MANILA (Reuters) – The youngest daughter of former Philippine president Corazon Aquino said on Sunday her family had differences with the government, one reason why they had decided against a state funeral for the former leader.
Film and television star Kristina Bernadette Yap, popularly known as Kris Aquino, said there was an offer from the government to give her mother a state funeral befitting a former head of government, but her siblings turned it down.
Ironic that such a take on things would come from the daughter of the ex-president, considering that many have already warned of the onslaught of the dark and backward forces of politicisation already circling like vultures around the burst of patriotic fervor surrounding Corazon Aquino’s death.
Forgive my even simpler take on things, but last I heard, there is a clear difference between the State and a Government. That is why we attach a name to a government; usually the name of whoever heads or headed it. So we have “the Aquino Government”, or “the Arroyo Government”. However there is only ONE state that transcends all of these governments that come and go — the Phlippine State. The primacy of the Philippine State lends us a bit of sense around our predisposition to call ourselves “Filipinos”. Regardless of what Government is in power and WHO is leading it, the Philippine State exists. We are not Aquinoans or Arroyoans, we are “Filipinos”.
So my question, as always, is quite simple.
Why drag the State into one’s squabbles with a Government?
Let me re-state it in a way that makes it stand out as one of those issues that our so-called “experts” have so expertly and sensationally muddled (as they tend to do) over the last couple of weeks:
The rejection of state protocol on the basis of the behaviour of a government currently in power.
If we are to rely on a further paraphrasing of Kris Aquino’s take on this by a commentor in FilipinoVoices.com, a rationale that appeals to typically-Filipino sensibilities is that…
[...the Aquino family would] rather get the honor from the people [...]
Absolutely. As would any person who served The State could only hope for in death. But the missing piece here is a clear understanding of what we mean when we utter the words “the people”. Is it a crowd that gathers on the streets? Or is it what is embodied by the State known to the rest of the world as “the Republic of the Philippines”?
That is an argument that harks back to that old, tired, but all-too-familiarly-muddled Margalloan thinking of preferring to see a street mob as the embodiment of the “people’s will” rather than a formal structure to represent it.
One word summarises the above chronic syndrome:
Primitivism.
It is no wonder that time and again, Philippine society has demonstrated its utter lack of capacity for self-organisation; because we prefer chaotic blobs to embody our ideals rather than work on developing coherent structures to embody them consistently.
—————–
Epilogue:
After having said all of the above, let’s not forget that all this was really because “[Kris's] family had differences with the government”.
And…
[...] the differences stemmed from a government decision to recall two soldiers serving as her mother’s security detail after the former president called on President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to step down in 2005.
So you see, folks, it is all quite simple after all, really™.
============
Join us on Facebook!
Popularity: 1% [?]
Good Lord, why are we even bringing Abe Margallo into this? low blow, don’t you think? Why try to Benign-zero this piece by describing something which you could have easily described with something already found in the Webster Dictionary. I just hate it when someone has to bring down another person to prop up his own real estate. I mean, bring the person up if it can’t be avoided, but gee, to bring him up just to make fun of his views.
By the way, theory differs from actual perception and reality. get out all the dictionaries you want, in the end, If Arroyo administration had a chance to “honor” Cory, then she would have been boosted from a public perception point of view. State, Government, Republic, whatever, that is what would have happened. The family did not care for Arroyo, and decided to arrange it their way, if politically motivated, so be it. But, since the Former President didn’t want anything to do with Arroyo, one can surmise then that this would have been okay on a matter of principle.
And of course, nothing is really that simple. The pulling out of security detail was a culmination of clear political disagreements, so you’d have to expand if you really wanted the whole story. It’s not as if the security detail pullout was a decision made by Arroyo out of thin air.. right? Or was it out of thin air, maybe it was.
It’s simple, really?
Boss, everyone’s ideas are fair game here last I heard — whether they are regarded with seriousness, with humour, with a bit of satire, or with downright scorn.
I choose to regard Margallo’s ideas with a hint of ridicule. That is an opinion — MY opinion — that I am delivering to this collective — that Margallo’s views on this whole concept of “the people” is no less than ridiculous. If you or anyone is uncomfortable with that opinion then I presume said folks are at liberty to say so in this forum (as you so did in your comment).
So if I were you’ I’d do some serious re-thinking of what you say here:
Fair game, boss. If it is a “low blow”, tell us why. What defines a let’s-not-even-go-there article then? Tell us what the boundaries are? What is too irreverent for you?
Tell us, boss.
In case you haven’t noticed yet, I am not questioning the Aquino’s family’s right to decide how to bury Mrs. Aquino. I am opening a discussion here on the thinking behind the decisions made — because they are reflective of something that is RELEVANT to the nature of how our society goes about its business overall.
It IS simple, really™ — though not for the small-minded.
of course, it’s fair game, but after a while, we’ll be the only ones playing.
But, as to how everything becomes a sociological thesis as to why The Philippines sucks is indeed something that can become redundant.
A family refuses State Funeral Rites then leads to the conclusion of primitivism in Philippine Society. I wonder what explanation you have for a tree falling.
In any case, Benigz, the refusal of The Aquinos could very well be just a refusal, it may be an example of primitivism to you, but heck, so are a million other things in this world. Fire is as primitive as they come, but is as relevant today as is.. uhm.. fire.
I’ll go along with your thesis on some other day, but in this case, can’t it just be a family declining on the basis of principle?
No, it can’t be just a family declining on the basis of principle. It was a family declining on the basis of a personal enmity, which also just happened to be political. It would have been principle if they had made reference to the personal wishes of the deceased in a clear way, which they certainly didn’t do.
And it also wasn’t very imaginative, from a political point of view. What better way to rub Arroyo’s nose in it than to demand that she personally lead the ceremony & tribute for a personal & political adversary? Of course, the Aquinos understand that subtlety of that sort is totally lost on the primitive minds of the masa, so they took the low, results-guaranteed road.
So, it becomes a matter of principle just by mere reference? Last I heard, it becomes a matter of principle by action, and not how it is worded. And so, if they disagreed politically on these matters, they have the right to decline.. that my friend, is a matter of principle. What would have been low, if they didn’t respect the wishes of The Former President. In this case, I’d rather respect the Former President’s principles and wishes rather than pander to what is considered “stately” and non-petty.
At no point were “the Former President’s wishes and principles” ever made known. The petty grievances and childish attitude of the Aquino offspring were made known, the desires of a vast number of people who would have liked to see a proper state funeral were made known, as well the opinions of a similarly large number of people who felt that it should be left up to the family were made known.
What is primitive, first of all, is that there are no clear and codified protocols for the State to follow in the instance of the death of a former president. That may seem like a small issue, but it is an important symbol of being an organized, civilized society.
I’ll agree that principle is better expressed by action than by word. That is correct. And being correct it is simply a further condemnation of the Aquino offsprings’ behavior as a primitive, person-above-the-state, expression of principles that haven’t been in vogue or effective since the time of, say, Louis XIV.
But what makes you think, after calling for the resignation of Arroyo, after the security detail debacle, that Former President Cory would have gladly thrown her principles aside and given The Arroyo Administration even a whiff of any decision making as to what would happen after her death.
There are many ways to dictate civility and organization of a nation or a state. One way is to actually respect the wishes of the family. Protocols are protocols, but one does not have to be slave to such protocols. We put too much onus on this event, when if it is organization and civility we seek, then it should be the actual conduct of legislation, and governance, and implementation of social programs that we should look towards, and not the condemnation of a family who took it upon themselves, to honor their mother during a time of mourning.
nick your “principle” mantra, as your justification for the aquino family’s refusal, is based on petty, personal and whimsical grudge, as evidenced by a direct testimony by no less than the deceased’s daughter, kris. you cannot negate that by simply labeling it “a matter of principle”. principle is not always a good thing as when it stems from arrogance, narcissism, or just plain pig-headedness.
For all we know, Cory herself had nothing to do with this “confusion”. It’s just her family mismanaging the whole affair (allowing Kris to speak for them probably accounting for the bulk of said mismanagement).
what can you expect from an airhead, showbiz brat? it seems her mouth is so much faster than her brain (if the latter works at all).
for crying out loud, it’s a family burial: their dead, their business. if they do not want a state funeral, let them be entitled to their opinion–whether this opinion has tinge of humour or ridicule.
this piece is intellectual masturbation gone dry.
talking of ridicule, nick: why can benigs take punts on abe while you censor my comments on prada-shoe observing plagiarists that crawl on this forum for their cut-and-paste ‘ideas’.
btw, i am reminded of the sunday inquirer article two weeks ago: a guy who notices shoes says a lot about where he digs inside his closet. a guy who proclaims to all and sundry that his reading materials includes a pile of girlie mags actually loves not the mags but being a gurl. ;) ayayay.
Face it, boss. This is a let’s-not-even-go-there topic. But then as the saying goes one does things because it is there. And who better to go where Pinoys dare not tread than the Great benign0. Deal with it.
If you check out the Reuters article you will note that even MLQ3′s sidestepping into his not-all-pf-it-was-rejected position is made moot by the categorical statement made by Kris.
For that matter, it seems Reuters took its ability to highlight its own view on the matter to the very edge in that above report (without editorialising as some “reporters” here tend to do). It highlighted that “they [Cory's family] had decided against a state funeral for the former leader”, that one reason was that “her [Kris's] family had differences with the government” and said differences “stemmed from a government decision to recall two soldiers serving as her mother’s security detail after the former president called on President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to step down in 2005″.
What do those reported facts spell out even without the need to editorialise?
I’ll tell you:
P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-S-A-T-I-O-N.
And over what? A decision to recall two security soldiers — according to Kris. Thus the title: Kris Aquino’s take on things.
It’s simple, boss, really™.
Nick,
Remember that Aquino is not just an ordinary family. They are big time political figures. They are public property So what ever they do they it will be talk about and will be connected to the Filipino behaviour. And it is dsirespect to talk about how they arrived to a certain wishes.
If you noticed, the opening paragraph of the the article, It was culled from a major newspaper. And having come from ever controversial Kris herself its very much open for “discussion”.
I even believe that Kris invited this kind of talk intentionally. PAra mapagusap ng husto ang pamilya nila at sya mismo. Kris just cant get enough of headline grabbing. Showbiz forever.
in this case, the state funeral honor is entirely at the behest of the sitting administration.
if you have political differences, huge ones, then you MUST refuse.
Benigno,
For someone who claims to be so up on things, I’m surprised you didn’t even bother to google “state funeral” before you started attacking the Aquinos.
Read and pay close attention to the last eight words of the second sentence.
“A state funeral is a public funeral ceremony held to honour heads of state or other important people of national significance. They usually include much pomp and ceremony. Generally, they are held to involve the general public in the mourning process after the family of the deceased give consent.” Wikipedia
Comprendes?
It’s okay to refuse a state funeral. One does not even have to give a reason for refusing!
In England:
“Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield was offered the honour of a state funeral, but refused it in his will. The famous nurse and statistician Florence Nightingale was also offered a state funeral, but her family opted for a private ceremony.” Wikipedia
In Australia:
Queensland. “A State Funeral was offered for Steve Irwin in September 2006, but the offer was declined.” Wikipedia
But let’s play with your thesis
“Forgive my even simpler take on things, but last I heard, there is a clear difference between the State and a Government…Why drag the State into one’s squabbles with a Government?”
You characterize the Aquino family’s rejection of Gloria Arroyo’s offer as “The rejection of state protocol on the basis of the behaviour of a government currently in power.”
Benigno, the behavior of a government in power is a pretty sound basis for a decision whether or not to accept honors from it.
What if Marcos had offered a state funeral for Ninoy? Should the Aquinos have adopted your simple views and split hairs over the “clear difference between the State and a Government”?
So you see, Benigno, you are quite simple really™.!
third sentence pala
“it is the prerogaative of the family to accept or decline the offer of a state funeral. As such no reason need be given.”
You said it best, “no reason need be given”. Then why did Kris give a political reason in the first place? Benign0 et al were right. It was the family (Kris) who politicised their mother’s funeral. Shame on them!!!
in the political world, the question is not whether the family had the right to refuse, it is whether the REASON for the refusal is credible and/or politically correct. a public which knows that the reason is petty, personal amor propio, false pride, or self-righteousness (no matter how coated in such grandiose terms as “principle”) would know better how to deal with it. “principles” may or may not be grounded on objective, just and noble sentiments. finding out which is which in the context of the aquino refusal, i believe, should be the object of this debate.
the differences are political. in short, the family believes GMA is a bad president who hasnt been put thru the process yet.
how do we know objectively if they are petty, etc…
to help answer the question, a hypothetical: what sample reason would be non-petty, etc?
to a catholic, as cory was, all trespasses (petty or not) should be forgiven if one wants to be forgiven for his/her own trespasses.
@Gabby D:
A hypothetical ‘non-petty’ reason would have been former President Aquino’s express wish not to have a state funeral.
Kris Aquino has made a career out of being a total idiot when it comes to PR, so her stirring the pot is not at all surprising. She could have simply said something like, “Before Mom died, she asked that her funeral be as simple and private as possible” and left it at that, and no one could question it. But no, she decided to get snarky about it, and politicize her own mother’s passing. Shame on her, and shame on everyone who buys into her & her brother’s b.s.
it is the prerogaative of the family to accept or decline the offer of a state funeral. As such no reason need be given.
“A state funeral is a public funeral ceremony held to honour heads of state or other important people of national significance. They usually include much pomp and ceremony. Generally, they are held to involve the general public in the mourning process after the family of the deceased give consent.” Wikipedia
a lot of the the pinoys-in-da-pinas agree that the Aquinos turn down Arroyo’s offer of a state funeral, but they expect her to “mourn” with the nation.
yun na nga eh, nag extend na nga ng offer, tinalikuran – kung ayaw nyo, wag nyoo.. if you are the only ones who have a take no prisoners policy .
you spite me,
i spite you – here’s what – wedding anniversary, #20K 30 people, not taxpayers money spent – ang lagay eh, kayo lang marunong? chew on that…. (and chew they did) :)
meanwhile, as the MSM and the blogosphere chews on the bone, business as usual with unfinished business.
Sex video and state matters – sex video…
Elections and $20K wedding anniversary….. $20K wedding anniversary
tuloy ang negosyo habang ang kajologan ay nahihibang sa kadramahan at mega telenovela. – priceless!
Buencamino:
(1) What makes you think I am “attacking” the Aquinos?
(2) Where exactly did I assert that the family’s refusing the state funeral was wrong?
(3) Are you comparing the Arroyo government to the Marcos government?
(4) Are you comparing the gravity of alleged crookedness of the Arroyo government to the crookedness of the Marcos government (as a basis for using it as a context for refusing a state funeral)?
Nice try, gramps. Too bad your house-of-cards of a comment is based on too many unsound assumptions about the points I make. :-D
“What makes you think I am “attacking” the Aquinos?
(2) Where exactly did I assert that the family’s refusing the state funeral was wrong?”
calling it primitive?
Really, GabbyD?
Show me exactly where I called Kris’s actions “primitive”, plez.
easy:
“Absolutely. As would any person who served The State could only hope for in death. But the missing piece here is a clear understanding of what we mean when we utter the words “the people”. Is it a crowd that gathers on the streets? Or is it what is embodied by the State known to the rest of the world as “the Republic of the Philippines”?…
…
One word summarises the above chronic syndrome:
Primitivism.
It is no wonder that time and again, Philippine society has demonstrated its utter lack of capacity for self-organisation; …”
Guess again GabbyD. You replaced a key paragraph with that “…” you inserted above. The original flow of my brilliant piece (the part you replaced with the “…” is highlighted in bold) is as follows:
You will note now that “primitivism” in the above context describes the syndrome that characterises the argument I cite (in bold).
Stidi ka lang dyan, dude.
benigno, even the devil would quote the scriptures if it could suit its evil purpose but, at least, it would quote the passage as written and not change or omit words here and there.
one thing i noticed in this blog is the penchant of some commenters to misquote, mischaraterize, and distort views of others whose pov’s don’t agree with theirs. some would make irrelevant strawman issues as palusot when they find themselves on untenable grounds. others would cleverly make their positions like moving targets making them hard for one to pin down and demolish.
GabbyD:
In your opinion, which sentence summarizes what you think B0 is saying?
Sentence A: Primitivism is wrong
Sentence B – The Philippines exhibits primitivism.
B0 was saying:
“Absolutely. As would any person who served The State could only hope for in death. But the missing piece here is a clear understanding of what we mean when we utter the words “the people”. Is it a crowd that gathers on the streets? Or is it what is embodied by the State known to the rest of the world as “the Republic of the Philippines”?
That is an argument that harks back to that old, tired, but all-too-familiarly-muddled Margalloan thinking of preferring to see a street mob as the embodiment of the “people’s will” rather than a formal structure to represent it.
One word summarises the above chronic syndrome:
Primitivism.
It is no wonder that time and again, Philippine society has demonstrated its utter lack of capacity for self-organisation; because we prefer chaotic blobs to embody our ideals rather than work on developing coherent structures to embody them consistently.”
to put it simply:
there is a concept, called primitism, that can be used to describe abe’s ideas, as well ask kris’
look up the work primitivism.
their ideas are primitive/ have the quality of being primitive (daw, according to B0).
about your choices, A vs B, B0 wants to say both.
thats his opinion. thats fine by me.
but the thing that started this was the refusal of the state funeral honor was from this primitivism concept (according to B0).
last i checked, calling someone’s ideas/reasoning “primitive” (or having such quality of being primitive), is a verbal putdown.
yes?
GabbyD:
seems like it is your opinion he is saying A and B, when in his own words he is saying B.
are you not projecting your value judgment on his description of the as-is state?
well, to be honest bong, i don’t care if he things A or B, or any combination of that…
its his opinion, whatever it is…
again, B0 asked me, “Where exactly did I assert that the family’s refusing the state funeral was wrong?””
the answer is, he called it primitive/primitivism.
he is free to have an opinion. but i DO care about words and their meaning.
thats it. plain and simple. di ba?
now you say that being primitive is NOT WRONG. ok. i doubt that people’s plain reading of the word primitive.
right? how can the word primitive EVER be a good thing?
Just because these folk are the offspring of two national “heroes” does not necessarily mean that they inherited the strength of character or sharp minds of their parents.
Oh I forgot, this is Pinoy society — where every individual is pretty much defined by who their parents are…
Of course, Buenamino, and I can respect that (as a matter of fact, that is beside the point).
But the reality is that the family actually did go on record about their reasons for the decline. And you have Kris to thank for that.
huh? even if you include that part, that doesnt change anything.
when u wrote
“That is an argument that harks back to that old…”
the word THAT points to the paragraph directly above, which i quoted.
correct?
what is the paragraph directly above? your interpretation of what kris said. the IDEA of which, you called primitive.
correct?
so your interpretation of what kris and abe said is what you call PRIMITIVE.
correct?
this isn’t a moving target. i’m not obfuscating. this is english.
the point, your interpretation of kris’ words (which, to borrow your word, harkens to abe’s words) is primitive.
is any of this wrong?
also, while kris did tell the story about the pullout, that wasn’t the only reason. i’m sure NO ONE expects a full throated explanation, detailing all the political differences between them. that would be weird at a lamay, wouldn’t u think so?
“primitive” is an adjective that describes a thing, an act, behavior, or belief. where in benigno’s comment you quoted did he describe kris statement as primitive? don’t re-shape someone’s idea to suit your need, gabbyd. take it as you find it, or make your own.
“primitivism” is a noun that denotes collective belief, attitude, behavior, or dogma, e.g., nationalism, communism, conservatism. kris’ and abe’s statements may not be “primitive” (again, benigno did not say that) but they, as benigno sees those statements, are indicative of primitivsm “syndrome”.
yes, the word primitivism was used.
from mirriam webster online:
Main Entry: prim·i·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: ‘pri-m&-ti-”vi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : primitive practices or procedures; also : a primitive quality or state
2 a : belief in the superiority of a simple way of life close to nature b : belief in the superiority of nonindustrial society to that of the present
3 : the style of art of primitive peoples or primitive artists
primitivism is a “primitive quality or state”
this is my working definition of the word primitivism. i can only assume that this is what B0 meant (chime in if you want, B0).
is this definition wrong?
the definition is o.k. but you are misusing it. trying hard or hardly trying?
how am i misusing it?
as i asked bong, how can primitive be a complement for anyone?
how is my reading of B0′s interpretation wrong?
trying hard vs hardly trying? is that your way of telling me my interpretation is wrong?
that in this case being primitive is OK, good even? ganun ba?
like i told bong, B0′s opinion is his own. he can say, kris is an evil alien in disguise. thats fine.
thats the benefit of being an anonymous blogger.
but i DO care about words and their meaning. thats why i’m pressing this…
is it grammatically correct to say “what kris aquino said was primitivism”, or that “kris is primitivism”, as you seem to insist?
shouldn’t it be “what kris said was primitive” or “kris is primitive”? – neither of which benigno said.
@bencard
you wrote:
“shouldn’t it be “what kris said was primitive” or “kris is primitive”? – neither of which benigno said.”
i’ll admit that kris is primitivism isn’t kosher, but i WASNT GOING for grammatical correctness, to expedite my point — which is what does PRIMITIVISM/primitive mean? and what did he call PRIMITIVE?
now, above your wrote that B0 never said ““what kris said was primitive””
which is strange… while never WORDED that way, what he wrote is crystal -clear that he calls ideas’ like that (which harkens back to abe) as “PRIMITIVISM”
look back and read it. for convenience, here it is again:
_________
Absolutely. As would any person who served The State could only hope for in death. But the missing piece here is a clear understanding of what we mean when we utter the words “the people”. Is it a crowd that gathers on the streets? Or is it what is embodied by the State known to the rest of the world as “the Republic of the Philippines”?
That is an argument that harks back to that old, tired, but all-too-familiarly-muddled Margalloan thinking of preferring to see a street mob as the embodiment of the “people’s will” rather than a formal structure to represent it.
One word summarises the above chronic syndrome:
Primitivism.
It is no wonder that time and again, Philippine society has demonstrated its utter lack of capacity for self-organisation; because we prefer chaotic blobs to embody our ideals rather than work on developing coherent structures to embody them consistently.
________
that is crystal clear. sabi nya ONE WORD SUMMARIZES it daw: PRIMITIVISM…
now the only thing to do if figure out whether being primitive is a GOOD thing?
thats what i leave up to you. the everyday meaning is NOT A GOOD thing.
i doubt you’d appreciate i call you primitive, or your thoughts primitive. no one would.
That is the gist – he simpy describes the as-is state as primitive. He does not say it is wrong.
In describing a phenomenon that captures the broad range of actions, views, structures – and sheer lack of cohesion, he uses the word – primitivism. There is nothing in the statement that supports the assertion that a statement was made that “Primitivism is wrong”.
and being primitive is NOT wrong?
when one calls something primitive, what does that MEAN?
can that mean something GOOD? really?
Gabbyd:
Hunter/gatherer societies – are primitive – are they “wrong”?
They are primitive – and they admit, they are primitive. Nothing “wrong” with that.
*****
Pinas is primitive and tries to pass itself off as “sophisticated” – that’s what’s “wrong”.
Sophisticated “daw”, but napakapetty naman ng handling ng offer of state funeral.
Rule of law kunyari – panay naman ang palusot – on all sides.
Hindi raw “nation of servants” – panay naman padala ng chimay.
***
See the distinction?
@bong
ano? “Hunter/gatherer societies – are primitive – are they “wrong”?”
wow…
“Sophisticated “daw”, but napakapetty naman ng handling ng offer of state funeral.”
this in fact proves it.
di ba the thing that started this was:
_________________________
benign0 says:
August 12, 2009 at 11:20 am
“What makes you think I am “attacking” the Aquinos?
(2) Where exactly did I assert that the family’s refusing the state funeral was wrong?”
calling it primitive?
Really, GabbyD?
Show me exactly where I called Kris’s actions “primitive”, plez.
_______________________
so i explained. now you agree! saying that its primitive, coz its “unsophisticated” (to say the least).
thats a verbal putdown/attack -WHICH IS MY POINT.
IT IS A VERBAL ATTACK. because NO ONE wants to be called primitive.
now you can HAVE THAT OPINION if you want. its up to you.B0′s being anonymous means that whatever attack he makes has NO PERSONAL CONSEQUENCES. its the benefit of being anonymous.
MY POINT is simply, lets label a putdown because it IS ONE!
Given then, GabbyD that you bizarrely prefer to interpret my brilliant words as “put downs” against Pinoys, the challenge then becomes quite simple as well:
Why don’t you come up with some put ups in favour of Pinoys?
Up to the challenge?
Or do you prefer to just go stomping around like a crybaby given how much certain TRUTHs about Pinoys sting so deeply?
@B0
bizarrely interpret?
geez, what other interpretation is there?!
please, spell it out:
“being called PRIMITIVE is a good because:…”
unfotunately, this blog post is no longer on the front page, but i’ll check occassionally to see what you write.
@B0
i would love to know how being “primitive” is a compliment…
Gabby:
Did I say pettiness is wrong?
What I said is… what’s wrong is – misrepresentation – trying to present what one is not.
Trying to portray that one is “sophisticated” when one is actually “petty”.
I did not say A is wrong. or B is wrong. Isaid, trying to pass off A as B, is wrong.
to some, being primitive is sheer freedom – freedom from bills, work, laws, school – and be just like the birds, living off on the fruits of nature – a fig nut, a grub. to have the canopy of stars as your ceiling, the moon as your chandelier – whether in the jungles of the Amazon, the forests of Lake Sebu, the savannahs of Africa, the outbacks of Australia.
To the lamplighters it means a pure state of awareness, consciousness, and stewardship of the environment, and oneness with spaceship Earth.
However, it will take some disengaging your current mindset and bump up the value of environmentalism in your personal values system.
again, i don’t care to change people’s opinions in an opinion blog. the most i can do is understand these opinions.
but I DO care about words and their meaning. If we write something down, we’d better know that it means, and don’t change it later on.
thats it.