Letse!

I always thought that letse -- as in the "letse ka!" vulgarity we love to use in the Philippines -- is derived from Spanish. After all, letse... leche... 333 years of Spanish occupation... just made sense. But then I heard of the Bahasa Melayu word leceh which is used exactly the way we use letse, and it got me rethinking my hypothesis. I am now inclined to think we got it from our Malayo-Austronesian roots rather than Spanish. Let me explain. 

Leche as a cuss word, I understand, is practically unheard of in modern Spain or Latin America. It's milk, and you're more likely to hear it in the context of desserts rather than their digested byproduct. Closest uses of leche as an expression I could find are me cago en la leche and con mala leche, which are used more like exasperations or idiomatic expressions.

The Malay leceh, on the other hand, is an accusative or insult directed at a person or situation. Meaning troublesome or annoying, leceh requires an object and is used in almost the exact same context we use letse. 

This will need more research and confirmation, but I am now inclined to think that letse is a pre-Hispanic cuss word. It may be more related to leceh than leche. Amazing how inverting two letters can change the entire history of this cuss word. 

On the Bangsamoro

If it were up to me I'd grant the Bangsamoro outright independence and not mere autonomy. There has just been so much pain and injustice over the centuries. For them, Manila is an occupying power the way the rest of the Philippines saw Madrid, Washington, or Tokyo.

I'd like the peace talks to prosper just like anyone, but I can't see it happening under these circumstances. Too much bad faith. I'm also not sure if MILF are the right people to be talking with-- they have too little control over BIFF/PAGs/lost command/etc. (not to mention ASG) that a deal with them will not really end any of the hostilities (cf. MNLF 1996). It's not like MILF are the sole representative of the Bangsamoro, even if they fancy themselves to be such.

I say just let them go. Give them the vote. Give them the right to self-determination.

Remembering the Battle of Manila

Just watched Remembering the Battle of Manila, a two-hour documentary on the 1945 battle produced by Japanese television network NHK and aired on the History Channel.

The documentary had a very objective tone-- no sentimentality or emotion.  There was a good amount of discussion on objectives and tactics but hardly any mention of politics or motives.  The overarching message, though, was that most of the 100,000 Filipino civilian casualties and the almost total destruction of Manila was a result of American bombardment.  Which is quite accurate-- most of the deaths and destruction in Manila in 1945 were indeed caused by the American forces' indiscriminate use of force.  There are a lot of interviews with people-- Filipino civilians, American and Japanese soldiers-- who witnessed the battle and one can get a good picture of the suffering it caused.  One stark image is the destruction of the Philippine General Hospital by American bombers, who attacked the building and its thousands of patients and refugees "despite red crosses painted on the roof".

However, what troubles me about this documentary is what it does not say.  While it makes an indictment of American conduct during the battle, Japanese actions are mostly portrayed as defensive maneouvres.  While it does mention Japanese "outrages" committed against civilians in the name of "anti-guerilla offensives", it makes no adequate description of the gravity or the cruelty of these atrocities.  At one point it mentions the "Japanese anti-guerilla offensive" and "Filipinos fighting Filipinos" (i.e., revenge attacks against the makapili) as reasons, apart from indiscriminate American bombing, for Filipino civilian deaths, without any mention of scale or context as if the two reasons carried equal weight.  

While I didn't expect this documentary-- or any historical documentary-- to be totally objective, I did expect factual proportion.  In terms of scale, American bombs indeed killed more Filipinos and demolished more buildings, but the Japanese are at least equally to blame for the carnage.  The Americans were indiscriminate and reckless in their use of force, but the Japanese were rabid and sadistic in their retaliation, ordering their troops to fight to the last man and "annihilate all guerillas", guerilla being understood by the interviewed Japanese soldiers to mean any Filipino man, woman, or child.  While there were many graphic pictures of the victims of American bombs (women and children in particular) and even video of Filipinos mobbing a makapili, the only pictures of Japanese atrocities were Filipino men executed with their hands tied behind their backs.

Most troubling about this documentary is that it's primarily meant for a Japanese audience, being translated into English after it was made.  If PBS made this documentary for an American audience it would be a soul-searching second look at America's actions in Manila deserving of a commendation.  But it's not.  The documentary was made by NHK for a Japanese audience, making it an exercise in washing their hands of guilt.  Far from just "remembering the battle of Manila", this looks and feels more like a jab at self-vindication, as if saying, "Hey, the Americans killed more Filipinos than we did; we were just defending ourselves."  To lay the blame for the destruction of Manila and the death of 100,000 civilians at the foot of the Americans with only passing mention of Japanese atrocities is, to say the least, dishonest.

That NHK gave an unbalanced account under the veneer of fact and objectivity makes this documentary unethical.  That Japan, unlike Germany, has not truly reconciled itself with its wartime conduct makes this documentary offensive.  That militarist and revisionist elements are gaining clout in Japan makes this documentary dangerous.

Acta de la proclamacion de independencia del pueblo Filipino

Today is Independence Day. Today should be the holiday for our country instead of the sectarian holidays we religiously observe; instead, it's a regular working day, the holiday moved to last Monday for the sake of holiday economics.

Practically every American child has seen a copy of the US Declaration of Independence, usually framed prominently in their school or public library. Rare is the Filipino adult who has seen, much less read, the Philippine Declaration of Independence. I, for one, was 19 when I first saw a facsimile of the Declaration.

So, in honour of Independence Day, here it is.

Downloaded from here. Read the English translation here.

The End of an Era

Just learned from BBC that Cuban President Fidel Castro will be retiring. As of this posting, the news is not yet reflected in the website of Granma, Cuba's official paper, but I suppose it will be posted soon.

Castro came to power in 1959 after throwing out the corrupt but US-backed Battista government. Dwight Eisenhower was the US president when he came to power; nine US presidents later, Castro is stepping down from office.

This marks the end of the old Cold War, of red banners and songs of struggle. [In case you're wondering, yes, I consider Joma's CPP-NPA-NDF a relic of the past that has long outlived its relevance.] Despite disagreements with many of the things he stood for, I salute Castro as a revolutionary who never faded. Viva La Revolucion!

Philippines, 1899; Iraq, 2003

One hundred and nine years ago today, on 4 February 1899, Pvt. Robert Grayson of the First Nebraska Volunteers shot a Filipino soldier, whose name has been lost to history, and started the Philippine-American War. Not an insurrection, not an uprising, but a war. A war between a newly industrialised United States, fresh from its defeat of the former superpower that was Spain, and a newly sovereign Philippines, barely seven months after it declared its independence.

A war where America's preferred method of torture-- waterboarding-- was first tried and perfected. A war where America's miltary losses-- in Balangiga and Bud Dajo-- were avenged with the blood of civilians. A war where at least 600,000 Filipinos, mostly civilians, lay dead.

A war which was the fruition of an American president's desire-- his Manifest Destiny-- to spread democracy by the barrel of a gun. A war which America has chosen to forget. A war which America is doing all over again.

Political Involvement

Today is the eighth anniversary of the EDSA II popular revolt. I won't detail what happened during those heady days of 2001, but if you need some background you can find it here.

Much has been said about the lack of commemoration of EDSA II, especially since the winners opted to shun the event. Amando Doronilla calls it the "unwanted child of RP history", apparently abandoned by all its progenitors. But whatever is said about the merits of not commemorating the event, the fact remains that many people still remember those days and a lot is still being written about it, in effect commemorating-- i.e., remembering-- it. One of those pieces is the Inquirer's editorial for today. Take the following lines on the inability to muster crowds in the aftermath of the 2005 Hello Garci controversy:

"The reason many people, particularly the youth, have given to justify their failure to act, politically, over the last few years, can be reduced to the singsong phrase, 'same same.' This is a great evil of our times, this 'pare-pareho lang sila' mentality, which justifies tolerating the status quo on the defeatist assumption that all leaders are the same."

It goes on to say:

"... the youth’s turning away from active involvement in the political sphere, even if understandable, isn’t excusable. A society that rationalizes its refusal to exact accountability from its leaders is a society conspiring to excuse itself from the basic responsibilities of citizenship."

Active involvement in the political sphere is not equal to going to the streets in an attempt to extraconstitutionally oust a president. For all the reasons given for not going to the streets every time there is a crisis, I hope it is for this reason-- we have learned that doing another EDSA is a bad thing. If you think about it, EDSA is anathema to the concept of democracy. EDSA is the rule of the people who went to EDSA-- one cannot assume that non-participation in EDSA is tantamout to abdication. More people did not participate in EDSA-- which is a valid political position-- yet the participants' preferences won the day. What's so democratic about that? Are we to say that the people who marched in EDSA are smarter or more patriotic than those who didn't and therefore their wishes should prevail?

On hindsight, I think it was good that EDSA II happened and things turned out the way they did. If GMA turned out to be a good president, we would just have EDSA after EDSA after EDSA whenever there's a crisis. EDSA should be treated like major surgery-- something to be done only under dire circumstances, not every time we feel an itch. It's about time we learned democracy the hard way. Real political involvement is being a good citizen, studying the issues, and making a wise vote. It's not joining political lynch mobs, peaceful or otherwise.

***

Still on political involvement, word is out that the Vatican ordered Cardinal Sin to stand down and not take any partisan action during EDSA II. This explains the sudden withdrawal of the Church from political activity after EDSA II, especially after Cardinal Sin's death. Political rallies are now largely prohibited on the EDSA Shrine, and even at the height of the Hello Garci scandal the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines did not issue any partisan statement even if a few of its members already did so.

Our bishops should re-read Gaudium et Spes, particularly par. 76, which begins with:

"76. It is very important, especially where a pluralistic society prevails, that there be a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and a clear distinction between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and the activities which, in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church.

"The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person."

It is when the Church, or religion in general, gets mixed up with politics that we get the worst results. That's when we get the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Taliban, and George W. Bush.

Lest We Forget

PROCLAMATION No. 1081 September 21, 1972

PROCLAIMING A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES

x x x

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph ('2) of the Constitution, do hereby place the entire Philippines as defined in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution under martial law and, in my capacity as their commander-in-chief, do hereby command the armed forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.

In addition, I do hereby order that all persons presently detained, as well as all others who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, and all other crimes and offenses committed in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith, for crimes against national security and the law of nations, crimes against public order, crimes involving usurpation of authority, rank, title and improper use of names, uniforms and insignia, crimes committed by public officers, and for such other crimes as will be enumerated in Orders that I shall subsequently promulgate, as well as crimes as a consequence of any violation of any decree, order or regulation promulgated by me personally or promulgated upon my direction shall be kept under detention until otherwise ordered re- leased by me or by my duly designated representative.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed.

Done in the City of Manila, this 21st day of September, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy two.

FERDINAND E. MARCOS
President
Republic of the Philippines

Of Port Wine and David Ricardo

Last night I received a Balikabayan Box from my folks in the US. In it is a bottle of Dow's 10-Year-Old Tawny Port, courtesy of my sister (thanks!). True port wine comes from the Douro Valley region in Portugal and is actually a mixture of old and new vintages, so 10 years is the average of the vintage mix.

Although port comes from Portugal, most of the popular and established port brands have English names: Croft, Dow, Graham, Sandeman, Taylor, Warre. This is because England and Portugal have been traditional trading partners since the 1300's, a partnership reinforced during the Franco-English wars (starting from the 17th century) when England banned trade from France. (France and Spain, on the other hand, became close partners; even their monarchs eventully came from one family-- the Borbon/Bourbon dynasty.) So when French wine was banned from English stores, English traders turned to Portugal for substitutes. These traders eventually established port houses to make production of port wine more efficient and facilitate its trade-- multinational companies in today's terms. These English port brands are the names of those port houses.

David Ricardo, the father of modern trade theory, wrote On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation in 1817 within this context of vibrant trade between England and Portugal. Though he never used the term comparative advantage in his text, he illustrated this truly nontrivial concept in his classic example:

"If Portugal had no commercial connexion with other countries, instead of employing a great part of her capital and industry in the production of wines, with which she purchases for her own use the cloth and hardware of other countries, she would be obliged to devote a part of that capital to the manufacture of those commodities, which she would thus obtain probably inferior in quality as well as quantity.

"The quantity of wine which she shall give in exchange for the cloth of England, is not determined by the respective quantities of labour devoted to the production of each, as it would be, if both commodities were manufactured in England, or both in Portugal.

"England may be so circumstanced, that to produce the cloth may require the labour of 100 men for one year; and if she attempted to make the wine, it might require the labour of 120 men for the same time. England would therefore find it her interest to import wine, and to purchase it by the exportation of cloth.

"To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the labour of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the same country, might require the labour of 90 men for the same time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place, notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be produced there with less labour than in England. Though she could make the cloth with the labour of 90 men, she would import it from a country where it required the labour of 100 men to produce it, because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her capital in the production of wine, for which she would obtain more cloth from England, than she could produce by diverting a portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the manufacture of cloth.

"Thus England would give the produce of the labour of 100 men, for the produce of the labour of 80. Such an exchange could not take place between the individuals of the same country. The labour of 100 Englishmen cannot be given for that of 80 Englishmen, but the produce of the labour of 100 Englishmen may be given for the produce of the labour of 80 Portuguese, 60 Russians, or 120 East Indians. The difference in this respect, between a single country and many, is easily accounted for, by considering the difficulty with which capital moves from one country to another, to seek a more profitable employment, and the activity with which it invariably passes from one province to another in the same country."

Thus giving port wine a permanent place in economic theory.