 |
Main Menu |
 |
|
Total Hits |
|
We received
2492910
page views since March 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
Donations |
|
| HELP KEEP OUR SERVERS ONLINE! |  | | Donat-o-Meter Stats | | November´s Goal: | $100.00 | | Due Date: | Nov 30 | | Gross Amount: | $0.00 | | Net Balance: | $0.00 | | Left to go: | $100.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upcoming Events |
|
|
|
Forums |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gutom Recipes |
|
|
|
Recommended Links |
|
|
|
Ads by Google |
|
|
|
Paid Advertising |
|
|
|
Advertising |
|
|
|
|
Main Argument For Preserving Our Languages |
|
 by Jed Pensar, a.k.a. Dr. Jose Dacudao
Language defines a people. A Visayan who cannot speak a Visayan language, even
if he or she was born and grew up in the Visayas-Mindanao area, where there have
been Visayans for more than a thousand years, is not Visayan. He has been cut
off from an ancient cultural identity that remains one of the oldest in the
world. Or how can a person be an Ilocano if he cannot speak it? You can't speak
Kapampangan? Then you are not Kapampangan. Ditto for Bicolanos, Warays, and all
the rest. Without our language, we have no culture, we have no identity; we are
nothing.
No one can artificially create an ethnolinguistic people. Only the Creator can.
Each ethnolinguistic people is unique, irreplaceable, and priceless. To kill off
an ethnolinguistic people because of nationalist ideology or economic expediency
is abominable. The survival of our ethnolinguistic peoples in a Creation of
diverse beauty is not even a matter of right or wrong but a matter of existence
or oblivion. A hundred years from now, any debate as to whether the existence of
an ethnolinguistic people is right or wrong when it has ceased to exist is
completely inutile, because what is being discussed is already dead.
Likewise, any discussion on the so-called ancestral lands issue loses its
essence when the ethnolinguistic people involved has ceased to exist because of
the death of its language. For example, a Manobo is by definition as a person
whose native language is Manobo. So how can you talk of the ancestral lands of
Manobos when the Manobos have been obliterated with the death of their language?
How can you talk about a people's ancestral lands if the people do not exist? A
person who keeps on talking about defending an ancestral land of the Manobos but
opposes the teaching of the Manobo language is plastic. He may in fact only be
interested in landgrabbing or making political capital out of the issue, but is
not really genuinely interested in the survival of the Manobo people.
Will you make your faces identical with those of your neighbors and seatmates
just because an ideology says we all would look nicer if we had the same face?
Of course not, as we were created with different faces and personalities.
Similarly with languages, will we homogenize all Philippine languages just
because an ideology says we ought to? Of course not! Instead we must accept that
there is something wrong with that ideology, even if it has been taught to us
since elementary school by a system that does not respect its own peoples.
The basic argument for preserving a people is the same as that for preserving a
species, that is, a conscious decision to stand for the diversity of Creation. A
renowned paleontologist once said: I can see and study the fossil bones of now
extinct birds, but never will I see the colors of their feathers nor hear the
sweetness of their songs. Costumes and artifacts are dead things we keep in
museums and show to tourists, but the living soul of a people is its living
identity carried by its language. A government that makes a minority people wear
native costumes and dance in front of TV cameras for the sake of attracting
tourists, but does not teach its language in schools, is utterly hypocritical
and exploitative. If we are sincere in helping our ethnolinguistic peoples to
survive, we must teach their language in schools in their traditional areas.
Once a people is dead, we will never ever see the bonds that they formed, nor
ever hear the melody of their tongue.
Another Argument For Preserving Our Languages:
There is another argument for preserving the diversity of Creation, albeit a
more practical and perhaps selfish one. We can never know the possible future
uses of a specific species or language. A plant that seems to have no practical
use now may suddenly be the source of an important antibiotic in the future. The
following are examples of the use of a specific language:
1. Some languages, especially those which are difficult to learn, can form the
basis for codes. During World War II, the Americans suddenly found Navajo (a
native North American tongue spoken by the Navajo people) a useful language in
creating a code that the Japanese never broke, because Navajo is a difficult
language to learn and no Japanese knew Navaho. The Japanese never broke the code
and it became a significant factor in the Americans' Pacific battle victories.
2. Some languages, which are intrinsically user-friendly, can form the basis of
a trade or scientific language in the future if the need arises. A few examples:
Latin is in some ways easier to learn for a non-native speaker than English,
mainly because English has so many irregular verbs. Likewise, almost any
Philippine language is intrinsically easier to learn for a non-native speaker
than any Chinese language because of the tonal characteristic of Chinese
languages, wherein differences in pitch distinguishes different meanings in what
are otherwise the same words. As an example among Philippine languages,
Hiligaynon, which is the closest linguistically related language to 'Filipino',
is much easier for an outsider to learn than 'Filipino,' because Hiligaynon has
a relatively simpler conjugation pattern.
Tagalog Nationalism:
The bill in issue is the epitome of Tagalog nationalism. Tagalog nationalism is
a unitarian ideology based on the precept of unity in uniformity. (We are for
unity in diversity.) In brief, Tagalog nationalism tries to create a Philippines
whose citizens all speak the same language. It is a nihilistic ideology because
it annihilates the self respect of our natural peoples and eventually their very
identities, and it is chauvinistic because it stomps on their dignity and
promotes a pathetic sense of inferiority complex and colonial mentality amongst
them. It turns all non-Tagalog Filipinos into second class citizens, and is
hostile to their existence. It transgresses the language rights of the more than
150 ethnolinguistic
peoples in the Philippines. It violates one of humanity's basic freedoms, one
that is protected in our Bill of Rights, the freedom of expression.
The main issue here is the very survival of the non-Tagalog ethnolinguistic
peoples of the Philippines, at least 3 of which have become extinct since
'Filipino' was forcibly rammed into our educational system in World War II,
ironically by Japanese colonizers who wished us weaned off from English.
Successive census figures show that practically all ethnolinguisitic peoples of
the Philippines, except the one whose native tongue is 'Filipino,' is decreasing
as a percentage of the population.
Tagalogs vs. Tagalistas:
The Tagalogs are an ethnolinguistic people, who have the right to preserve and
develop their language. In the same context, so do other ethnolinguistic peoples
in the country. For example, the Kapampangans also have the right to preserve
and develop their language. Tagalogs and Kapampangans are equal, and are equal
to the other Philippine ethnolinguistic peoples. The State should not institute
laws and practices that will make one of the Philippine's ethnolinguistic
peoples in social majority over the rest, as this will mean that the rest will
become social minorities and second class citizens. More seriously, such a
discriminatory policy eventually pushes the neglected languages into extinction.
Thus we are not against Tagalogs as an ethnolinguistic people. If by a twist of
history, the Tagalog language becomes endangered sometime in the far future, we
should come to their succor. On the other hand, Tagalistas desire to spread the
ideology of Tagalog nationalism. Tagalistas do not have to be Tagalogs
themselves; there are many Visayan Tagalistas for example, native Visayans who
adhere to Tagalog nationalism.
We love the Tagalog ethnolinguistic people for what they are. If the state were
to legislate a law inimical to the existence of the Tagalog ethnolinguistic
people, naturally we surely would oppose it. On the other hand, Tagalistas do
not respect the language rights of the peoples of the Philippines, and who, if
they have their way, will kill off all the other ethnolinguistic peoples of the
Philippines in the name of their perverted sense of nationalism. If we are to
oppose a bill that is inimical to the existence of one of the peoples of the
Philippines, the Tagalog people, surely (based on the same principle) we should
oppose a bill that is inimical to all the peoples of the Philippines, except
one.
Language vs. Dialect:
Is Filipino a separate language? Dialects are mutually intelligible versions of
a language and cannot exist outside the context of a language. For example,
Batangueno and Bulakeno are mutually intelligible tongues, and thus are dialects
or versions of the same language, which we call Tagalog. Similarly, Cebuano
exists as several dialects. Thus Cagayan Cebuano and Boholano are clearly
different in accent, vocabulary, and idioms, but are mutually intelligible,
meaning their speakers can understand each other without previous language
lessons. Thus, Cagayan Cebuano and Boholano are dialects of the same language,
which is called by linguists as Cebuano. On the other hand, no Tagalog dialect
is mutually intelligible with any
dialect of Cebuano. Thus Tagalog and Cebuano are two separate languages, and
co-equal to each other.
All international linguists (including the linguists of the highly regarded
Summer Institute of Linguistics in the Philippines), adhering to international
standards, agree that Filipino is a Tagalog dialect. Filipino is mutually
intelligible with all Tagalog dialects and mutually unintelligible with all non-Tagalog
languages. Given the differences in vocabulary, grammar, syntax, idioms,
conjugation patterns, and even accent and intonation that make each language
unique, it is impossible to create a Filipino from all the Philippine languages
without retaining each component language's unique
identity. Unity in diversity means giving freedom to the peoples that these
languages define to preserve and develop their own languages. Unity in
uniformity means killing all of them except one, whether that language is an
existing one or an artificial one.
Are Our Languages Really Dying?
Yes.
One, there is a dearth of literature and official use of the provincial
Philippine languages. Many of these languages do not even have a written
literature, and are not used in government and schools in their own territories.
Residents can hardly read and write in their own language. New songs, movies, TV
shows, essays, poems, and books are not being composed in the provincial
languages, and the few that are being made, because of the minority status
attached to them by state policy, are not being patronized by their own
speakers.
Two, National Statistics Office surveys shows that every Philippine
ethnolinguisitic people is decreasing in percentage of the Philippine
population, except the one that speaks 'Filipino' as its native tongue. When the
natural birth rate of these peoples finally approaches zero, as is the trend at
present, their absolute numbers will also decrease, eventually to extinction if
we do nothing now.
Three, minority peoples are losing territory fast to the center's
ethnolinguistic group. For example, Puerto Princesa in Palawan, which used to
speak Cuyonon, no longer does, and the Cuyonons (a Western Visayan people) are
becoming confined to a small group of islands off Palawan and will inevitably
die out should we do nothing. Same story for the rest of the native Palawan,
Mindoro, and Zambales languages. Likewise, the rich array of native languages of
Romblon (including Romblomanon, Unhan, Asi, Odiongon) are dying out.
Transplanted Tagalog is fast replacing the indigenous tongues of Davao and
Cotabato. Even traditionally big and influential ethnolinguistic peoples such as
the Kapampangans of Pampanga and the Bicolanos of
Camarines Norte are in the process of getting wiped out.
Banalities and Bogeys of Tagalistas:
A. Filipino is not a Tagalog dialect. Wrong. It is. This has been answered
above. Tagalistas often use this bogy, honey-coating one Philippine language (Tagalog)
as "Filipino" to justify imposing monolingual uniformity in a way that avoids
hostile reaction among the non-Tagalog peoples.
B. We need "Filipino" as a national language because we are one nation. There
are three models that refute this banality.
One: It is an empirical fact that the USA does not have a national language
(because any national language in the minds of the founding fathers of the USA
infringes on an even more fundamental freedom, that of the freedom of speech and
expression), and each local State is free to choose its official languages, or
none at all. Thus there is no legal barrier to, say, the teaching of Spanish or
a Native American language like Navajo. Many such native languages in North
America, as well as Hawaii, are now being taught in the schools, and as a result
their native speakers are fast increasing in numbers. This policy of teaching
the minority languages in American schools has saved their peoples from
extinction.
Two: Many countries with a keener sense of justice have multiple official
languages, in recognizance of their native peoples. For example, India has
almost 20, Switzerland has four, etc. Why can't we?
Three: Many areas of the world, including pre-WW II Philippines, use a neutral
language as a common means of communication for its leveling effect. (A neutral
language is an outside language that is not spoken as a native language by any
of the ethnolinguistic peoples in a common area.)
Tagalistas insist that we need one common national language in order to
communicate with each other, and this is simply false. It is an empirical fact
that we, the peoples of the Philippines, have been communicating with each other
for more than 300 years before there was a national language, and even long
before there was a Philippines. How did 20th century Filipinos communicate
before WWII? (It was ironically the Japanese who pushed in `Filipino', which was
and is clearly a Tagalog dialect, in Philippine schools in an effort to wean us
off from English, and from this point of view `Filipino' is a colonial weapon
that is the legacy of Japanese colonizers, and undemocratically enforced by the
collaborationist Philippine government of World War II. No democratic
consultation was done, no plebiscite was held, although it was clear that the
framers of the
1935 Constitution did not intend `Filipino' to be a Tagalog dialect. The war is
over, but alas the Manila government has continued this colonial policy and our
languages are now dying fast. Tagalistas who claim that they are battling
American colonialism by enforcing `Filipino' are hypocrites who are engaged in
their own colonialism. We used English, which happened to be the language of the
American colonizers but which also fortunately happened to be the international
language of science and trade, and multiple Philippine languages. If you were an
Ilocano and went to trade in Cebu, you quickly learned Cebuano, and so on.
Filipinos, including Tagalogs, respected the local culture of the region that
they went into, by learning the native tongue. The usage of a neutral language
like English also made for a leveling effect among Philippine languages;
none was socially superior to the rest. Today, in many multilingual areas in
Africa and Asia, English and French are used for their leveling effect, thus
protecting the status of smaller ethnolinguistic peoples who would otherwise be
pushed into oblivion had a neighboring tongue been imposed on them.
Because there is no indigenous ethnolinguistic people that speaks English or
French in these areas, use of these neutral languages places all of the native
peoples in a linguistically equal level, and affords protection for the smaller
groups. Did using English as a common tongue make the Philippines poor?
Obviously not; and we were more economically well off at this period. The
peoples of the provinces also took pride in their local languages, and thus
their ancestral identities, which made it more difficult for the center to step
on their economic and political rights.
C. To learn English is to stop being patriotic. Again, false. English is the
international language of science and trade. There have been precedents. Before
English, Latin was the international language of science and trade for perhaps
1500 years. Before Latin, it was Greek. Science classes were often taught in
Latin until the early 20th century. The great seminal works of science,
including Newton's Principia Mathematica, Linnaeus's taxonomic naming of
species, and many early medical books were in Latin. Newton was definitely a
patriotic Englishman, but to communicate with the rest of the scientific world,
he used Latin without a qualm.
D. The 'Filipino' that is being rammed into the minds of all Filipino children
is easy and convenient to learn, as evidenced by most Filipinos having learned
it. This is twisted reasoning. Everyone who has gone through the Philippine
educational system knows 'Filipino', not because it is easy and convenient to
learn, but precisely because it is taught in the educational system. Any
language taught to elementary and high school children as an academic subject
will be
learned by them. Even if we pretend to be a devil's advocate and espouse a unity
in language uniformity for the Philippines, 'Filipino' is not the easiest
Philippine language to learn, as mentioned above. Furthermore, the reason why
the national
media is in 'Filipino' is because everyone has been forced to learn it by an
educational system that flunks you if you don't.
Recommendations:
We should implement a program to save our natural and ancient pre-Spanish
languages and the ethnolinguistic peoples that they define:
1. Teach our languages in schools in their traditional areas, especially for
history and literature, and many of the arts and
humanities, while retaining English for the Sciences. This is the only sure way
to save a language. Empirical evidences from Iceland (Icelandic), Ireland
(Irish), Hawaii (the Hawaiian languages), mainland America (native American
languages), Switzerland (Romance), and so on have repeatedly shown that minority
languages can be consistently saved in this way.
2. Create a dictionary, syllabus, and eventually literature for all the
languages. This is necessary if we are to teach our languages in schools. For
the larger Philippine ethnolinguistic peoples and some of the smaller ones, this
is no problem because foreign religious missionaries from various Christian
denominations and foreign linguists have often taken the time and effort to
create such dictionaries and syllabuses, and to save these languages it is a
matter of mass producing them and introducing them into school curricula. (It is
such irony that non-Filipino foreigners have done more for our languages than so
called nationalistic Filipinos, and incredibly the national government has not
funded the creation of even a single non-Tagalog dictionary or syllabus.)
3. Promote economic prosperity for all our ethnolinguistic peoples so that they
take pride in preserving their language and identity.
4. Promote political freedom for our ethnolinguistic peoples so that they are
free to move to save their language and identity.
5. Teach one or two Philippine language electives in the Tagalog regions so that
Tagalogs in general will learn to tolerate and respect their fellow Filipinos as
brethren and peers, and not as inferior races and provincianos.
|
|
Posted on Monday, June 27 @ 19:10:56 CDT by don |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Related Links |
|
|
|
Article Rating |
|
|
|
Options |
|
|
|
Associated Topics
|
|
|
|
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
|
|
|
Gutom sa Karunungan :: Gutom sa Kalinangan :: Gutom sa Katotohanan :: Gutom sa Pagbabago
Hunger for Knowledge :: Hunger for Enlightenment :: Hunger for Truth :: Hunger for Change
The opinions, postings, and articles in in this website do not
necessarily reflect the orientation or represent the opinions of Gutom.org, its
owners, administrators, members, and affiliates nor that of FreeSparrow, LLC. members, management, employees and affiliates. The (opinions, postings and
articles) have been approved for informational purposes only. In addition, Gutom.org may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We believe this constitutes a
"fair use" of such material under 17 U.S.C. Section 107. Members and readers
wishing to use copyrighted material for or from this site for purposes that go
beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more info about this site please contact Team Gutom by
CLICKING THIS LINK.
Gutom.Org is an interactive on-line service operated by FreeSparrow, LLC. on the World Wide Web of the Internet, consisting of information
services and content provided by FreeSparrow, LLC., affiliates of FreeSparrow, LLC. and other third parties.
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2005 by Gutom.Org,
and by FreeSparrow, LLC..
Disclaimer
:: Terms of Use
:: Privacy
Policy
PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2004 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the .
PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the .
Powered by
Page Generation: 0.66 Seconds
:: skyLineBlue phpbb2 style by Volize Web Solutions :: PHP-Nuke theme by www.nukemods.com ::
| | |
