In Tabon Man recently, CVJ of The Placeholder criticized my use of the word “INDIO“ to refer to the pre-Islamic, pre-Christian inhabitants of the Islands. He argued it is a pejorative term applied by the Spanish conquistadores who only thought they had reached India. Like “Filipino” he avers that it should be applied only to Christianized Filipinos. Yet it turns out that both the Madjapahit (Java 1293-1500) and Sri Visayan (Sumatra 7th-13th Century) Empires which “ruled” and “colonized” the Philippines for half a millenium or more just before Islam or Christianity–were in fact Indianized empires based in Malay Archipelago where Buddhism and Hinduism were dominant religions. Thus the term INDIO is a much better suited than either “Bangsamoro” or “Filipino” to capture the historical and cultural reality of the pre-Islamic, pre-Christian indigenous inhabitants of these Islands.
Which begs the following questions: Are the “Bangsamoro” indigenous people of the Philippines? Is Islam indigenous? Are the Tagalog People indigenous peoples of the Philippines? Is Roman Catholicism indigenous? Is IPRA constitutional? Who ought to be considered the true indigenous peoples of the Philippines? Should there be ONE HOMELAND for all the Indios together, or hundreds?
The Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 has an enumerated list of all one hundred and ten (110) the Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines. There is no entry for “Bangsamoro ” although several ethnolinguistic groups ascribed to be Muslims are included. There is also no entry for Tagalogs, Ilocanos, Cebuanos or any other Christianized ethnic group. But in his Concurring Opinion then Associate Justice Reynato Puno says, “Indigenous peoples share distinctive traits that set them apart from the Filipino mainstream. They are non-Christians.”
There is no argument that Roman Catholicism is a foreign or non-indigenous religion brought here by the Spanish conquistadores. But what about Islam?
According to this Historical Timeline of the Royal Sultanate of Sulu it was founded by a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohamed in 1457 A.D. [sic!]:
1450 AD – A Johore-born Arab adventurer, Shari’ful Hashem Syed Abu Bak’r, arrived in Sulu from Melaka; He married Param Isuli, daughter of Raja Baguinda, and founded The Royal Sultanate of Sulu in 1457; He declared himself H.R.H. Paduka Maulana Mahasari Sharif Sultan Hashem Abu Bak’r, Sultan of Sulu, of the Saudi House of Hashemite in Hadramaut, where most Tausug and Yakan believed prophet Mohammad’s genealogy is traced.
Meanwhile Thomas MacKenna describes the arrival of Sharif Kabunsuan, legendary founder of the Cotabato Sultanates, some time after 1511.
The coming of Sarip Kabungsuwan to Cotabato is the charter event for the claims of the rulers of Cotabato in the historical period to nobility and moral authority. The story of the arrival of Sarip Kabungsuwan is told in the tarsilas , the written genealogies that link the royal houses of Cotabato with their progenitor…
According to the tarsilas, Sarip Kabungsuwan was the son of Jusul Asikin, the daughter of the Sultan of Johore, and Sarip Ali Zain-ul Abiden from Mecca. Thus, Kabungsuwan was the offspring of a princess of the Melaka royal family and, more significantly, the son of a sharif (the original Arabic form of “Sarip”), and hence a direct descendent of the Prophet Muhammad. [Majul (1973)] suggests that the historic Kabungsuwan must have sailed to Mindanao some time after 1511, when the Melaka royal family, to which his mother belonged, was driven from Melaka by the Portuguese and established a sultanate in Johore.
The tarsilas relate how Kabungsuwan arrived by chance at the mouth of the Pulangi River and began to convert local chieftains and their followers to Islam. He married the daughters of some of these chieftains, thus establishing in Mindanao a barabangsa, or royal lineage, whose members claimed a sacred genealogy, tracing their origins to the Prophet Muhammad. The tarsilas report that the first wife married by Sarip Kabungsuwan in Cotabato (Putri Tunina) was found in a bamboo stalk. Kabungsuwan’s son, Sarip Makaalang, married a woman who emerged from a crow’s egg. The existence of these supernatural children raised the status of the female descent line, thus further distinguishing the barabangsa line from autochthonous lineages.[12]
McKenna describes pre-Islamic society, at least in Mindanao, and the sociopolitical impact of the new hierarchical Islamic rule.
Pre-Islamic Magindanaon social organization consisted of a number of localized cognatic descent groups, or BANGSA, that were associated with particular autonomous or semi-autonomous INGED or localities… In pre-Islamic Cotabato, these large, localized descent groups produced chiefs who, under certain conditions, were able to extend their power beyond their own BANGSA and become chieftains or, in exceptional cases, rulers of harbor principalities. With the coming of Islam, however, the BANGSA were crosscut, and eventually attenuated by a separated, society-wide aristocracy whose members claimed descent from a common ancestor, Sarip Kabunsuan, an emigre nobleman. With the establishment of the Cotabato sultanates, local chieftains became principally interested in establishing the maximum number of descent links to Sarip Kabunsuan, the prime ancestor. Their new status aspiration was to establish their rank positions in respect to the paramount rulers of the sultanates, who ruled by right of their membership in the artistocratic lineage (BARABANGSA) founded by Kabunsuan.
There is no doubt therefore that Islam is a foreign, non-indigenous religion that was brought to the Philippines by noblemen claiming direct descent from The Prophet via the Moluccas (and courtesy of Dutch) no earlier than the 15th century, and just a little ahead of Christianity. The above accounts cannot possibly hold the sum total of human suffering and pathos consequently induced by their sweeping acts of religious establishment and aristocratic rule based on “sacred inequality.”
Of one thing we can be sure. There were thousands of years of human history in these islands before the coming of Islam. The Chinese knew about the gold resources of Luzon as early as the 2nd century, according to J. of the Nutbox, and there is a vast untold story of the relationship between the Madjapahit and Sri Visayan Empires and Indio (pre-Islamic, pre-Christian, or prehistoric indigenous peoples of the Philippines).
Once more, the Philippines stands at a cross roads of self-determination during which it is undergoing a crisis of self-conception that began when the Congress passed a law in 1997 dividing the nation into two separate categories: indigenous peoples (IPs) of the Philippines and non-indigenous peoples (NIPs).
In a comment to TABON MAN, our esteemed colleague Bencard writes about the Supreme Court being the Final Arbiter:
abe, djb. just one brief point. in our scheme of things, the “constitutionality” of a constitutional or statutory provision is determined by the sc, the final arbiter. until the sc, in a proper case challenging IPRA, hands down its determination, abe’s theory remains that – a legal theory. maybe djb (assuming he has the legal capacity to do so)
can challenge the constitutionality of IPRA under the equal protection or due process clause.
I agree entirely, but here is a fact–at any time, the Supreme Court can reverse any ruling or decision that it rendered in the past. That is how supreme the Supreme Court is. But, that is also why NO Supreme Court ruling or decision is truly final in some metaphysical or irremediable sense.
Precisely because the Supreme Court is the “Final Arbiter” in any justiciable case, this does not mean that any decision it makes is itself “final” or unchangeable. Since the process of bringing justiciable cases to the Supreme Court is open-ended in historical time, the present Supreme Court can change its mind about any past decision it has made, in whole or in part, given the proper case is filed before it. Being neither a trier of facts nor an enforcer of the Law, the Court is primordially responsible for the Law itself being at any given moment, true, just, and most all, FAIR. The Court’s sole output is intellectual in its essence.
I think the more complex or universal a given controverted law is (or any other government policy or action), the greater its chances of being struck down for violating some aspect of the Constitution itself, perhaps after a series of judicial challenges. The canonical example would be the matter of human slavery in the American jurisdiction, which enjoyed long period of favorable Supreme Court decision making, until of course Abe Lincoln appeared on the scene, emancipation happened, society evolved, and so did the Law.
It seems therefore that the most sensible attitude towards the Supreme Court as arbiter of the Constitution and the Laws is this. We may assume that any constitutional or statutory provision is Constitutional — until and unless the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional, which it can do at any time. Any decision by the Court stands, until and unless it is struck down by the Court itself. What is important about this is that the Final Arbitrariness of the Supreme Court need not be a hindrance to Free Thought and Moral Conscientiousness on the part of the citizens. As long as we hew to the Rule of Law (and never actually burn down Padre Faura), we are free to promote such circumstances leading to the repeal of a law we don’t like because it could cause the nation real harm. In the scientific spirit, one could say that the work of the Judiciary is to define a series of successive approximations to some poetic Justice and metaphysical truth.
Now, although the members of the Supreme Court of the Philippines (SCoRP) are unelected and merely appointed Judges, they are often enough of high intellectual and moral character and are forced to operate in a democratic, collegial body which records the numerical results of its deliberations and votes. Many cases get not only a main ruling, but with separate opinions, concurring or dissenting, and the Court itself has recently emphasized that it is the corpus of the written opinions taken together that must be understood as the ruling of the court in any given case. Thus, we the Public, are afforded a kind of metric, a measurement both quantitative and qualitative of how constitutional or not some law or action is. A unanimous Supreme Court decision, such as the one on PP1017 carries an awful lot of doctrinal weight, whereas less definitive are the recent pair of decisions on executive privilege against the Senate on Romulo Neri which were lost on 9-6 majority rulings in favor of Neri.
Now let me get to the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997, an much-lauded and historic act of Congress that literally affects every man, woman and child in the Philppines. For this is a law that DIVIDES the Filipino people for the first time in history into two very different categories:
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (IPs)
and
NON-INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NIPs).
We find in IPRA a definition of terms:
“Sec. 3 [h]. Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples– refer to a group of people or homogeneous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains.”
IPRA also assigns as private property, ancestral lands and domains amounting to about one third of Philippine territory to some 12 million or so IPs, grouped into an official list of 110 tribes, ranging from Igorots and Aetas in the North to the Tausugs and Lumads of the South. For the Non-indigenous Peoples of the Philippines — nada! — no ancestral lands and domains as private property.
The strangest thing about IPRA is that the Non-indigenous Peoples (NIPs) are all the Christianized Filipinos! The Tagalogs, Kapampangans, Ilocanos, Cebuanos, Batanguenos, the Samarnon, (all of the Visayans!). Under IPRA, all the Christian tribes are the juridical equivalent of the Spanish conquistadores and American Imperialists who conquered and baptized them, in respect of ancestral lands and domains, as well as of their political, social and cultural traditions.
IPRA’S Constitutionality was challenged by a former Supreme Court Justice turned newpaper columnist: Isagani A. Cruz in the celebrated case of Cruz v. DENR/NCIP which was decided by SCoRP on December 6, 2000 (one the eve of Erap’s Senate Impeachment Trial) in a 7-7 TIE.
In his Dissenting Opinion, former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban noted,
Indigenous peoples may have long been marginalized in Philippine politics and society. This does not, however, give Congress any license to accord them rights that the Constitution withholds from the rest of the Filipino people. I would concede giving them priority in the use, the enjoyment and the preservation of their ancestral lands and domains.[41] But to grant perpetual ownership and control of the nation’s substantial wealth to them, to the exclusion of other Filipino citizens who have chosen to live and abide by our previous and present Constitutions, would be not only unjust but also subversive of the rule of law.
In giving ICCs/IPs rights in derogation of our fundamental law, Congress is effectively mandating “reverse discrimination.” In seeking to improve their lot, it would be doing so at the expense of the majority of the Filipino people. Such short-sighted and misplaced generosity will spread the roots of discontent and, in the long term, fan the fires of turmoil to a conflagration of national proportions.
Peace cannot be attained by brazenly and permanently depriving the many in order to coddle the few, however disadvantaged they may have been. Neither can a just society be approximated by maiming the healthy to place them at par with the injured. Nor can the nation survive by enclaving its wealth for the exclusive benefit of favored minorities.
Rather, the law must help the powerless by enabling them to take advantage of opportunities and privileges that are open to all and by preventing the powerful from exploiting and oppressing them. This is the essence of social justice – empowering and enabling the poor to be able to compete with the rich and, thus, equally enjoy the blessings of prosperity, freedom and dignity.
WHEREFORE, I vote to partially GRANT the Petition and to DECLARE as UNCONSTITUTIONAL Sections 3(a) and (b), 5, 6, 7(a) and (b), 8 and related provisions of RA 8371.
When the Supreme Court rules upon the MOA on Ancestral Domain, the debates that went into the ruling on IPRA will once more come to the fore. There may be different result on IPRA should a new challenge to its constitutionality be mounted, in the light of the MOA-AD’s devastating effects and what that prophesies for “homelands”.
I believe it would be disastrous for the long term prospects of the country if we yield to the centrifugal forces of aboriginal nationalism that have been loosed by IPRA and the MOA-AD. I cannot see how we can justify one homeland for just one minority group, unless we can justify a hundred homelands for the others.
We are all INDIOS. This IS our homeland. Indivisible.
Popularity: 1% [?]
In pre-modern times, before the advent of nation-states, ‘indigeneous peoples’ were just treated as part of the empire or colony i.e. conquered peoples/nations. Nationhood was just a cultural concept, not a political one. Thus, the supra-political power did not have to provide special treatment/handling for these so-called indigeneous peoples.
However, with the emergence of nation-states political power over the territory is now solely vested to the ‘dominant tribe’ Thus, the state must provide for special treatment to avoid issues of ethnic cleansing.
Its not that simple really.
DJB, while i did criticize your use of the term ‘Indio’, your interpretation of my position as described in your entry is inaccurate, particularly this part…
If you look back at what i did say, i did not argue on the basis of the term ‘Indio’ being a ‘pejorative’. (Ding was the one who offered that piece of info in a later comment.) My objection was on the basis of it being a sloppy classification as it does not correspond to established category. To repeat my exact comment at the Tabon Man thread…
“If you use the term ‘Indio’ in that manner (i.e. differently from the way the Spanish used it), then it does not have any basis in history. In the same way that the pre-Hispanic inhabitants of these islands did not identify themselves as ‘Filipinos’, neither did they identify themselves collectively as ‘Indios’. So why use a term that in a manner that does not have any linguistic, genetic (racial) or historical basis?”
Secondly, when you claim that…
…that is also not accurate as well since i did not say that ‘Filipino’ should only apply to ‘Christianized Filipinos’. Wasn’t i the one who said in the comments that “Either you’re a Filipino citizen or you’re not“.
Could it be that you’re confusing my position with someone elses?
cvj,
I’ve reacted to your criticism by supplying the precise (if ironic and inexact) historical basis for my deliberate usage and selection of indio in the Indianized empires of the Sri Visayan and Madjapahit.
Indeed I am establishing a new category for the use of indio and bangsa indio much in the same way that Bangsamoro was pressed into service by Nur Misuari.
I am claiming that bangsa indio is an older archipelagic population that was powerfully influenced by Indianized empires.
And that all other bangsa (Moro, Tagalog, etc) are mere subsets of this greater bangsa indio that predated them all.
I may have mistaken your wagging a finger at “indio” with someone else who didn’t like my applying “Filipino” to everybody else.
But inasmuch as “Filipino” now includes naturalized citizens and others, we need a good word for indigenous people.
Indio fits the known historical sequence better than anything else.
The bigger point of course is that this bangsa indio deserves a single undivided homeland.
what ipra-boosters are promoting are apartheid under an aboriginal form of multi-nationalism.
philman,
do you really agree with classifying tagalogs, pampangos, ilocanos, cebuanos–all christianized filipinos–as NON-INDIGENOUS PEOPLE of the philippines?
djb,
No. As I stated above, we reckon ‘indigenous’ during the formation of the nation-state. This is what the UN and other international organizations normally use.
The Tagalogs, Pampangos, Ilocanos, and Cebuanos are all part of the dominant culture (‘tribes’) during the formation of the Philippine state; and even during the pre-nation, Spanish and American, colonial times.
philman,
sorry I’m not sure I understand your answer. What do you mean that the Tagalogs, Pampangos, et al “were all part of the dominant culture…even during colonial times?
Weren’t they “the conquered people” then? How could they all be part of the dominant culture of the Spanish Taliban and the American imperialists?
Are you saying that somehow they were LESS oppressed by the Spanish and the Americans than the Moros and Cordillerans (who claim they were never under the colonialists during those times and either fought them or ran away from them?)
DJB:
As "conquered people", the indios, under the tutelage of the foreign occupation forces took on the administrative role (and eventually all other "roles") vacated by the Spanish Taliban and the American imperialists. The indios now make up the Caliban, situated in "imperial Manila" – the seat of colonial authority. And as such, the indios are now part of the dominant culture – a chop suey of rosaries, hispanic-inspired folk dances (in contrast to the recognizably Asian singkil and cañaos), all the way to the tacky WOWOWEE.
Moreover, we also have to account for the Muslim rulers of Manila – Rajah Soliman.
IMHO, everyone was oppressed equally, but not everyone resisted in a sustained manner, except for the groups now known as Bangsa Moro and the Cordilleras – thus preserving their unadulterated heritage.
DJB, there was no ‘bangsa indio’ that corresponds to the present Philippine State. There may have been parts of the Philippine archipelago that were at the periphery of the Sri Vijaya and Majapahit Empires but these empires, even at their height, did not encompass the entire archipelago. Moreover, calling its inhabitants ‘Indio’ just because the above empires have Indian influence would mean that, for the sake of consistency, we should also call the Thai people ‘indios’. After all, the Thais had much more influence from India.
In retrospectively creating a pre-hispanic ‘Indio’ identity from the vantage point of the 21st century, you’re sacrificing the descriptive in favor of the normative, which would make it a political act on your part.
djb,
I meant the Tagalogs, Ilocanos,Cebuanos, at al, contributed, to a great extent in running the colony (the entity prelude to the nation-state) by being the ilustrados, military conscripts, catholic brethen, etc.
So these dominant tribes became integrated and were the ‘anointed’ ones come state-formation time.
The Moros claim they were never part of the Islas Filipinas and/or The Philippine Islands. So, when Aguinaldo declared (pseudo-) independence in 1898, Bangsa Moro was not part of it?
Question is, did they sign on/off to the 1935 constitution, which is the first legal framework, creating the Philippine nation-state?
Philman,
So all that stuff that folks like Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio complained about that the Spanish were doing to Crisostomo Ibarra and Maria Clara and Cabesang Tales, and all the other indios being oppressed and abused–all that was really the Tagalogs, Ilocanos, et al “contributing to the “running of the colony” in preparation for anointment come state-formation time as “dominant tribes.” Yours is a very strange view of colonial times, philman.
Help me out here, guy!
djb, my compliments for your good post. are you sure you’re an engineer, not a constitutionalist?
personally, i tend to agree with cj panganiban’s dissenting opinion insofar as ipra tends to create legal dichotomies within the filipino nation resulting in a grant of arbitrary entitlements to some favored groups.
philman, if by “they” you mean the inhabitants of mindanao (including sulu, lanao, cotabato, etc.), weren’t they represented by a delegate to the 1935 constitutional convention? if you mean the “moros” of that time, who could have signed for all of them?
djb,
You’re looking at it at 20/20 hindsight. History is story unfolding daily, hourly, 24/7, without the actors knowing the outcome of their actions.
Gimme me a break! Did I say Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, et al., knew that there would be nation-states? Did those Tagalogs, Ilocanos, Cebuanos, etc. knew that they were willing/unwilling victims of colonialism but would soon be the primemovers of the Philippine state?
bencard,
You may be right that Moro representative(s) signed on the 1935 constitution. Manolo Quezon III blogged about it, but i missed out on the discusions.
philman,
Did our heroes know there would be nation-states, you asked. Yes –those ilustrados and bravehearts who aspired to found a new nation– knew that’s what the Revolution was all about. They wanted a new state for Bangsa Indio, which for lack of a better name became Filipinas, of which they knew they would soon be the prime movers.
What do you mean, please, by “willing/unwilling victims of colonialism”? This is part of the ideology of self-loathing promoted by folks like Constantino, the CPP NPA and now the MILF that invents the most divisive of ideas: that some indios were more oppressed than others because they fought the invaders while the majority became collaborators. This adds insult to the injury suffered by the indios–Christian or Moro–at the hands of colonizers.
The truth is both Islam and Christianity arrived with conquerors and proselytizers.
The distinction currently enshrined in the law betweeen IPs and NIPs is despicable ethnolinguistic apartheid that is leading not just to dismemberment of the Republic, but of the Bangsa Indio concept of itself.
We are ALL indios. We should reject the aboriginal notion of nationalism that is tearing us apart in a centrifugal rampage of hatred, terrorism and separatism.
It is tribal infantilism!
It depends though on whether we can find a clear and robust notion of what being “Filipino” means (beyond the luck of the draw of being born in a little group of volcanic debris named after a Spanish king) that effectively trumps our innate tribal and clan affiliations once and for all.
benign0,
what’s wrong with being named after a spanish king. Look at America, named after a forgotten Italian nobody! (Amerigo was Italian wasn’t he? anybody know?)
Philman is correct. There’s an international definition of being classified as “indigenous” and unfortunately, this does not jibe with what DJB is promoting.
Going back to the Indio thing, DJB thinks that this perojative term applies even to the Moros back then. DJB should re-read his history. The term “Indios” applies only to the subjugated tribes in Luzon and the Visayas and never applied to those living in Mindanao because it is historical fact that Spanish rule did not reach Mindanao not until the 19th century.
DJB tries to smash the claim of the Bangsamoro Peoples that they are entitled to their lands by lumping them to the majority of Filipinos subjugated by foreign invaders. This is not what is written in historical accounts.
The Bangsamoro People is entitled to have their own state, as defined by both international and local political law and conventions because they satisfy the requirements of what a state should have.
Re: Manolo’s assertion that the Bangsamoro signed the 1935 Constitution and therefore, by signing it, they agree to be part of Philippine territory. Question–who signed it and by what right?
Was the signatory a recognized Bangsamoro sultan? Of what territory? Let’s not forget that during the 1930′s, the Sultan of Sulu was recognized only as a ruler in his territory, never in other parts of Mindanao. Of whose right and of whose claims?
It is clear that the Bangsamoro Peoples have a legal right to form their own state. It is their destiny.
Patricio Mangubat,
We are perfectly aware of the word usage, which only shows you never bothered to read this post. The word indio is translated here as indigenous and just because you watched some recent movies where Padre Damaso refers to indios in a pejorative manner doesn’t mean that all those thousands of Spaniards who came here were similarly cruel or oppressive.
Most likely they were not as cruel as those slave-raiding, slave trading, harem-making sultans you praise so.
You claim the Bangsamoro deserve their own State. Well, they will have to do it by force. It’s the only way they can establish a fundamentalist Islamic State.
Their failure to do so only means not even the Bangsamoro people support them.
Your biggest fallacy is to equate the Bangsamoro with gun-toting terrorists like the MILF.
Who appointed them representatives of the Bangsamoro. You, sir??
hehehe. I read this post perfectly clear my friend.
AND I AGREE THAT they need to do this this called the Bangsamoro Republic by force. As I’ve written in previous posts, this is the only way they can get what they want.
Representation, my friend, needs three things: constituency, arms and legitimacy of causes. I am not sympathetic with the MILF, far from it. Yet, based on these three things, the MILF serves as the representative of the Bangsamoro Peoples, for the meantime.
And, mind you sir, even the US State department dont consider the MILF as “gun-toting” terrorists. Kenney even went to their camp.
And this term of yours “gun-toting terrorists” depends on who’s purview? Apparently, if we ask those who live in these so-called Bangsamoro homeland, the likes of you (if you have a gun sir and enter their territory) and the AFP are the “gun-toting terrorists”.
And who, sir, do you think should represent the Bangsamoro before the GRP? The so-called royalty who own the lands and oppress the people? Who, sir, would you consider the true representatives of the Bangsamoro? Those elected under a bogus autonomous government, chosen not by their qualifications but by their ass-licking actions to the Powers-that-be?
Those who can truly represent the people are those who earn their trust. And, for now, sir, with the MNLF marginalized, the MILF seems to fit the mold. Until and when that time comes that a new one emerges from this imperialist war being waged by the wealthy caciques there in the land of promise, we must, I believe, be content with negotiating with the MILF.
And if we don’t do so sir, are you prepared for a long-drawn out war? You sit in your chair comfortably sir and you think of war as a concept, not as a real thing. Yet, those displaced families are suffering and they don’t have any chair to sit in sir.
And by the way, I don’t see any problem with them establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. Why? It’s their own lives my friend. They can flourish or perish for all I care from fundamentalism. However, I doubt if they’ll build one, since majority of the Bangsamoro, I believe, are moderates. So, don’t peddle this “Moro bogey” to justify this illegal war.
Net–any war, whether initiated by government or the Bangsamoro, is plain and simple illegal, barbaric and utterly inhumane. The only legitimate war in my book is that one waged against an illegitimate president.
Patricio,
The MILF does not “fit the mold,” and cannot represent the Bangsamoro” morally and ethically because it is not something that the Moro people deem to have ‘earned their trust.’
The Bangsamoro poeple have been helpless that they moved from being governed by the MNLF puppets to being represented by Muslim radical renegades.
They are a phone call away (probably) from being labeled terrorists. It will only take one communique from GMA to the US Defense for them to join the ranks of those who occupy Camp 7 at Guantanamo.
The Sultan of Sulu is the recognized moral leader of the Bangsamoro. The Sulu Sultanate used to be supportive of the MNLF up until Misuari and his wives went shopping, literally. Misuari’s favorite wife set up a Bangsamoro Women’s Foundation (or something generically sounding as that) which has become (and still is) a receptacle and repository of foreign aid. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as the Sultanate of Sulu’s patience over Misuari’s inability to stop shopping.
Unfortunately, foreign donors will only recognize institutionalized political groups (a.k.a democratically established). Hence, foreign aid has been going to the MNLF.
Patricio,
You said, “And by the way, I don’t see any problem with them establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state.”
You can’t be serious, but if you truly believe that even the Bill of Rights of the Constitution is negotiable, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, a secular state and open society, then we have no common ideological ground at all.
Your statement reveals a serious misunderstanding of Democracy, in that your do not seem to recognize that it is not only theocratic Islam that has principles for which its true believers will fight and die rather than surrender these treasures of our civilization.
No sir! We shall not give up even the Bangsamoro People to the neo-sultanists.