NATIONALISM: THE PHILIPPINES' EXPERIENCE THUS FAR'

In line with the questions raised by some of our friends on the topic below, I'm posting this article.

i would like to apologize that I misquoted Bro. Andrew's book, it was not 1% but 2.8% - that's the percentage of Filipinos according to him that spoke in Spanish (at the turn of the century, 1900's).

---

A REVIEW OF BROTHER ANDREW'S BOOK: "LANGUAGE AND

NATIONALISM: THE PHILIPPINES' EXPERIENCE THUS FAR'

By Pío Andrade

(Historian, Researcher and regular contributor of the Philippine-Chinese weekly magazine TULAY published by Teresita Ang See in Binondo, Manila. Author of the best selling book, ‘The fooling of America'.)

Brother Andrew's treatise "Language and Nationalism" was praised in the forword by Cecilio López as "the most exhaustive and up-to-date treatment of the language problem in the Philippines".

It may have been up-to-date when it was published, but by no means could it be described as exhaustive. One look at the list of references shows the absence of very important sources such as the following but which were not consulted at all:

1)The Official Census of 1903;

2)The Ford Report of 1916, which shows that the use of Spanish

was more widespread than commonly admitted, and,3)Velenzuela's History of Philippine Journalism.There are many big and important facts on the language question that are not mentioned at all in Brother Andrew's book, such as the fact about Spanish being the language of the Revolution, the role of Spanish in effecting the unity of the various Filipino ethnic groups which made the 1896-99 Revolution possible; the role of the Chinese Filipinos in disseminating the language of Cervantes all over the country due to the fact that the Philippines was the most thoroughly educated Asian colony in the last decades of the 19^th century, and, the fact about the much higher circulation of Spanish language dailies than either the Tagalog or English dailies in the 1930s.
Brother Andrew González, FSC, uncritically accepted the figure of 2.8% as the percentage of Filipinos who can speak and write in Spanish at the turn of the century given by Cavada Méndez y Vigo's book. This book was printed in 1870, just seven years after the establishment of the Philippine Public chool system in 1863 by Spain.

Surely by 1900, more than 2.8% of the Filipinos were speaking and writing in Spanish and there was incontrovertible proof behind this assertion.

Don Carlos Palanca's Memorandum to the Schurman Commission listed 8 Spanish-speaking provinces in the islands in addition to the 9 Tagalog-speaking provinces which, according to him, are also Spanish-speaking. To this total of 17 Spanish speaking provinces, Don Carlos added that there were only 5 other provinces where "only a little Spanish is spoken". Don Carlos Palanca was the gobernadorcillo of Binondo and the head of the Gremio de Mestizos. (Chinese Christians were the ones referred to as Mestizos since the Spanish half-breed was called Criollo).

William Howard Taft's 1901 statement after his tour of the Philippines clearly says that Spanish was more widespread than Tagalog.
This fact about Spanish being even more widespread than Tagalog in the entire archipelago is further attested to by the well-documented fact that American soldiers during the Fil-American war had to speak bamboo Spanish to all Filipinos, ----not bamboo Tagalog----, in order to be understood without any interpreter. There is still that other fact about the early occupational government of the American Military in the Philippines having to publishe, in Spanish, not in Tagalog, all its official communications in order to be understood by the Filipino people. An English translation was appended whenever necessary for the consumption of the Americans themselves.

This official use of Spanish by the Americans themselves went on up to 1910 when they started to issue communications in English but still followed by a corresponding Spanish translation of the same. In view of this fact, if a national Filipino national language needed to be established other than English, the correct choice should have been Spanish, not Tagalog.

A big fault of Brother Andrew's book lies in his uncritical acceptance of Teodoro Agoncillo's History of the Revolution. Agoncillo's History book has already been proven to be heavily distorted by omission of facts, false interpretation of events and documents and by outright lies.. The omission of these other facts was done because the same could not be reconciled with Mr. Agoncillo's own personal bias in the narration and teaching of Philippines history.
An example of Brother Andrew's fault with regard his uncritical acceptance of Agoncilo's distortion of history is the conclusion that the founding members of the KKK (Katipunan) were Filipinos of lowly origin. The founding Supremo of the KKK is Andrés Bonifacio and it is not so that he is of lowly origin. Bonifacio was definitely not a poor man when he got into the Katipunan. Nor were the other Katiputan charter members. Agoncillo also failed to mention that the Philippine economy was booming during that decade and that Bonifacio, unlike most other Filipinos, approved of the torture of a captive Friar.

The years 1900 to the Commonwealth period (1935-1941) were not well researched by Brother and "Doctor" Andrew Gonzalez. Thus, the language issue affecting the Filipinos then are not well discussed. Had Brother Andrew researched more on the language issue of that period, he would have found out that as late as the 1930s Spanish dailies out-circulated both the Tagalog and English language dailies.

He would have found out also that the use of Spanish during the following decade of 1940 was bound to even get stronger had it not been for the devastating 1943-45 war.
The strength of Spanish is evidenced by the majority of cinema films shown between 1900 and 1940. These films, even if made in Holywood were in Spanish subtitles and talkies. And several of the Philippines produced full-length films had an all-Spanish talkies.
Another important fact not found in Brother Andrew's book is the role of the Spanish language in assimilating and integrating the Chinese emigrants into mainstream Filipino society. The 100,000 Chinese in the Philippines at the turn of the century spoke Spanish in varying degrees of proficiency. The Philippine Chinese Chamber of Commerce since its establishment in 1904 wrote its minutes in Spanish until 1924. When they ceased using Spanish in their official meetings and minutes, they reverted to Chinese, not English. Today, strange as it may seem, the last bastion of whatever Spanish language is left are the Chinese Filipinos, and not those of Spanish descent except the Padilla Zóbel family that maintains the annual Premio Zóbel.

Finally, Brother and "doctor" Andrew González treated very superficially the question of nationalism and language. There should have been more discussions on the point that adopting a foreign tongue, or using foreign words, are not per se against nationalism. If nationalism is love for ones country and foreign words and language can best help literacy and communication, it is nationalistic doing so.

Neither did Brother and Doctor Andrew González realize that nationalism in the question of language can be destructive as has been the case in the Philippines. Doing away with Spanish orthography and the cartilla, the educational authorities did away with a very inexpensive and very effective method for teaching reading skills to the young Filipinos.
Exterminating Spanish in the schools made the Filipinos today estranged to their Hispanic past and made Filipinos prey to nationalist historians who misled several generations of Filipinos in the sense that Spain had done the Philippines very little good when the contrary is true.
What is the prime purpose of language? Is it not to make us understand one another better. Yet, Brother and Doctor Andrew González' book gives the impressions that showing nationalism is the prime purpose of language.
To be fair to Brother Andrew González, we want to think that he is a victim of too many distortions found in Philippine History including the history of language among Filipinos. Thus, the remark of Cecilio López in his introduction to Brother Andrew's book "Language and Nationalism", that the same "is the most exhaustive and up-to-date treatment of the language problem in the Philippines" is only true in the sense that the very few books on the same subject are mostly superficial.
Perhaps it will be correct for us to recall a Spanish saying that prays: En el país de los ciegos el tuerto es rey.

---

Thanks to Senor Gomez for sending me this article.

Spanish 101

I started taking classes in Spanish at the Instituto Cervantes, the Spanish language school and cultural center, located in Avenida Kalaw. Filipinos are fortunate to have this institution around, it provides everyone the oppurtunity to learn the Castillian language.

I have been reading Spanish text for sometime, although I could discern the meaning behind the words I feel that I am missing some important pieces. I am incapable of effective communication in Spanish. I realized that formal lessons is the right course.

I regret the fact that we removed Spanish subjects in our schools, It is a beautiful language, its part of our history and heritage - something that some popular history scholars would immediately dismiss, out of their nationalistic sentiments and the hate of everything that is Spanish.

The role that this language has played in our development has been annulled by our leaders in the past (both political & educational - an American manipulation) who views it useless. Instead, we make English subjects compulsary for everyone - a foreign language who came to our shores less than a century ago.

We Filipinos owe so much from this language, it enhanced our way of life, gave us Catholicism - our faith, Education and all the wonderful things that was shared to us by Spaniards through this language. It is only fitting that we respect it as part of our culture and history.

Let not the 'historia negra' blind us, the Spanish era was not the dark ages, it was a transitional period were we progressed into a better way of life, having better working communities, civilized, God fearing, educated and in order. We have to start reading our history - the real history.

I'm pleased with what I found out in the Instituto, they have been seeing an increased in enrollment. They credit the call centers demands for Spanish representatives. I hope that in the process, the students would not only use the skill to increase their pay grade but find in themselves the splendor of the Castillian language and how important it was then to our county - and how relevant it is now for us Filipinos. As the Profesor said in one of the class, 'I hope you'll fall in love with the Spanish language just like I did, you'll understand our history and how people was then through this language'.

I've always advocated that our educational system bring back to our schools the Castillian language, if its too much to ask, at least make it an optional subject. Students of history, like me would definitely be interested in taking it up - and all the other Filipinos who understands its true historical value.

According to Pio Andrade, Spanish was widely used althrough out the archipelago. Proof of this is the Chinese Filipinos of Binondo. He uncovered that most spoke fluent Spanish. The 1% theory of the late Bro. Andrew in his book is inaccurate. It was not the language of the aristocrats but of common folks too. Filipinos was widely using the language in different levels of proficiency, most having a working knowledge of how to communicate, in fact in Visayas and Mindanao - it was the language that would be understood when, for example a Cebuano would find trouble understanding a Waray, not the Tagalog.

Americans study French, and some other country still honor their colonial language by studying it. It is still being disputed how widely used the Castillian language was during the Spanish era, some has cited that the Spanish intentionally disallowed its teaching because they do not want the poor Indios to learn Spanish - this is not true, the reason why it was controlled (not totally banned) is to protect the country from the liberals and antimonarchs coming from Spain and the rest of Europe, which was a natural reaction from the Catholic and Spanish hierarchy.

They wanted to limit books and all the other types of communication that could have subversive liberal contents. They fear that it could create a movement in the islands that would seek to overthrow the Spanish leadership.

In the end, the revoution did took place. If it was any consolation, it was the proof that Filipinos, was the most educated Asian of his time - thanks to the Spanish language.

Why Learn Spanish then?

Here are some exlanation Gerald Erichsen of About.com provided:

Better understanding of English: Much of the vocabulary of English has Latin origins, much of which came to English by way of French. Since Spanish is also a Latin language, you will find as you study Spanish that you have a better understanding of your native vocabulary. Similarly, both Spanish and English share Indo-European roots, so their grammars are similar. There is perhaps no more effective way to learn English grammar than by studying the grammar of another language, for the study forces you to think about how your language is structured. It's not unusual, for example, to gain an understanding of English verbs' tenses and moods by learning how those verbs are used in Spanish.

Knowing your neighbors: Not all that many years ago, the Spanish-speaking population of the United States was confined to the Mexican border states, Florida and New York City. But no more. Even where I live, less than 100 kilometers from the Canadian border, there are Spanish-speaking people living on the same street as I do. Knowing Spanish has proven invaluable in speaking with other residents of my town who don't know English.

Travel: Yes, it is perfectly possible to visit Mexico, Spain and even Ecuatorial Guinea without speaking a word of Spanish. But it isn't nearly half as much fun. I remember about two decades ago — when my Spanish was much less adequate than it is today — when I met some mariachis on top of one of the pyramids near Mexico City. Because I spoke (albeit limited) Spanish, they wrote down the words for me so I could sing along. It turned out to be one of my most memorable travel experiences, and one unlike what most tourists have the opportunity to enjoy. Time and time again while traveling in Mexico, Central America and South America I have had doors opened to me simply because I speak Spanish, allowing me to see and do things that many other visitors do not.

Cultural understanding: While most of us can't hope to learn the languages of more than one or two cultures other than that of our own, those that we can learn help us to learn how other people learn and think. When I read Latin American or Spanish newspapers, for example, I often find that I gain a sense of how other people think and feel, a way that is different than my own. Spanish also offers a wealth of literature, both modern and traditional.

Learning other languages: If you can learn Spanish, you'll have a head start in learning the other Latin-based languages such as French and Italian. And it will even help you learn Russian and German, since they too have Indo-European roots and have some characteristics (such as gender and extensive conjugation) that are present in Spanish but not English. And I wouldn't be surprised if learning Spanish might even help you learn Japanese or any other non-Indo-European language, since intensive learning the structure of a language can give you a reference point for learning others.

Why not a salacot for a hat?

During the Urdaneta lectures at the Cervantes, there was this man who kept on interrupting one of the guest speaker, Professor Andrade. That man was introduced as a national artist. So he must be a well-respected man, an expert in the past, since the speaker (not Andrade) was delighted to acknowledge his presence, even after he made a scene out of his loud objections.

Not that I'm rushing to side with Andrade because him being an Arellano figure, which happens to be my Alma mater but because I just find his behaviour as being rude, unprofessional, it was out of line. I see this all the time in town meetings in the US but not here in our land, not with our culture.

It was a lecture - an "open forum" is the event where you can address your question, in his case, his objections- not during the lecture. People are trying to listen, trying to learn from the speaker. The Speaker has the mic, he commands the program. The national artist must have confused the event as a debating challenge, he probably felt privileged, that he can interrupt the program because of his status.

While the professor was citing some of the friar contributions to the country, the national artist shouted, "Are you calling me a liar?" - the notes Andrade gave could've struck a nerve. Then he kept on shouting, "Are you apologizing for them?" I was intrigue to know why this man would act in such a way, it seems that he was offended by what was being discussed obviously.

Andrade being old man, was patient with the angry man, he simply smiled and told the person, "I have it here..." pointing to his folders and continued his lecture. It was odd; there must be a history behind this two people. But if the national artist was simply protesting that this man is paying homage to friar contributions, that is undeniable, in Urdaneta's case successfully plotting the legendary sea's for Spain's ambitions for the Islands, he was in the wrong classroom. The event was for them,the friars, this catholic missionaries who gave so much only to be portrayed as demons in our history books!

There are still academes and students who believe that we would've made it out of the caves without Spain. I have encountered fellow students of history who believes that true Filipinos are the ones untouched by western influence and culture (meaning even he, is not Filipino), some insist that Spain retarded our progress as a true nation. Nationalism in the expense of our true past, as I see it. We can't follow such flawed reviews of our past!

I encourage people to challenge what is being taught in the text books. We can't annul what this friars gave and still use their contributions as if they would've existed even without them being introduced to us.

Culture is not static, is this not the truth?

We should all be objective and see the past as it was, there will always be good and bad, but seeing it that way gives us a balanced view of things. Making it appear all bad so we can feel good about ourselves and hope this would solidify our true identity, well, is not cool.

---

Who is this national artist?

He proudly walks amongst the crowd with his ala Indiana Jones leather hat, which is by the way also a Friar contribution, Sir. I'm referring to the hat and the leather, if one hated Friar contribution so much - why not wear a salacot?