Courtesy of www.bayanihannews.com.au
Photos courtesy of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines

 
‘People who live in the Philippines including their leaders will always find themselves in the frontline of  the looming conflict, and their conclusions and decisions need to be respected by those who live far away from them.  Overseas people “jumping the gun” so they say would only render great disservice in times of crisis.’ Editorial, Bayanihan News, August 2012
 
The recent reaction of many Filipinos, particularly those living overseas, like in America and Australia, seem to show some kind of nationalism for their country which in the first place, they abandoned for a better life for themselves and their family outside the Philippines. Are the noises they have been creating can be treated as a nationalist reaction of being Filipinos?

One topic that needs to be clearly defined is the word nationalism. Most authors on this topic gave their own views and definition of the term. But a great number of them agreed on the concept of nationalism as the ‘consciousness  of belonging together in a group of people who have to share a common experience, culture, ideals, allegiance and perhaps language.’
 
UP’s Cultural Dictionary for Filipinos defined nationalism as ‘the feeling of unity among a people bound by a common language, religion, and history, their belief in and commitment to their right to pursue their collective aspirations through their own state free from the interference of other countries.’
 
The same source explained further that the nationalist aspirations of Filipinos were expressed in the 1987 Constitution in terms of the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Philippines and the Filipino control of their economy.
 
Discussing this topic, one should also consider the three basic factors of nationalism, namely: 1. Area – a territory must be separated from other territory by a natural boundary; 2. Religion – a kind of religion that unites the people into one group; and 3. Race – they must belong to a distinct group.
 
The Philippines like many of its neighbours in Asia which became colonies of various colonial powers in the past tried hard to develop its own country as an independent entity. The development of the country go hand in hand with the feeling of nationalism. At present there is a semblance of this Filipinistic spirit manifested in the country due to the so-called ‘intrusion’ of the Chinese in Panatag shoal or Bajo de Masinloc.
 
Not so long ago we witnessed students, ordinary people and other Filipinos in all walks of life were very vocal about this concept of nationalism. Almost always, these people look at this subject as a solution to all their problems and as well as the country’s itself.  This nationalist ideas erupted in Asia during the post war period and this hastened a wide relinquishment of colonial power.
 
In the Philippines, if we trace the beginning of this nationalistic spirit we could say that it started way back in the year the first Spaniard set foot on the land, history had presented us how Lapu-Lapu, one of the early chieftains in the island who had fought the Spaniards to defend and safeguard his own people and land. But was that action an act of nationalism given the definition just cited above?
 
Then again in the 1800s, the nationalist movement re-appeared in the Philippines resulting to the martyrdom of the three Filipino priests: Burgos, Gomes and Zamora, in 1872. The revolution that broke out in August 1896 has the spirit of nationalism in every aspect of its goal and action. It is considered the climax of the nationalist movements in the Philippines during the Spanish occupation of almost four hundred years of tyrannical rule.
 

When the Philippines was ceded or sold by Spain to the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War, the feeling of nationalism did not die, in fact, the condition became stronger. Thus another revolution broke out, Filipinos against the Americans and became known in history as the Filipino-American War that lasted longer than the Spanish-American War.

As what history had recorded. General Emilio Aguinaldo, then president of the Philippine revolutionary government was captured in Palanan, Isabela in 1901. The Philippine revolution ended  at this juncture of Philippine history.

The Americans ruled the country for almost half a century. During this period nationalistic topics were almost always the subject of the period’s most popular leaders and journalist like Teodoro Kalaw, who created a controversy when he wrote the editorial of El Renacimiento, titled Aves de Rapiña (Birds of Prey). This editorial criticised and lambasted an American officer and the government of the United States.
 
The late Professor Teodoro A. Agoncillo, a noted Filipino historian, considered this controversy as the height of Filipino nationalism during the first decade of the American rule. The nationalistic spirit of the different leaders of Filipinos of the 1930s, like those of Quezon, Osmeña and Roxas led to the approval of the Tydings-McDuffie Law, an act granting the Philippines an ‘independence’, after a period of ten years transition. The act was passed by the Congress of the United States of America.
 
On November 15, 1935, the Commonwealth of the Philippines was inaugurated with Manuel L. Quezon as president. Although the status of the Philippines was semi-independent, nevertheless, the Filipinos controlled the Philippine government machinery completely.
 
On the sixth year of the Philippine Commonwealth government the war in the Pacific broke out and Manila was occupied by the Japanese on January 2, 1942. The Japanese stayed for three years. The country suffered hunger and brutal treatment from the Japanese conquerors.
 
For the third time, Filipino nationalism was aroused by a foreign invader. But unlike the nationalism of 1896 and of 1899, which was mainly for independence and freedom, that of the Japanese occupation was to pave the way for the return of the American troops in the Philippines.
 
Filipino nationalism maybe said to have waned after the war. Thus, resulted to the signing of the Military Bases Agreement and the Military Assistance Pact on March 14, 1947. In 1951, the Mutual Defense Treaty was concluded between the Philippines and the United States.
 
It is quite ironic to note that the treaties and agreements with the United States were disadvantageous to the Philippines, and yet the then leaders of the country consented on the terms written and dictated by the Americans. The reason behind this was the heavy destructions wrought by the just concluded war and the people, as well as their leaders, were still demoralised.
 
After the signing of the Mutual-Defense Treaty in 1951, Filipino nationalism was said to be re-awakened. Senator Claro M. Recto, a noted nationalist , man-of-letters, patriot, jurist, and statesman started the crusade against Filipino pro-Americanism and American encroachment on Filipino sovereignty.
 
In one of his speeches, he said that the foreign policy of the Philippines that follow America’s dictate lead to the detriment over the country's Asian Foreign policy.
 
Even just recently as we appraise the issue, we are shocked by the perpetuity of our foreign policy leaning towards the Americans. In the naked and blinding light of America’s choice of Europe against Asia, we realised the errors which are characterised our feeling of love of country giving us with irreconcillable contradiction. For it would seem now that we have drawn so close to America that we have placed Asia, beyond our reach.
 
The nationalistic spirit of Recto was best revealed in his speech on April 17, 1951 at the commencement exercise at the University of the Philippines where he talked about ‘Our Mendicant Foreign Policy’.
 
He criticised the American policy of making Philippine independence a joke and the Philippine policy of accepting American imposition without protest. In criticizing the Americans, Recto also, realised that the Americans is not the only one to blame but also the Filipinos, themselves, because according to him Filipinos were very passive in dealing with the Americans, an observation that even the current administration is showing the world.
 
There was a time that Filipino nationalism was best identified as anti-Americanism because in the foreign relation of the Philippines and of all the aliens that are present in the country, it seemed that the Americans were still in control of the economy of the Philippines, even its politics, even to this day.
 
It has been said that the Americans can make or unmake a president of the country. Just recently, the incumbent president made a state visit to the United States and meet up with US President  Barack Obama. So the relationship between the colonist and colonial power seems to have been revived.
 
As history tells us, more nationalist groups were organised in order to show their nationalist sentiments against the Americans, now the enemy seems to be the Chinese.
 
Students in Philippine colleges and universities have been vocal and aggressive in their participation in the development of Filipino nationalism. Unlike the students of the 1930s who seldom participated in any discussion on the question pertaining to national interest. Professor Teodoro A. Agoncillo considered then contemporary students, particularly those of the University of the Philippines continued to lead the movement against the policy of the United States in the Philippines.

There was a time during the Summit conference in 1966 that forty one students were hailed into the court for alleged breach of peace and order, as a result of the demonstration of the different students from various schools and universities in Manila. This demonstration was considered as one of the biggest demonstration ever held in Manila. It was joined by various nationalist movements like the Kabataang Makabayan’ youth organisation and other labour groups.
 
During the second anniversary of the founding of the nationalistic Kabataang Makabayan on November 30, 1966, Supreme Court Justice Jesus Barrera, a soft spoken but brilliant liberal jurist said in his speech dealing with nationalism and civil liberties:
 
‘It seems to me that the ultimate goal of nationalism is the freedom and ability of one nation to determine by itself its own destiny and formulate for itself its own national policies.
 
‘Any nation that seeks protection from or permits intervention by another nation in the conduct of its domestic or foreign affairs cannot be said to be truly independent, irrespective of its political status.
 
‘In a situation such as this protected or intervened state attains a top priority.’
 
In February 1967, the Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism (MAN) was founded. Nationalists from all walks of life became members of this very popular nationalistic organisation. Among the members were noted nationalist Senator Lorenzo Tañada, J. V., Cruz, a respected newspaperman, Antonio Araneta, Jose Lapuz, to mention a few. The spirit of nationalism was clearly written in the principles and objectives of the organisation.
 
These objectives guided MAN and they were: a) the principle of national self-determination and self-reliance in all aspects of our national life; b) the principle of democratic power of the people; c) the principle of nationalistic industrialization and basic agrarian reform as a necessary correlative; 4) the principle of national dignity, cultural identity and Filipino oriented education; and 5) the principle of independent foreign policy.
 
Filipino nationalism, even today, not only clamour for a complete independence  but also economic independency as what Teodoro Locsin, a noted journalist and one of the country’s nationalists said that ‘the nationalization of nationalism should be the ultimate goal in the realization of the nationalist theory and practice.’
 
It is therefore correct to say that the nationalist movement of the Philippines is not for other things except for the attainment of national dignity based on self-reliance and better relationship with other nations or nationalities. Nationalism can be considered only a good policy of a nation which practices this nationalist policy and such would become an imperialist expansionist and the victim would be the weaker states.
 
The importance of nationalist orientation of Filipinos was echoed in a graduate seminar on Philippine nationalist tradition, held in the UP, many years ago. The late Leopodlo Y. Yabes, a professor and chair of the Department of Filipino and Philippine Literature, expressed his ideas: ‘healthy national growth can be achieved only when we follow the nationalist orientation – the tradition  handed down to us by our leaders of the reform, revolutionary and post-revolutionary periods of our national history, particularly Rizal and Plaridel, Bonifacio and Aguinaldo, Mabini, Luna, Osmeña and Quezon, Palma and Abad Santos, and Laurel and Recto.
 

But are we really nationalist the way we regard our compatriots and the country we owe allegiance to? Let me quote a very interesting passage from Renato Constantino’s Idenitty and Consciousness: The Philippine Experience which said:   ‘The existence of a Filipino nation is a fact, but the existence of a national consciousness is only a pre-supposition, if by national consciousness one means that sens of oneness which comes from a community of aspiration, response and action. 
 
‘For Filipinos, the question of nationality has become one of identify but not of a consciousness of common aspirations and goals. It is this growing disparity between identity and consciousness that has been responsible for the ambiguity of Filipino behaviour, for the Filipino’s east-west ambivalence, and for his marginal participation in the historic struggles of other colonial peoples.’

 

 

Munting Nayon News Magazine