(Critically) theorizing the Moro narrative

Written on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 at 11:53 am | by Abe N. Margallo

In his Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) column (Jun. 21, 2008), Randy David, writing about the abduction of TV anchor Ces Drilon and her ABS-CBN crew by an armed group in Sulu, has, quite boldly, drawn an analogy between the aspirations of the Indios of Rizal’s time and of the Moros of today:

Because his reference point was that of a Filipino nationalist, it was easier for Rizal to see the contradictions between the Spanish colonial power and the Filipino nation he imagined, than those between the peoples of Luzon and those he referred to as “the inhabitants of the South.”

Would Rizal have seen today’s Moros as being in the same place that yesterday’s Indios occupied when they were fighting for self-determination against Spain? I don’t know, but I found it unsettling to read Rizal’s famous essay in relation to the present Moro struggle in Mindanao.

“In short, the Philippines will remain Spanish if she enters the path of rightful and civilized life, if the rights of her people are respected, if they are granted others they should have, if the liberal policy of the government is carried out without shackles or meanness, without subterfuges or false interpretations… We who are now fighting on the legal and peaceful ground of discussions understand it thus, and with our sight fixed on our ideals, we shall not cease to advocate for our cause, without going beyond the limits of the law; but if violence will silence us or we have the bad luck of falling (which is possible, for we are not immortal), then we would not know what road will be followed by the numerous shoots of better sap who will rush headlong to take the places that we shall leave vacant.”

Substitute Bangsamoro for Philippines, and Philippines for Spain, and what you get is a powerful manifesto for Moro self-determination.

Dean Jorge Bocobo (DJB) blogs the piece is ahistorical, making a “deluded liar” out of David and finds the whole affair as “justifying and glamorizing (the terrorists’) cause.” Further scoring PDI editorial (Son of Abu Sayyaf) for sounding somewhat apologetic for the predicament of the youthful abductors (ages 12, 15 or 17), DJB is roundly emphatic “that AGE has (nothing) to do with the ability of terrorism to warp even children and use them in its violent enterprise.”

But David, who is also a sociology professor at University of the Philippines (UP), finds support from another UP scholar, Julkipli Wadi of the UP institute of Islamic Studies, who has also written in similar vein: “With the kidnapping of Ces et al, it is clear what the government has simply addressed these past years were simply the surface and other peripheral issues of the Mindanao conflict – not core, the root cause of the problem, which is primarily the desire of the people to have their freedom, peace and justice.”

What I suppose Prof. David has engaged in, far from distortive discourse, is what’s called in sociology as “critical theorizing” (or a criticism of a supposedly oppressive arrangement and a proposition for a liberatory alternative) on the relationship between the Manila government and the Moros in southern Philippines. To label David as leftist, as DJB suggests, would likewise be pointless since critique of the oppression (by the obtaining order) is of the essence of the sociological theorizing

For most of us Filipinos, being both physically and culturally afar from the “land of broken promise,” our Mindanao experience is more or less vicarious. And this is how I have described such an experience in an older post:

The Muslims or Moros have performed the roles of nobility as far back as the ancient tales of the Datus, the Rajahs or the Sultans could testify. Filipinos today continue to idealize this great saga in children’s literature, textbooks, movies, stageplays and in many other cultural mediums. However mythical it may look, (the saga) serves to feed a vicarious experience by us who live the present about the quaint memories of the past or by those physically afar about the stark realities of what’s here and now. For, behind the subterfuge of gentility and the aloofness buffered by space and distance are extreme privation, official neglect and betrayal, and war of waste and destruction involving real flesh and blood characters of the Mindanao tragedy.

What better way to accentuate the Moro narrative, albeit vicariously, than analogizing it to the narrative of subordination and domination between the Indios and their Spanish colonial rulers and to the Filipino struggle for emancipation that the Christian majority are all too familiar with?

For example, we learn from historical accounts that the Spaniards were quick to seize and torture suspected terrorists, insurrectionists and rebels whom today we idolize and glamorize as our heroes. If Indanan, Sulu Mayor Isnaji, who is a Moro, were innocent of any criminal wrongdoing (in acting as negotiator for the release of Ces Drilon and her crew), the rush to prosecute and disgrace him would be a close approximation to an uppity Indio being mistreated or persecuted during the Spanish time at the slightest intimation of being a terrorist leader.

On the other hand, Goyong (better known as the “Boy General” Gregorio del Pilar) was basically a teenager when he joined the Philippine Revolution. Was del Pilar also apolitical because of his age, or is he one of the “numerous shoots of better sap who will rush headlong to take the places that (his elders) shall leave vacant”?

Tags: , ,

Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: Abe N. Margallo is a teacher, lawyer, author, columnist, and activist. When not running, advising community associations, or teaching, he studies events, and reacts accordingly by writing, blogging (at Red’s Herring) or acting on them, alone or with others

Filed Under Politics

Related Entries:

Comments

11 Responses to “(Critically) theorizing the Moro narrative”

  1. Ding G. Gagelonia on June 24th, 2008 1:52 pm

    I agree with you, Sir Abe. Unfortunate that other people resort to stereotyping Professor David and putting his analysis in the box labeled ‘leftist’. what our Manila-centric society continuously, and arrogantly, refuses to see and act on are the injustices that our brother Moros (yes, they too are Filipinos)suffer day in day out.

  2. J on June 24th, 2008 3:02 pm

    I get what David is trying to say. But I somehow understand DJB too. Terrorism is terrorism.

    The best way I think is for the government to crush these rebels and bargain from a position of strength, then once and for all do something to address the plight of our Moro brothers.

  3. benign0 on June 24th, 2008 3:24 pm

    We keep throwing around the term Moro “brothers”. What makes me curious is if the feeling is mutual.

    I’ve never really heard a Muslim refer to us as Christian “brothers”…

    J makes an important point. Terrorism is terrorism. Let’s make a clear distinction between being a Muslim and being a terrorist. If there is an investigation to be conducted, then let the investigation run its course.

  4. Abe N. Margallo on June 24th, 2008 10:01 pm

    Terrorism is terrorism. I agree. But let me repost here a brief qualification:

    “Terrorism” is still defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary as “a mode of governing . . . by intimidation” or “any policy of intimidation,” implying clearly that states are capable of committing terrorist acts. However, CIA’s Counterterrorist Center defines a terrorist act pursuant to Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d) as a “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” thus potentially excluding state actors from the definition. The current pejorative meaning of terrorism directly linking it to Islamism or to extremist contrarian tactic against the advance of liberal ideology is therefore of recent concoction.

    By some broad strokes, there could be three political conceptions of terrorism: 1) insurrection against a legitimate government; 2) a policy of violence or acts of intimidation by a government in violation of human rights; and 3) warfare in contravention of universally accepted rules of engagement (See Hardt and Negri, Multitude, 16-17).

    On the first conception, is a government that has cheated its way to power in a rigged election a fair game to a Lockean right of revolution? On the second, is the recent spate of violence (murders and assassinations) in the Philippines involving for the most part journalists critical of the Arroyo government and left-leaning activists considered terrorism by a state actor? When the justifications for waging a war are “sexed up,” is the resulting violence within the acceptation of the third sense?
    _____

    I’ve never really heard a Muslim refer to us as Christian “brothers” - Benigs

    How often do you mingle or talk with them?

  5. benign0 on June 25th, 2008 4:24 am

    Abe, let you tell you this much: I used to work for an inter-island shipping line and therefore had a lot of contact with them. I also used to travel to Mindanao a lot as part of that and subsquent jobs.

  6. Abe N. Margallo on June 25th, 2008 9:42 am

    I hope hindi Sulpicio Lines, Benigs. haha

    Ok, I believe you although I’d rather hear some vignette during your encounter making your case.

    Anyway, we should welcome anyone of our bros to refute Benigs’ assertion right here. Pls tell us “utol kita, mahal kita.”

  7. benign0 on June 25th, 2008 11:10 am

    Abe, not Sulpicio, thank God. ;)

    I also have a cousin who straight out of PMA faced the Moros in combat in Mindanao back in the 70’s. He respects them as warriors. But that’s about the only thing he’d say about them.

  8. marck on June 25th, 2008 1:01 pm

    benign0:

    i think it’s called turning swords to plowshares, or “he ain’t heavy, he’s my brother.”

    :)

  9. Marcelo on June 25th, 2008 6:01 pm

    Is it merely a curiosity or is it profoundly instructive that there seems to be no obviously Pinoy Muslim voice in this particular blog conversation?

    Does anyone know (or care) if our Muslim brothers and sisters are active in the blogospere? (I assume they are)

    If they are, then maybe there might be some way of inviting them into this arena as well. (I don’t know how to do that)

    Okay, on the main points.

    Terrorism is terrorism. No matter what administration sits in Malacanang, it will have to deal with the Abu Sayyaf and other groups that perpetrate terrorist acts. And we all know what terrorist acts are.

    Addressing root causes is essential, but so long as there is an armed threat (the Abu Sayyaf and other groups clearly pose such a threat) there will inevitably have to be a military/security response.

    Even if we agree for the sake of argument that terrorism is a symptom of some other deeper illness, symptoms can still kill a patient.

    I do not agree that poverty and marginalization alone must compel us to excuse, condone or sympathize with terrorists or terrorist acts. However, these factors must inform our understanding of the issues.

    State terrorism, where it occurs, will have to be dealt with by civil society and our democratic institutions (which do exist in functioning order).

    The full potential for the peaceful settlement of the problems in our South (I repeat, “our” South) is far from exhausted. Certainly, Government must be just, proactive and sensible in order to preempt any further inroads by extremists.

    On the other hand, our Bangsamoro (yes, I accept the factual existence of that self-identity) political apparatus has to respond as well. If tomorrow those with legitimate concerns of all kinds against the Government were to condemn and give up violence and then work instead to sue the Government in court on a whole host of questions, there might be greater progress made towards peace than in all the years of fighting that we have had to suffer so far.

    Finally, I categorically reject the notion that our distinguished “Leftist” colleagues are by some strange definition “progressives” or that “liberal ideology” is somehow a nefarious implant of the so-called global capitalist order. The Left continues to produce some of the finest intellectual works in the country, but these represent only a certain point of view that I, personally, do not consider to be entirely nationalist or progressive.

    So there!

  10. cvj on June 25th, 2008 6:18 pm

    On bloggers who are Muslim, i’m only aware of Adel Tamano.

    Over at Manolo Quezon’s blog, i’ve ran into one pro-Gloria commenter who claimed he is a Muslim. I took him at face value until he mentioned (to another commenter) that he was going to hear Mass the following day.

  11. Kazelefv on September 23rd, 2008 12:04 pm

    Hi!dclx! http://wqzitkpg.com tkbdo jsjcj http://hrcrkqre.com xptwj kqnmm

Leave a Reply