The Human Condition

A damaged culture by: Tony Joaquin, Oct 27, 2004

AS I monitor our country’s daily sufferings – made even worse by our articulate and thought provoking Filipino columnists – I am saddened, even to the point of depression.

Then, harking back to an American writer who has since been an acquaintance of mine an incisive truly stark analysis of Philippine society hits us between the eyes.

I am referring to James Fallows, associate editor of Atlantic Monthly, who wrote an analysis some 16 years ago about the Philippines. The title of his article was, “The Philippines – a damaged culture.”

Fallows observed that the Philippines is a “society that had degenerated into a war of every man against every man.”

Naturally, our Filipino pride was piqued – and rightly so since we get “observers” from time to time who visit Manila for three days and leave being an “authority” of sorts of the country’s ills.

Many columnists, veteran ones led by Teddy Beningo “thought James Fallows then was guilty of rank hyperbole, a know-it-all Yankee, jeering and arrogant, who deserved to be lynched.”

But alas, 15 years after, this very columnist claims that “this quondam roving correspondent of Atlantic Monthly has turned out to be dead right. Right on every count.”

Benigno continues, “We Filipinos indeed have a damaged culture, more damaged even than we think. Thomas Hobbes, the philosopher of stern social discipline, of crowding humankind into a disciplined cage, was certainly describing the Philippines, among others, when he said without order, life was “nasty, brutish and short.”

Ferdinand Marcos had a sense of smell better than most when he said the Philippines was “sitting on top of a social volcano” and that was more than 30 years ago.

Historian O.D. Corpuz (Roots of the Filipino Nation) wrote in 1989 that civil war, revolution or a coup could break out in a matter of years. Any day now?
Then later, upon invitation, we had another sharp critic, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, who predicted that our “exuberant democracy” of fiestas and good time would come to no good end.

In 1994, Fallows again wrote in his book, “Looking at the Sun,” “The least successful-seeming society in East Asia is the Philippines ... a society most heavily shaped in the American image.”

He continued: “This is the largest country the United States ever attempted to colonize. It is the one part of East Asia to embrace most fully the ‘American Way’ of two-party elections and an uncontrolled press.”

“Except for Burma, the Philippines is the only country in the region where life seems to be moving backward. In the early 1990s Malaysia per capita income was nearly $2,500; Singapore’s more than $10,000; Thailand’s more than $1,500 and all, of course, were going up. The per capita income in the Philippines has been stagnant at about $700 for several years. By government estimates, roughly two-thirds of the people in the country live below the poverty line, as opposed to about half in the pre-Marcos era.”

“Individual Filipinos are at least as brave, kind and noble-spirited as individual Japanese, but their culture draws the boundaries of decent treatment much more narrowly. Because these boundaries are limited to the family or tribe, they exclude at any given moment 99 percent of the other people in the country.

Because of this fragmentation, this lack of useful nationalism, people treat each other worse in the Philippines than in any other Asian country I have seen ... The tradition of political corruption and cronyism, the extremes of wealth and poverty, the tribal fragmentation, the local elite’s willingness to make a separate profitable peace with colonial powers – all reflect a feeble sense of national interest. Practically everything that is public in the Philippines seems neglected or abused.”

Fallows focuses on the 400 years the Philippines spent under Spain’s thumb, and following that “the distorting effects of the Philippines’ encounter with the United States ... But American rule seemed to intensify the Philippines sense of dependence. The U.S. quickly earned or bought the loyalty of the ilustrados. It rammed through a number of laws insisting on free ‘competition’ at a time when Philippine industries were in no position to compete with anyone.”

Remember the infamous parity provision? In short, we have a mendicant society with a mendicant leadership with a mendicant culture.

The grossest insult is we are to be pitied and deprecated like Burma.
That’s about as low as low can get.

ACCUSED OF COWARDICE

ALEX MAGNO: DAMAGED CULTURE
MANILA, July 20, 2004 (STAR) FIRST PERSON By Alex Magno - As soon as we start arguing with foreign commentators, we begin walking into a quagmire.

Global opinion, not surprisingly, has been harsh on us – first, for actually trying to negotiate with terrorists and, second, for withdrawing our token force in disgrace.

We have been accused of cowardice. Our concessions to terrorists have been described as grossly irresponsible, endangering the lives of other nationalities as well as those of our own countrymen by making them more delectable targets for hostage-taking.

The lowest point, I think, was reached this weekend when the radical leftist group Pamamalakaya demanded that American talk show host Jay Leno issue an apology for making comments he was "in no position to make".

It seems the leftists have not only lost their sense of national dignity and collective responsibility to the community of nations, they have lost their sense of humor as well. That is truly tragic.

For those who missed it, Leno in his highly-rated talk show said that the entire Philippine mission to Iraq could fit in a Humvee. He later said that the record for the 100-meter dash was broken recently by Filipino troops hurrying to flee Iraq.

Leno was not being unfair.

Exaggeration, of course, is the essence of comedy. And comedy is most biting when it rests on a grain of truth.

The grains of truth in Leno’s comments are that our mission was miniscule to begin with and that it was withdrawn in indecent haste by a government caving in to terrorist demands.

If his comments hurt, the pain is not undeserved.

If we could not stand by our commitment to other nations, we cannot henceforth demand other nations to stand by their commitment to us. If we cannot put national pride above private grief, we ought not to demand respect from other states.

Stop the hewing and the hawing. Let’s not try and mystify everybody else with senseless rhetoric about "complex considerations" leading us to trade off national self-respect for some mistaken notion that we are doing all our overseas workers a favor by caving in to terror.

That will not even be correct, to begin with. By caving in to terrorists, we have endangered our own workers overseas. We took a myopic view of the strategic situation and succumbed to shallow emotionalism. Our government allowed itself to be intimidated by cynical leftist groups obviously trying to exploit an emotional moment to mount stale propaganda.

All the hewing and hawing will only expose our insincerity or worse, our own intellectual confusion.

If we cannot stand by our commitment to fight the scourge of global terror, then let us at least find the decency to accept that we are flimsy. If the demagoguery of the leftist groups could not be contained by a government capable of explaining national policy so that it makes sense to every Filipino, then we allow the intellectually bankrupt demagogues to dictate national policy.

If we cannot present a longer horizon of considerations for our people to appreciate, then we lose credibility to the global perception that we are an unreliable nation ready to succumb to every expediency that comes along. We are worthless allies who will break and run at the slightest discomfort. We are an unprincipled country ready to cut a separate peace with every terrorist band.

Last Thursday, on Dong Puno Live, I had what I thought was a very revealing debate with the usual mouthpieces of the Filipino Left. It was a debate, I believe, that unmasked their intellectual dishonesty.

Fr. Joe Dizon of Bayan filibustered about why those who took Angelo de la Cruz hostage and beheaded his Bulgarian companion were not terrorists. By trying to assign some noble cause to this murderous band, Dizon seems to be subliminally trying to convince us that the atrocities committed by his friends in the NPA – including the on-going hostage-taking of two Army lieutenants in Quezon – were not acts of terror.

Liza Masa of Bayan Muna tried to sound profound by trying to redirect the debate to the "context" of an unjust war. That "context" would have given her the pretext to launch yet another tirade against an "imperialist invasion" that would excuse acts of terrorism. That ploy would have distracted us from the real question: the moral repugnancy of any act of terror.

Some half-wit from Sanlakas arbitrarily redefined "nationalism", turning the concept upside down, by claiming "nationalism" meant putting the interest of the individual above that of the nation state. Let me remind that half-wit that the root word of "nationalism" is "nation" and the sentiment describes putting considerations of the national entity above self. His twisted definition actually refers to "individualism", whose root word is "individual" and refers to the sentiment that puts individual interest ahead of the nation.

But let’s not belabor the semantics. Our diplomacy and international standing are in a mess. This is a moment of national shame.

The least we could do is to try to understand why we now find ourselves in this mess. Those elements that caused us to bring this upon ourselves are the same elements that explain why our whole development as a nation is in a mess.

We have a damaged culture.

We put individuals ahead of the nation. We put short-term comfort ahead of long-term considerations. We are constantly unable to subordinate the particular to the general, the peculiar to the universal. When the going gets tough, we are prone to seeking out quick fixes that bring momentary relief at the price of further complications down the road.

Some of my friends have needled the unyielding position I have taken on this tragic incident, asking me what I would do if I were in the place of Angelo de la Cruz.

I have pondered that question long and hard. I have decided that even if my own life was on the line, I would not – with all due respects to Angelo – plead for my survival at the expense of asking my government to humiliate my nation.

That is the dictate of patriotism.