The ‘golden age’ I remember
Those who do not read history are condemned to repeat it. Another quote should be coined to describe what has ailed the Philippines since 1946 and continues to this day which keeps the country and Filipinos behind its peers in the region.
Randy David does not have an objective sense of history because his context is biased. It is within that of the educational environment of the University of the Philippines, the premier state university, the bastion of education which has produced bright men and women who are supposed to help the country in nation-building but since the 1970s has become the training ground of the both the radical left and the liberals who fought the Marcos regime not solely of their own initiative but that of ideologues such as Jose Maria Sison, who was egged on by Ninoy Aquino.
The gilded age of America began in the 18th century and continue through the 19th and 20th. The Philippines’ began after America bought the Philippines, lock, stock and barrel from the Spaniards. It was deemed a strategic move for America was then emerging as world power, equal if not greater than, the old European powers which were experiencing the revolution of the masses, or the serfs, as they were called. They broke their chains and crossed the Atlantic to the New World where anything and everything was possible because there was no monarchy but freedom to do as one pleased and pursue one’s dream.
The Philippine-American War was one of subjugation. It was the offshoot of a failed revolution against Spain. The Americans picked up where the Spanish left off and made concessions to the elite, represented by the Ilustrados. By the time the war ended, the gilded age of the Philippines began. It was the melting pot of Americans and Europeans in Asia, similar to Hong Kong, which was then still in the hands of the British. Asia, with the exception of China, Thailand and Japan were never colonized. The Japanese tried with China in the 1930s but failed. For the most part, the Philippines was an extension of the American south, a plantation the size of the country, ruled by mixed-race Filipinos, Spaniards, Britons, French and Germans who were residents and controlled the economy. It became the Paris of the East and Pearl of the Orient. It was civilized compared to the other colonies of the Dutch, the British and the French.
The dysfunction of the Philippines and Filipinos is both political and social. Its roots lie in its colonial past. The only “Asian” country where the religion was rooted in belief and not philosophy, very much unlike Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. The Spaniards knew how to have a good time and the Americans soon learned the local ways. The Philippine Islands or the P.I., as it continues to be referred to by even the Filipino-Americans who were born in the country prior to migration to the United States.
David paints a rosy picture of a post-war Philippines. It is very far from the truth because his goal it to disparage Marcos. Manila was the second most devastated city in World War II after Warsaw. Warsaw has been rebuilt but Manila never was. The American’s priorities changed after the war and they dumped the Philippines like a taxi dancer who has outlived her usefulness with her dance partner, an American soldier.
Post-war Philippines was an American pseudo-colony. Parity rights made it less appealing to foreign investors because they could find a better environment in other emerging economies such as Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and South Korea. The Americans had parity rights but not the other foreign investors. It was the American way of maintaining a hold on a country it did not want to spend on but wanted to continue using because of its geographical location. The transfer of power at independence was from colonizer to oligarchs which continues up to today.
The Japanese were never made to fully account for their war crimes nor for the damage they wrought during their occupation. The reparations claim of $8B was reduced to $800M and was not paid in cash. It was to be paid over a period of time since Japan was America’s new pet in the region. The war was not against the Japanese anymore but against communism. Insurgencies were fought in Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. In the case of Korea, it was a war which continues to today.
The opposition has never been made to account for their failed promises in 1986 after Marcos was ousted. If there is any reason why the Marcos’ have not been made accountable for their twenty years in power, that is also on the opposition because the Marcos’ never agreed to go into exile. The Marcos’ were made to believe that they were being flown to Ilocos Norte that fateful night on February 25, 1986. It was Cory who wanted them as far away from the Philippines as possible and the only ideal location was Hawaii, the US state whose pineapple and sugar plantations were built on the backs of migrant Ilocano labor.
It cannot be denied that Marcos was the only post-war President who put the focus on fixing government and rebuilding infrastructure lost during the war. He also used the bases as leverage against the Americans and did not renew the parity rights they enjoyed. Our problem is our emphasis on partisanship which renders us without the ability to render objective judgment. We also refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We should be more discerning as an electorate. We should emulate the work ethic of our neighbors in the region. We should set aside our religious belief in favor of philosophical mantras which put emphasis on self-improvement and patriotism which we sorely lack. We are the only Asian country who identifies as American.
Marcos was not all good. But he was not all bad either. Our disunity continues because the narrative of the opposition is such that they are the only ones who are righteous without ever having to be accountable for the consequences of their actions. Filipinos have seen through this double-standard which is why the Marcos’ are now the underdogs against the overbearing and righteous opposition.
Dutertismo, as David labeled it, changed the political landscape of the country in 2016. What happens after Duterte is up to whoever wins the Presidency. It will be a combination of the Filipino people combined with what decision the power blocs come up with on the issue of the disqualification petitions filed against Marcos.
It will also be Dutertismo which prevents a return to power of the opposition. The greater majority have no trust in these personalities anymore. They will not allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes again no matter what they throw at the Duterte administration and the Marcos’.
But no real change will ever come unless we address the root cause of our political and social dysfunction. We need a leader who recognizes this as the problem and make it right for the nation to finally be able to move on.
Comments