|
|
|
|
... ...Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948 -- "A Cause for Celebration" ... 'Demands of Dignity' 'Demands of Dignity' <DEVELOPING THE DISCOURSE ON OUR DECEMBER 1Oth DECLARATION>
On-Line Edition of the Book by Ed Aurelio C. Reyes Chapter 4-- Response to the Spanish Response |
||||||||
|
CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK: Response
to the Spanish Response Review of Rizal’s Critiques Needed Closer
Familiarity for Closer Friendship App 4-A: Text of Response from Spain’s Envoy App. 4-B: Life at the start of Spanish Rule Response to the American Non-Response Demands of Dignity EXCERPTS: -o0o- "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed Dec. 10, 1948, has been a cause of celebration, and the Treaty of Paris, signed Dec. 10, 1898, has been a cause for indignation... on the part of ALL HUMANS." -o0o- "The HUMANITY of ALL is ONE! Assaults on the Rights of a human anywhere are assaults on the rights of all humans everywhere." -o0o- "The current Human Evolutionary Imperative is attaining Synergy in Conscious Oneness." -o0o- "We demand apologies not to uphold our national dignity, but to give the offenders the opportunity to uphold theirs." -o0o- "Demands for Human Dignity come from within Human Dignity itself." -o0o- "We seek redress, closure and healing... Since the governments involved and the international organizations that depend on the consent of governments cannot be expected to support these calls or accord them any serious attention, we are calling upon the citizens of these and other nations, on the citizenry of the world." -o0o- "One of the factors underpinning the habit of trying to hide or mangle the truth is the illusion that facts hidden well enough as secrets can stay as such forever. Another is the illusion that you can harm your fellow-humans without harming yourself." -o0o- "Inevitably, eventually and ultimately, all wrongs cry out to be fully acknowledged, regretted, and set aright. Your peace of mind now and in the future demands it. Your very dignity demands it." -o0o- "Smile for Synergy! Seek One Humanity!"
|
LINKS TO THE MAIN PARTS OF THE Demands of Dignity BOOK:
GENERAL FEEDBACK SPECIFIC FEEDBACK FEEDBACK BOX
Chapter Four ------------------------ Response to the Spanish Response WE DID NOT EXPECT a
response from any of the official addressees of our 1998
Declaration, which we had made sure to deliver on that
doubly-significant day, December 10, 1998.
For this reason, we were very pleasantly surprised to get, a few
weeks later, a reply coming from no less than the then Ambassador of
Spain, His Excellency, Ambassador Delfin Colomé, printed on official
embassy stationery and delivered to the office address
of Kamalaysayan.
The content of that letter,1 of one very important sentence in it, was the bigger and more pleasant surprise. It acknowledged the sale of the Philippines to the United States as a “terrible mistake” on the part of Spain. That sounded close to an apology that our Declaration had been seeking. And judging from the overall positive tone of this official communication, that might have really been the intention. Response from Madrid’s EnvoyThe response from the Embassy of the Madrid government was both frank and cordial. Ambassador Colomé expresses the spirit of Spanish-Filipino friendship that has developed since the recent decades, emphasizing two facts: 1) One, that when King Juan Carlos visited the Philippines
in February 1998, in what was called the “Centennial Royal Visit,”
in all of his public speeches, he underlined the friendly sentiments
that the Spanish people today feel towards the Philippines.
And, in his response, then President Fidel V. Ramos corresponded
this friendship – in behalf of the Filipino people – framed in a new
coined relationship among equal, sovereign and close knit nations as is
Spain and the Philippines. 2) Two, that “these sentiments are expressed in the willingness of the Spanish people to devote a substantial part of its official aid for development to the Philippines. “The allocation given to this country by Spain (by the Spanish citizen as a tax payer) is of nine million dollars in 1998, especially dedicated to the poorest sectors, the Philippines being the second developing country in the world (apart from Latin America) to receive the Spanish official Development Aid. And, perhaps, to this we should add the increasing presence of Spanish NGOs working in the fields at different kinds of development programs. “I think this would be the best way to achieve a historical reconciliation. History is not always a pleasant matter. And, the financial generosity of a donor – one hundred years later – should be corresponded by at least, a small fragment of intellectual generosity by the recipient.” The
good ambassador also made mention of his country’s deep respect for
Jose Rizal, sharing the fact of this Filipino hero getting honored early
last century with a street carrying his name. More importantly, he
writes that “a great number of Spaniards have always believed firmly
in the Rizalian principles of freedom, democracy and respect for human
rights.” Most important of all, given the context of his having written this latter as a response to our Declaration, Ambassador Colomé says this in his letter addressed to this author: “On a personal basis, I have written a lot about my feelings on the matter in Philippine newspapers and also given Lectures. I am convinced that the assassination of Rizal and the selling of the Philippines to the United States of America were terrible mistakes. But I, as a Spanish citizen of the end of this century, I cannot endorse the errors of a “black” Spain that I have fought against all of my life during the long years of Franco’s dictatorship.” (Underscoring mine) By
this single sentence in this single paragraph, the good ambassador
actually came quite close to the first item of two that our 1998
Declaration was demanding for Spain to do: “Spain
(to apologize), on account of her: (i) refusal to acknowledge the
Filipino revolutionaries as the forces that actually defeated Spanish
rule throughout the archipelago, and on the basis of this refusal and
her surrender instead to the United States forces after a face-saving
mock battle at Manila Bay; and (ii) her illegal, immoral and
illegitimate sale of the Philippines to the United States almost four
months after losing the last areas in the Philippines that had come
under significant possession of Spain. This
statement from the good envoy has educated us well on how much change
Spain has undergone since the days of a “black” Spain Ambassador
Colomé was referring to. And we can only appreciate the help being
given our people in contemporary times by the Spanish taxpayers. (We have misplaced or discarded by now the Kamalaysayan daily logbook with our notes for that period. But by this writer’s vague recollection, we planned to prepare a response but as we set out to implement the plan we received information to the effect that Ambassador Colomé had just been recalled to Madrid and that a replacement was due to arrive shortly. From that point on the memory fades out completely. It was unlikely that we got to writing and sending the reply letter, because that would have had a copy in our files, on which basis vital items are being included in this book’s contents.) Almost an Apology, But…Still,
it would have been a complete response to what our 1998
Declaration sought and still seeks (a) if it
were clarified that the sale of the Philippines is deemed a terrible
mistake precisely because of the principle of equality of all people and
of all peoples, a principle that abhors such a sale per se2;
(b) if an accurate picture were offered clarifying what territories were
still controlled by Spain at the time of the mock Battle of Manila,
beyond the walls of Intramuros, the besieged capital city
of its colonial territory; and (c) if the generous people of Spain have
been made fully conscious of the historical offenses still to be
categorically admitted and apologized for. The
more important step to genuine reconciliation is categori- cal
apology, which would clearly express due respect
for the aggrieved party. The gifts would help, of course, but they
should preferably come after such proof of respect, of not taking the
victims’ sensibilities for granted, had previously been made. The
Spanish government would not wish to be perceived as using the Spanish
taxpayer’s money as a gift to take the place of an
apology. The gracious Spanish people would not wish their
generosity to be thus misused and be vulnerable to being viewed as
patronizing condescension or as gifts of the ignorant to the easily
appeased. The
Spanish government owes it to its people to make sure that this does not
happen! The
Spanish citizens all have the right to know our joint histo- ries, and
here I speak not only of the two items mentioned in our 1998
Declaration but of all the exploitation and oppression
suffered by our ancestors under theirs for 333 years. (See also
Appendix 4-B.)
An
irreparable damage was wrought by Spanish rule on the sense of history
and heritage of our race, when the friars, obviously carrying out an
official policy proceeded to burn hundreds of documents written in our
indigenous syllabary, now commonly called “alibata.”3 The communitarian social
structures of our tribes were replaced by less-than-honorable
arrangements where the native leaders, cowed into submission to the
conquista,4 were also coopted to be auxiliaries of the colonizers in enforcing
their officially theocratic but actually arbitrary, even downright
abusive and atrocious, policies. Even
the name imposed on us has turned out to be something we can never carry
proudly.5 The
contemporary Filipino people also have the right to know, and many
actually do know, all these, at least in broad strokes.
Only in an atmosphere of full disclosure of the truth can forgiving and gift-giving be fully validated as sincere. Ignorance is bliss only in the eyes of the blissfully ignorant. Review of Rizal’s Critiques NeededWhile
we can deeply appreciate the respect the Spanish government and people
now accord Jose Rizal, whose execution (not at all an
"assassination") was, as categorically admitted, one of their
country’s big mistakes against our people, such admiration may be
validated more deeply if the Spanish authorities would now acknowledge
and fully explain the earlier mistakes of Spanish thought and policy
that led to Rizal’s facing the firing squad.
Spain
might be maintaining the century-old afterthought that executing Rizal
was a “terrible mistake” because that act on the part of the
colonial regime only helped fan the flames of revolutionary agitation
and weakened the regime all over until the latter could only have its
walled capital city and a few toeholds of control here and there. We
have reason now to challenge Spain to allow, or even to encourage with
adequate endowments, the venerable Academe in Spain to review and
reevaluate Rizal's written indictments of Spanish colonial acts and
personal acts committed by individual officials or even by private
persons enjoying the mantle of authority or effective protection
afforded by the Spanish colonial rule. What
specific ideas of Rizal that drew the Spanish authorities’ ire in his
time have been since then or even just only now realized as valid, after
all? What exposés of Rizal
validly call for sincere apologies even if very late in the day?
Let
the Spanish Academe now lead a free and open discourse to validate Rizal
on very specific grounds. And to either continue honoring him or stop
all Spanish praises to his name if this Filipino was really just a
famous "liar." We are confident of what the results would be. This is
actually a challenge to all who praise Rizal in his totality as a
person. Such
a thoroughgoing project can carry undoubtedly well beyond the
realm of tokenism all the acts to honor Rizal – like praising
his principles to high heavens or naming a street to carry his name or
even erecting monuments to his honor. This
writer and other historians and history researchers in the Philippines
would be very much willing to help in this difficult, even painful,
work. This may not even be
necessary, however, for the most important views of Rizal about the
colonial govern- ance in our Islands are clearly elucidated in his two
most prominent essays and many other writings.6
All the Spanish government has to do now is to make them widely available and then frankly express fully the level of regret that is in order now. Whether or not this government would make any step, and to what extent it is willing to act, will be clear statements about itself, and about the Spanish nation, as it has evolved through these past centuries. The degree of abhorrence that the Spanish people would accord its earlier government’s misdeeds, albeit with due regard to historical contexts,7 would display to the world to what extent such moral and intellectual evolution has actually advanced since. Closer Familiarity for Closer FriendshipIn
the context of real friendship, where full knowledge of a
fellow-human's histories and characteristics, including weakness, would
no longer be in danger of being exploited to put one over the other (i.e.,
not in the context of war), closer familiarity leads to closer
friendship. The
peoples of the Philippines and Spain can attain closer friendship by
making efforts to get to know one another's respective struggles and
sentiments in deep historical studies (not just formal and official
histories) of how these developed separately and relative to each other.
For the Spaniards, the proposed review of Rizal's critiques can be very
helpful in reviewing their own history as a kingdom and later nation. There are other writers, like the present-day Filipino scholar-historian Dr. Jaime B. Veneracion, who visited Spain and wrote a book seeking to understand and explain Spanish history itself and how it related to ours.8 Such writings can be useful to Spaniards as a delayed-image mirror, for viewing themselves of more than a century ago. Filipinos also take interest in such materials and even contribute their own. The Spanish people should also seek to know well of Philippine history, without the baggage of being defensive over Spain's role in it. How to Serve One’s Honor BestWould
such openness and circumspection put at risk the collective self-esteem
of the Spanish people and their respect for their government?
This writer thinks not, for the present leadership is a
drastically changed one from the past, carrying such a baggage only as
its inheritance from previous, dark, chapters of its past history.
A
nation’s identity is in her enduring spirit and honor, regardless of
the countless times all previous generations are completely replaced by
succeeding ones. You are
still the same human since you were conceived and birthed, even though
all your earlier cells have perished and have been completely replaced
by new ones in countless cycles all those years of your life.
One person or one nation is undoubtedly exalted by cleansing the
soul, personal or national, of bloodstains still dripping from one’s
own hands, by having it freed from karmic debts.
It
may of course be inconvenient, even painful, especially at the start of
the self-acknowledgment and the condemnation of previously committed
acts that are now deemed to be unworthy of your
dignity to keep hidden and unredressed in the permanent record of your
collective life story. We
should seek to accord both our nations the dignity they both deserve.
And dignity demands certain acts such as earnestly apologizing
for offenses, and earnestly forgiving in the context of knowing well the
full truth. The
act of denying or making excuses, or keeping quiet in the hope that the
offense be just forgotten in the face of gifts, all with the aim to save
face, inevitably fails to save any face. It only serves to prolong or
even deepen one’s state of dishonor. More respected and more exalted
are they who admit and publicly regret their past mistakes, especially
if others' rights were violated by these.
The
good ambassador’s letter, with a categorical recognition of
“mistakes,” is a very good start on the road to genuine
reconciliation. But Spain
might have thought that his response was more than enough.
Very late in the day, as late as now a full decade after, we
still have reason to want to know for sure. back to top suggested next
FEEDBACK BOX (at the very bottom of this page) FEEDBACK RECEIVED: (specifically about contents of Chapter 4) |
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Demands of Dignity THE HARDCOPY EDITION, in about 180 regular sized bookpaper pages with full-color paperback cover FREE ACCESS FOR ALL to the ON-LINE EDITION until February. 4, 2009, 110th Anni- versary of the Fil-Am War.
APPENDICES: App 4-A: Text of Response from Spain’s Envoy App. 4-B: Life at the start of Spanish Rule
'FOOTNOTES': 1For full text, see Appendix 4-A,
2Our
demands invoke the basic human rights involved, which are the premises
of our 1998 Declaration. By his letter’s silence about
the reason why he feels that the sale was a terrible mistake on the part
of Spain, Amb. Colomé was taking the risk of this hindsight being
understood in the same light as former US Defense Sec. Robert
McNamara’s lament over the American debacle in Vietnam. “We were
wrong, terribly wrong!” McNamara
said of the US decision to wage war in Vietnam, and he was thinking only
of American lives lost in defeat, and was not caring a bit about
Vietnamese lives snuffed out by American B-52 bombers and helicopter
gunships, “agent orange” and napalm bombs.
Didn’t the Spaniards consider the sale a “terrible
mistake,” perhaps, because they have had some afterthought that they
they were out-smarted and could have gotten more payment had they played
their cards right? Or has Spain by now permanently realized as
essentially wrong the act of buying or selling entire countries –
territories along with their inhabitants?
Categorical clarifications on this matter would be very helpful
in earnest reconciliation processes. 3Mar
Levi Bar Thoma, “The Philippines 1000” (monograph), consistent with
an assertion in Andres Bonifacio, “Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Tagalog”
(What the Tagalogs Should Know) as quoted in Virgilio S. Almario, Panitikan
ng Rebolusyon(g 1896) (Quezon City: University of the
Philippines Press, 1997), p. 152. Also referred to by Jose Rizal in Noli Me Tangere
in Chapter 25, identifying as Tagalog the form being used by the
character “Pilosopong Tasyo” in his late evening writing
work, which the character “Ibarra,” having just come home from
Europe, had mistaken for “hieroglyphics.” Thoma, the Metropolitan
Archbishop of Manila of the Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East,
says in paragraphs 3 and 4, p. 1 of his two-page monograph
“Philippines 2000” (so titled to allude to the Philippine
government’s catchphrase during that period): “Did
you know … that when the Spanish came, hardly a boy or a girl could be
found in the villages of Luzon who could not read or write in Tagal (?)
The Filipinos were more literate than the Spanish conquistadors
whose girls were not schooled. “This
is our glorious past. How come this is not taught to us in school?
One friar in Legaspi’s time boasted that he had burned more
than 300 documents in southern Luzon. The other priests did the same.
For 377 years, our ancient heritage, together with our national
identity and dignity, were systematically stripped from us by these
Church-State conquistadores.” 4In
his The Philippines, A Past Revisited, (Tenth Printing,
1990), Renato Constantino gives us the following account from Fray
Domingo Salazar, describing how the Spanish conquistadors
“persuaded” the native chiefs to “come across” with the required
tribute all drawn from the lifeblood of the populace. In contrast, acquiescence and cooptation proved to be quite
comfortable and lucrative. Here’s the friars account: “I
can find no words to express to Your Majesty the misfortunes, injuries
and vexations, the torments and miseries, with the indios are made to
suffer in collection of the tributes…if the chief does not give (the
encomenderos) as much gold as they demand, or does not pay for as many
indios as they say there are, they crucify the unfortunate chief, or put
his hand in the stocks – for all the encomenderos, when they go to
collect, have their stocks, and there they lash and torment the chiefs
until they give the entire sum demanded of them.
Sometimes the wife or daughter of the chief is seized, when he
himself does not appear. Many
are the chiefs who have died of torture in the manner which I have
stated…one who was collecting the tributes…killed a chief by
crucifixion, and hanging him by the arms…” 5Edgar “Kuya Eddie” U. Ilarde, former senator and popular radio and television broadcaster, has been campaigning for changing the name of the Philippines with a name more descriptive of our ancestors’ ideals. In his proposed legislation that he filed in the interim parliament under the Marcos dictatorship, and also in his latter day articles and lectures, a vital part of his reasons for the name-change suggestion have been historically researched background descriptions of King Philip II, after whom our colonized archipelago had been named, Ilarde shares in an on-line article: “Philip was only one-fourth Spaniard, his father Charles V was Hapsburg and did not even speak a word in Spanish when he became a king. Philip was as some historians call him “a monster of bigotry, ambition, lust and cruelty.” His own official court historian described him as a man whose “smile and dagger were very close.” He was the son of first cousins. His grandmother Juana died of insanity. Even today she is known in Spain as “Juana la loca.” His “auto-da-fe” after being sworn in as king was the burning in the stake alive of thousands of Muslims in Spain. Protestants in Europe, then under Spain were beheaded as heretics. He was excommunicated as a Catholic by the pope for looting Rome. He died of what historians evasively described as a very communicable social disease (syphilis) that had affected his mind. Before he died thousands of insects festered his whole body, which was covered with ulcers dripping with pus and reeking with unbearable smell. His name is better forgotten whose unpleasant memory we still honor today by identifying ourselves as Filipinos, carrying his name with pride.” (see <http://mindanaokini.blogspot.com /2008/08/ferment-of-change-case- for-maharlika.html>.) 6These two essays are “The Philippines, Within a Century,” and “The
Indolence of the Filipinos,” both serialized in La Solidaridad. 7These
are the contexts as Rizal himself had explained, as analyzed in Ed
Aurelio C. Reyes, The Philippines, A Century Thence: An Open
Letter to Rizal (Manila: SanibLakas Editorial and Publishing
Services, Second Ed., 2007), pp. 40-65, and On the Altered
Indolence of the Filipino: My 2nd Open Letter to Rizal, (Manila:
SanibLakas Editorial and Publishing Services, 2007), pp. 43-82. 88Jaime
B. Veneracion, Espanya: Kasaysayan, Kalinangan at mga Gunita sa
Paglalakbay [Spain: History, Culture and Travel Memoirs] (Malolos,
Bulacan: Bahay Saliksikan ng Bulakan, Bulacan State University, 2003),
144 pp. in Filipino.
|
|
||||||
|
FEEDBACK BOX: |
