating bansa mula noong 1543, at “Filipinas” ang tawag sa ating bansa ng ating mga bayani sa panahon ng Rebolusyong Filipino. Naniniwala ako, masasanay din tayo sa Filipinas.

J. Neil C. Garcia:  sorry, jerry, the rationale being presented just isn’t good enough, to my mind.  remember that we are not fighting over letters here.  the f sound might as well be spelled as ph, for finally the letters of the alphabet are nothing if not phonetic approximations of actual speech.  the existence of this sound in our local languages isn’t the issue, really. read more closely: the argument being pushed is ‘historical’: filipinas was the name actually given by villalobos to these islands, which–we must remember–wasn’t really this country yet, not in terms of geography, nor certainly in terms of consciousness and/or identity. it is precisely by virtue of a historicizing perspective that we must accept pilipinas and philippines.  pilipinas is a localization–a creolization–of this original hispanic name, and the simple truth is that both it and philippines (the anglicized version of filipinas) have already achieved a reality in both national and transnational senses–both are already what we, and our country, have come to be.  i don’t see what purpose this orthographic revision will serve in our nation’s ‘being/becoming.’

ang dami nating language and identity problems, and ‘pilipinas’ is not one of them.  sana magpakatino na ang KWF at baguhin naman ang priorities, iakma naman sa nangyayari on the ground, tanggapin na laganap na ang tagalog (yes, tagalog pa rin ang tawag ng nakararami sa national vernacular), tanggapin rin na hindi ito ang klaseng ‘filipino’ (the language) na in-envision o type nila, but hey it’s alive and kicking, playful and irreverent as always, except that it’s gotten so grammatically and semantically sloppy.  i don’t know about the teleseryes, but both the english and tagalog of newscasts leave much to be desired.

check out james soriano, wikang pambansa 101, scroll down to lem garcellano’s rant on broadcast media’s faulty tagalog.  hindi ba ito dapat ang pinapakialaman ng KWF?  the commission has access to government tv, bakit hindi mag-produce ng isang programa na magmo-monitor at magkokomento, magwawasto, kapag may naririnig o nababasa na maling tagalog.  for starters.

the question being asked, of course, is, sino bang kikita dito?  sinong kikita kung maging batas ito at simulan ang pagpalit ng pangalan ng pilipinas sa mga kuwarta ng bayan at mga karatula at letterhead ng gobyerno?  raket lang, di ba.  utang na loob, sobra na, tantanan na ang bayang pilipinas.

what offends me most is that, to explain the killing of ‘pilipinas’, almario throws at us an essay he wrote 20 years ago (!) as he can’t be bothered, twould seem, up in his ivory tower, to come up (down) with something current for us lowly earthlings, how arrogant naman.  o baka naman na sa 1992 pa rin siya, national artist award and all, and he has nothing new to say to nation?  maliwanag kung gayon na napag-iwanan na siya ng panahon and he has no business messing around with our notions of nation and language.

*

Filipinas at Pilipinas bilang pangalan ng bansa ni Danny Arao

What the F by Marck Ronald Rimorin

WFT KWF! or what is wrong with Pilipinas? by radikalchick

 

The bases redux

By Randy David

In September 1991, the Philippine Senate voted to reject a new bases treaty that would have allowed the United States to keep its military facilities in the Philippines. That decision was a watershed in the relationship between the Philippines and its former colonial master. Many thought of it as marking the true beginning of a postcolonial era for the country, which acquired its formal status as an independent nation in 1946. Yet, the US bases issue did not end there.

There has been, since 1991, a determined effort to reverse the effects of the Senate vote. First, our leaders thought we had to appease our American friends. The Visiting Forces Agreement was crafted mainly for that purpose. Because it ran against the spirit of the 1991 vote, the VFA was rationalized as integral to our commitments under the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. Then, after 9/11, the global hunt for the al-Qaida terrorist cells in Southern Mindanao extended the scope of the VFA. Visiting American troops subsequently became a regular fixture in Mindanao.

Today, ironically, the justification for regularizing the American military presence in the country revolves around the same reason that had been invoked in the early debates on the US bases—the threat posed by China. What had seemed so ridiculously remote in the late 1960s and ’70s, when China was an underdeveloped agrarian economy hobbled by ideology, now appears so real that if the same bases treaty were submitted to a Senate vote today, it could win handily.

What has changed dramatically is China’s place in the world. In a span of only three decades, the backward country next door has achieved a level of economic prosperity that was thought impossible under Maoist leadership. The key factor was Deng Xiaoping. It was he who made it conceivable for the Chinese Communist Party to preside over the capitalist transformation of that country’s economy.

The rise of China as an economic power has however unleashed its own dynamic. It cannot now afford to stop growing. This unceasing drive for growth has in turn fueled an unquenchable thirst for natural resources wherever they may be found. It is the old story of imperialism. A new rising power starts flexing its military muscles in order to secure resources it cannot obtain through economic cooperation and diplomatic means. That’s where China is today. It seeks to convert the economies of its poorer neighbors into components of its own gigantic economy. This is what it has lately done to Africa. It is what it has tried to do in the Philippines—not by enlisting the help of the local communists but by generously rewarding politicians who are willing to use their powers to accommodate China’s expansionary agenda.

China’s leaders had a cozy relationship with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Today, it is the opposite. China has taken an overtly hostile attitude toward the P-Noy administration. It can wait until P-Noy’s term is over. But, China now has the power to shape events—to intervene, like the United States has done, in the internal affairs of any country. In the next presidential election, China may not be content with simply being a spectator.

I salute the way P-Noy has stood up to Chinese bullying. But it is unfortunate that the assertion of our sovereignty vis-à-vis China is pushing us toward a revival of the colonial relationship that our past leaders had heroically tried to end. It is bad enough that the VFA—which was originally meant only to provide a legal cover for visiting US forces participating in occasional joint military exercises—has been used to legitimize the regular presence in the country of American troops. It is such a shame (not to mention a patent violation of the Constitution) that we are now talking of constructing new facilities in Subic and Clark for the use of foreign troops.

If all this is because we wish to protect ourselves from China, then we need to review our premises. First, the United States is in Asia for its own interests and not for ours. Part of those interests is to contain China’s military power and influence. While we may indeed find common ground with America, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that US troops are here to defend our national interests against those of China. Most of all, we cannot surrender to America the same sovereignty we passionately assert against China.

Second, do we really believe that China’s leaders are prepared to actually start a war over territorial claims in the South China Sea? It is safe to assume that they know such a war would draw the United States into the conflict, and there would be no way of preventing its escalation. Should war with China become unavoidable, US forces would prefer to fight it in Asia, rather than on American soil.

“This rigmarole about protecting the Philippines is window-dressing: is it not?” Sen. J. William Fulbright asked Rear Adm. Draper Kauffman in a 1969 hearing of the US congressional subcommittee on US security agreements and commitments abroad. Admiral Kauffman, then the commander of the US naval forces in the Philippines, stammered and replied thus: “No, sir; I do not think it is window-dressing. I think it is a mutual advantage or else we would probably have to pay rent, something like that, if there were no advantage to them. I think they believe it to be in their advantage from their own defense point of view, but I believe we are there … because these are very fine bases for the United States.”

American interests in the region have not changed much. But, we have changed. We cannot turn our back on what we achieved in 1991 when our senators said “No” to a new bases agreement—emancipation from our colonial past.

* * *

public.lives@gmail.com

fund-raising for EDSA Uno, Dos &Tres, the book…. (updated)

yes, i’m on fund-raising mode for this third book on EDSA.  an updated english version of Himagsikan sa EDSA–Walang Himala! (2000) that was based on Chronology of a Revolution 1986 (1996).  i wrap it up with a reading of Edsa Dos & Tres — how we could have done them better had we been more informed of and attuned to EDSA Uno’s 10-day template.  yes, 10 days.  my count starts with cory’s launch of the civil disobedience and crony-boycott campaign.

the title of the book is EDSA Uno, A Narrative and Analysis with Notes on Edsa Dos & Tres.  it has a foreword by ninotchka rosca, an afterword by patricio abinales, and blurbs by randy david, peque gallaga, and rene saguisag.  the book is being laid out by designer adam david.  the cover, inspired by stuartxchange.com‘s edsa graphics and executed by merv malonzo, is due for a final tweak.  am doing the index myself (now on day 3) to cut on costs.

so i can sell the book cheap, php 350 at most, so it gets into the hands of as many of the pinoy reading public as possible, i am publishing EDSA Uno independently of mainstream media, and asking kindred spirits for donations — no return-on-investment other than the satisfaction of helping spread the story of EDSA Uno.

i hope to raise some P250,000 at least to cover production costs — artists’ fees, printing costs (1000 copies), and book launch.  the proceeds, after give-aways to media and donors, to pay me a bit for the work.

donors will get a free copy and credits in the book’s acknowledgements and website.

*

katrina started emailing family and friends on our mailing list some two, three weeks ago.  maraming salamat kina nancy & dante amador (who kicked it off with a 10K check), lyca benitez-brown, randy david, tom umali, gary salcedo, leilani & art mapili, cielito corpuz, manuel buencamino, baboo mondonedo, sara and nicky santiago, gretchen and jun macabasco, exie abola, j. carlitos g. cruz, kenneth cobonpue, estela navarra, ipat and howie severino, godofredo stuart jr. and leila mariano, delan and jae robillos, gang badoy, and an anonymous one, whose donations add up so far to a stash of some 160, 000 php.

salamat salamat, you all, for the vote of confidence.  and to everyone else reading this, please please feel free to contribute to the cause and to spread the word.

all donations that come in before we go to press will be acknowledged in the book. late donations will be acknowledged on the website in-the-making.  and please please feel free to be generous.  in the happy event that we overshoot the target, we will simply have as many more copies printed, some for distribution to public school and university libraries.

i do hope that you decide to be part of this project.  we go to press around mid-july, and we launch the book on the 21st of August 2013, the 30th anniversary of Ninoy’s assassination.

email katrinastuartsantiago@gmail.com for donation details.

p.s.

thank you, too, for offers to buy advance copies at a discount.  i understand that this is the way some indie publishers go to raise funds for printing. unfortunately it would defeat the purpose of selling cheap, getting the book out to as wide a reading public as possible, and still getting paid some for the research, writing,  and production.

operation snowden

fascinating true-to-life political drama.  the whole world is snowden’s stage, even if we don’t know exactly where he is.  and who to believe.  meanwhile the wired world is on edge. privacy is no small matter.

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations by Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras

Edward Snowden, NSA files source: ‘If they want to get you, in time they will’ by Ewen MacAskill

My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be … by Naomi Wolf (Notes)

My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be … (updated) by Naomi Wolf

Obama’s Infatuation with the Espionage Act by Bill Simpich

Wonkbook: Does Edward Snowden even exist? by Ezra Klein and Evan Solta

The NSA’s Intelligence-Industrial Complex by Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

Greenwald Blasts Critics Who Claim He ‘Aided And Abetted’ Snowden: ‘I Call That Investigative Journalism’ by Matt Wilstein

Hide and leak: Where is Edward Snowden?