THE MYTHS WE LIVE BY - Senator Lorenzo Tanada (1898-1992)

THE FOLKLORE OF COLONIALISM

WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: (Note: Bold and/or underlined words are HTML links.
Click on them to see the linked postings/articles. Forwarding the postings to relatives and friends,
especially in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. To write or read a comment, please scroll
down to the bottom of the post and click on "Comments.")

"No people can be both ignorant and free." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

“The true Filipino is a decolonized Filipino.” – Prof. Renato Constantino (1919-1999)

“Nations, whose NATIONALISM is destroyed, are subject to ruin.” - Muammar al_Qaddafi

"There is not a nationalistic movement here that has not received its share of witch-hunting
diatribes. The danger is that if these attempts to regain full independence are equated with
communism and branded as subversive, the right of protest and dissent essential to this
movement may be imperiled or curtailed.- Lorenzo Tanada

*********************

[The following excerpts came from a Commencement Address delivered by the late Senator
Lorenzo Tanada at the Lyceum of the Philippines on May 7, 1965. Senator Tanada is a sincere
nationalist whose battles, before and after the death of the great Sen. Claro M. Recto, show his
uncompromising patriotism. He fought on the floor of the Senate and outside of it to preserve the
sanctity of the Constitution and the patrimony of the people which some Filipinos with a bent mind
wanted sold for a few pieces of silver to foreigners - Teodoro A. Agoncillo]

The Myths We Live By

We have been living by illusions for such a long time that we seem not to have
noticed the changing realities of our time. We belong to neither the advanced
capitalist countries nor socialist camps. Our thinking and behavior, however,
belie our real status - that we are a developing nation. Our habit of self-delusion
has been a principal cause of our miseries. Many countries like our own have
heroically resisted the excursions of metropolitan powers. Some have
succeeded, while others are still fighting the pernicious hold of foreign interests.
This determined struggle on their part has earned for them the respect of the
nations of the world.

Because we have refused to recognize our real status, we have not only resisted,
we have even abetted foreign economic domination. We have been deluded into
thinking that this is the correct road, because we are so anxious to establish
affinity with an advanced power and because we believe any other road is
unwise. We have been on this road for such a long time, yet we have not
progressed. from this mistaken orientation have sprung all the myths that
imprison us. We have lived on rhetoric and ignored reality. We pride ourselves
so much on being the most westernized country in Asia that we actually
sometimes tend to look down upon our fellow Asians. We have professed to
have some links with our brother Asians but we tend to look condescendingly on
them because they do not speak English the way we do and have not adopted
western ways. This is the first of the myths we live by.

The Myth of the "Free World."

We like to believe that we belong to the free world and we find it difficult to accept
that the political life of a nation can be different from ours and still not be evil: that
a people's economic, political and cultural life is determined by its own needs and
that one cannot just impose a particular way of life upon a nation, for each nation
has its own peculiarities. a nation that does not have the same form of
government and philosophy as ours is not necessarily undemocratic. Democracy
admits a diversity of forms, it can be diverse as the number of nation-states.

We have relinquished the sovereign initiative that belongs to an independent

state by following America too closely. We rely almost entirely on western,
especially American experts for opinion and judgment and we have not
developed our own powers of assessment. We are enamored of enchanting
phrases like "free world," "free enterprise," etc. and we are easily swayed
by stirring calls to the defense and protection of "freedom and democracy."

Do we read the news and comments of other countries, even those which are
generally considered as part of the free world but which think independently of
the United States? Very few of us do. Instead we are content to allow only the
experts of American news agencies to fill the columns of our papers with their
own not disinterested view of world events; we are satisfied to see our young
people get their intellectual nourishment almost exclusively from American
comics and magazines, American TV programs and movies from Hollywood. We
have not been discriminating at all in our choice of intellectual fare.
Consequently, we have not learned to be original.

The Myth of Identity of Interests.

In the field of foreign relations, we have always proceeded on the assumption
that America's interests are automatically ours and vice-versa. We have
followed her foreign policy closely and sometimes we have even outdone her. In
Asia, our stock is low because we are regarded by our neighbors as America's
obedient satellite. We are thus viewed with suspicion by fellow Asians. In
international conferences, we have always identified with the American position.
We have not recognized the communist countries not because we have studied
this question ourselves and decided it would be bad for us but because, we
believed that by recognition we would be hurting America's cause, even if
America itself has diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with most of
them. Thus we find our diplomatic maneuverability severely limited. We cannot
trade with these countries, while many of the developing nations of Asia and
Africa have found it profitable to do so.

Ever since the restoration of our independence, we have ignored the existence of
the Soviet Union. The policy of non-recognition has grown out of a suspicion of
communist intentions, out of a desire to please America and not out of any
serious analysis of the objective situation. Hence, we have failed to develop our
own experts on Soviet Union. We have refused to seriously consider the position
of the Soviet Union in world events, even after her amazing accomplishments in
the realm of science and space.

From the inception of our independent life, Liberal and Nacionalista

administrations have been guided by the myth of identity of interests into
actions and policies that later proved detrimental to our country. We have
subordinated even domestic policy to the demands of foreign policy based on
this myth that our interests are identical to those of the United States. But a
cardinal principle of independent existence is that the foreign policy of a state
should merely be a reflection of its domestic policy. Domestic policy is
paramount and foreign policy is subordinate, or ought to be, to that policy.
domestic policy is based on our own needs and aspirations, not the needs, let
alone aspirations, of our allies. Foreign policy must hence be a distinctly
Filipino response to the world as we see it and not as others with their own
biases and interests see it. Because it is only under an atmosphere of reduced
tensions that we can carry on the building of our nation, the national interest
would seem to require a foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence with all
nations. But our foreign policy has in fact been just a bit more warlike than that as
witness the proposal to send combat engineers to Vietnam.

The Myth of American Benevolence

This is the myth of special relations. For so many years we have been acting
as if we were special favorites of America. we feel especially privileged because
we have "special relations" with America and America has a special place for us
in her heart. Yet, this is not so; I even wonder if it has been so. let us remind
ourselves of the bitter start of the American intrusion into our shores. Even then
of course, words of great emotional appeal were used to disguise the truth.
America had a "manifest destiny" to "civilize" us and teach us the ways of
freedom and democracy. Later developments suggest that this was not so, that
America had ambitions to, in Asia, still has them, and that the Philippines was
conquered by her to serve her own interests, certainly not those of our country.
Similarly, America's attitude towards Philippine independence followed the
dictates of her own self-interest. her recognition of our independence became
possible only as a result of the confluence of forces in America and these
included the dairy industries, the sugar interests, American labor, etc., which
wanted to deprive us of our preferred position in the American market because
we were competing with their own interests. Self-interest beyond everything also
dictated American withdrawal from the Philippines during the last war. The so-
called "special relations" were weighted in her favor. When she returned
after the war and gave us back the independence we had won from Spain and
which she took from us by force and guile, what did "special relations" mean
for us? Parity? Laurel-Langley [agreement], and bases agreement imposing
extraterritorial rights for her.

Parity was imposed in exchange for war damage payments. Free trade was
moreover guaranteed for a definite period. What did those signify? The
perpetuation of our colonial-type economy and the stifling relations with America
are being invoked to give Americans more rights than Filipinos themselves in the
case of retail trade nationalizations and to demand the continuation of rights
acquired under parity after 1974. Under parity, we have alienated huge tracts of
our national patrimony to American corporations. Under parity, we have imported
billions of pesos worth of duty-free American goods and exported to the United
States less than a third in value of our export commodities. The influx of
American goods prevented industrialization. Professor George Taylor has
observed: " it has to be admitted that the U.S. set up for its citizens monopolistic
advantages. Through the American chamber of Commerce and through the
American embassy, the Americans can bring pressure to bear on a weak
government and in some instances, this pressure may well make it more difficult
for that government to carry out its own reform.

The Myth of Foreign Investments

I hold no brief against foreign investments as long as those investments are
reasonably controlled and made to serve our national interests. No Filipino who
genuinely loves his country can be for foreign investments that would
ultimately hand over the control of our economic life to foreigners. Loans are
therefore to be preferred to direct investments for in the former case we remain in
control of our resources and there is less danger of foreign influence on our
policies. We should be on guard against a policy on foreign investments that has
no well-defined safeguards. the urgent nee for vigilance in this respect becomes
obvious when we observe what has been happening here. foreign investors have
entered fields that can be run and in many cases have already been pioneered
by Filipinos. There have been far too many cases of foreigners with superior
resources edging out Filipinos who have long been in business. On the other
hand, many foreign investors have merely set up industries that process
already finished goods in order to circumvent our tariff laws. Some
unwholesome results are: an excessive production of consumption goods,
gasoline companies thriving happily in a country that has not utilized our
pharmacological preparations because they prefer to import their own
preparations into the country. More often than not, too, our banks provide these
foreign investors with the capital they need. And then the latter remit their
profits without limit thus drawing out of the country the fruit of resources and
human energies that could otherwise be utilized for further development and
investment. Thus the president of a huge American farm implement
manufacturing company (USI) has actually boasted that "for every dollar that we
have sent out of the united States for any purpose in the past five years we have
brought back $4.67." The Institute of Economic Studies and Social Action of
the Araneta University has made a check of the financial statement of the local
subsidiary of this firm and discovered that insofar at least as its Philippine
subsidiary is concerned the boast was no idle one but a simple statement of fact.
the domestic subsidiary was moreover a heavy borrower from the local
banking system besides being a heavy remitter of earnings.

This is by no means an isolated case. The Araneta University study on the

borrowing and remittances of aliens and foreign companies reveals that at almost
every phase and level of the economy, from petroleum to advertising, foreign
business is behaving more or less in the same manner as the company I have
cited as an example. This means that in effect we are not importing capital
through these so-called foreign investments but actually exporting it for the profits
derived from our own resources are remitted abroad by our own banks.
According to former NEC chairman Henares, $19,000,000 came in as foreign
investments and over $200,000,000 was remitted as profit. He has further
revealed that excluding Chinese investments, foreign investments constituted
only 2% of total investments and yet these 2% were able to remit millions of
dollars, an ironic case of the poor subsidizing the rich. Yet the loss of dollars, the
siphoning out of our resources is only one part of the harm our foreign
investments policy does to our people. just as pernicious is the fact that by
opening credit facilities to foreigners we have starved our own businesses of
capital which alone can give them a fighting chance to survive competition from
the giant companies of America. According to the Araneta Institute of
Economic Studies, P1.3 billions in credit were made available to aliens in 1964.
How many Filipino businesses could have been established or expanded if this
tremendous sum had not gone to alien borrowers! Moreover, with this capital in
Filipino hands, there would not be any problem later on of foreign remittances.
Instead, profits would be reinvested or at least spent right here resulting in
continued economic benefit for the Filipino people.

Because we appear and are so eager for foreign investments, strategic industries
in the filed of communications, chemicals, rubber and petroleum have fallen into
the hands of foreign companies. What would happen to us if these companies
were to refuse to cooperate with us during periods of emergency? Would the
united States for example allow a foreign to monopolize her communications
facilities such as the telephone? Never, but the Philippines does and justifies the
action on th plea that we must not scare away foreign capital.

When the term foreign investment is brought up, the public envisions an
avalanche of dollars, which will transform this country into a paradise on
earth. For this, they may seem willing to revise our laws, compromise our
independence, barter our national dignity. But if foreign companies only take
advantage of our credit facilities, borrow capital from Filipino banks whose funds
are composed of the savings of Filipinos and then remit their profits, thus
siphoning out our wealth, have we really gained much? If these savings can be
harnessed instead, if we could get foreign loans without strings, and at low
interests as India has from Russia, if we were at the same time willing to make
some sacrifice by reducing the consumption of imported goods, we could attain
significant economic progress. This will hardly happen, however, as long as we
cling to the myth of untold benefits from foreign investments. As long as our
leaders continue to believe that we cannot progress without foreign
investments, we shall always be subject to the heavy imposition of foreign
investors; we shall never put up adequate safeguards for Filipino businessmen
and ultimately for our people.

In the fight for economic freedom, the Filipino entrepreneur has begun to make
his voice heard. Many entrepreneurs have come to realize that their own
economic status is tied up with the demands of progressive groups from freedom
form foreign economic dictation and control. As a class, they must realize that
they have a choice to make --either to adapt themselves to the demands of
foreign interests and thus be regarded by the people as accomplices in
their exploitation, or to resist the easy way and insist on remaining their
own masters. If we have chosen the capitalist way of development, then let
it be Filipino capitalism. But our entrepreneurs must also realize the masses
can no longer tolerate further exploitation. They must therefore see their
development in the light of a new approach where all sectors under joint
leadership attain an economy of abundance without the present maldistribution of
goods, which has resulted in poverty for the many.

If our entrepreneurs are really sincere in their nationalistic aspirations, then they
should act an example of austerity. Our middle class professionals and
intellectuals should do likewise and help to do away with present consumption
habits which have been causing tremendous drainage of our foreign reserves.
The people can not for long continue to suffer poverty and hunger. A time will
come when they will move to help themselves and unless the entrepreneurs and
the intellectuals are with them they may succumb to the leadership of other
forces.

The Myth of Free Enterprise

The road to progress cannot be clear unless we shed another myth that
dominates the thinking of our planners; that economic growth
automatically means development and that development inevitably results in
"democratizing" wealth through its equitable distribution. Surely each
administration can show facts and figures attesting to the growth of the national
product. But growth does not mean development. Nor does it mean that the poor
will get a fuller meal or better homes or more adequate clothing or greater
opportunity for education. When we talk of growth we should also talk of
equitable distribution of the wealth of the land so that those who have been
living for centuries under conditions of poverty will get their just rewards, so that
those who work the land will not forever suffer from rural penury.

Tied up with the myth is the belief that democracy is synonymous with free
enterprise. Complete free enterprise is not good for developing countries.
Government in these countries have to have some say in directing the
development of their economies.; otherwise domestic businesses could not
compete in equal terms with foreign giants. Government direction for nationalistic
purposes does not diminish our democracy for after all an essential goal of
democracy is freedom from want.

Thus we cannot simply proceed with industrialization without revising our

agricultural structure. Our entrepreneurs must realize that nationalism is not
only for the benefit of a few Filipinos. Nationalism does not merely mean
more profits for the few. Independence under democracy must have a meaning
for all sectors of the population, not just one. To the masses it should mean
higher standard of living, to the laborers, an assurance of employment at
reasonable wages, to professionals, the attainment of proficiency in their
respective lines of endeavor, to artists and intellectuals, the realization of creative
talents. Once freed of the myths that imprison our minds, we shall clearly see
that it involves challenging many concepts and ideas, institutions and people and
all the beneficiaries of the status quo.

The Tasks Ahead

But we must also bear in mind that this struggle is intimately tied up with the
question of civil liberties. We can keep up the effort only while we have these
liberties and there will surely be attempts to suppress this weapon of the
people on the part of those who stand to lose privileged positions. Even
now, our demands against unequal treatment of employees in foreign firms, our
demonstrations against abuses in the bases and our military participation in the
war in Vietnam have been labeled as red. There is not a nationalistic
movement here that has not received its share of witch-hunting diatribes.
The danger is that if these attempts to regain full independence are equated
with communism and branded as subversive, the right of protest and dissent
essential to this movement may be imperiled or curtailed.

Nationalism at this stage of our history, because of the myths I have alluded to, is
essentially a movement of protest. There is in effect a wave of protest now
seeping the world, a protest against inequality, and a protest of the desperate
poor against the deeply entrenched rich nations of the world.

We belong to this movement because whether we like it or not, we are poor, we

are a developing nation. It must seem strange therefore to the rest of the world
why in this legitimate cry for international social justice, we have not only joined
our voice but far too often than not seem to speak out for the status quo, for
the rich nations. Sooner or later, however, we shall have to confront this
contradiction, have to come to a confrontation even with the United States in
some area of our national life because the United States is now very much
present in most phases of our life. We shall question the privileges she enjoys
but which adversely affect our economy. We may and shall support her in all
endeavors where there is mutuality of advantage, but in dealing with her we
shall constantly bear in mind our own welfare.

Towards other countries who aspire like us for an independent existence, we

must show sympathy and understanding, even should they follow forms of
government different from our own. Not all countries can have the same
government as ours. People are different. Their methods of governing
themselves will inevitably be differ. In any case it is of the essence of democracy
that there be diversity. it is also of essence of democracy that we tolerate ideas
and practices even though they may not be the same as ours. People have their
own needs and idiosyncrasies. They cannot be expected to be or act in every
aspect like us. There are many political philosophies and systems. As true
democrats we must respect them. We may try to challenge the practical validity
of these systems by example, but never by force of arms. Co-existence -this is
the international reflection of democracy. We must not think that a people
have adopted other means to achieve progress, they are not free. Freedom
is a many-faceted goal and every nation works towards it in its own way. Even
the United States is still in the process of attaining greater freedom by solving her
civil rights problem --the protection of her minorities. But in the developing
nations, the first concern of people is livelihood and food.

The substance of democracy in these nations right now is economic freedom.,

freedom from want. The other freedoms will follow therefrom. We are enjoying
civil liberties because of a tradition that America helped to establish but we are
still a long way from attaining freedom from want. Other nations are attacking the
problem the other way around. And I am sure that the "democratizing" forces can
work more easily after they have won their economic freedom.

Our task then today is to escape the captivity in which we have imprisoned
ourselves. The weight of centuries of colonialism has made us lethargic. Let us
therefore re-examine our position. let us think for ourselves. We are not only
building a nation; we are also reconstructing a people who for a long time have
lived in a kind of fool's paradise. Let us confront real problems, not what are
presented to us as problems. Let us solve them as we see fit for ourselves and
not as others want us to solve them according to their own pattern of thought. Let
us discard the old myths and attune ourselves to reality. This is the essence of
independence. This is the substance of democracy. The magnitude of the task
before us may stagger the imagination of my own generation. But it should be a
challenge to you. Young people do not by nature cling to the past; they
embrace the future. They can see further, they can work harder, they
should achieve more. Do not be old before your time, dare to blaze new
paths and take your countrymen with you to those heights of freedom and
independence which our generation dreamt of but failed to reach.

Source: HISTORY OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE

- Teodoro A. Agoncillo & Oscar A. Alfonso, Malaya Books (revised edition, 1967)

Posted by Bert M. Drona at 9:29 AM

Labels: anticommunism, communism, Fil-Am special relations, foreign

investments, free trade, Lorenzo Tanada

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

This was 1965. Fast forward to 2008. Are you saying this is what the
country still lives by with?

What's your point? How relevant are these excerpts in today's global
economy?

-Doug

7:15 AM
Bert M. Drona said...

Doug,

I do not know your age, but obviously you are not aware that globalization
has been integrated into our homeland decades before the term became
hip.

Globalization is a euphemism for absolute free trade; and our homeland

has been subjected to free trade (with America) ever since it became
America's colony.

The globalization you witness now has spread to many countries via the
WTO rules because of America's economic and cultural dominance, this
latter through its most powerful media and thus influence.
I have posted several articles on the WTO and its adverse effects on our
homeland since 1995, when Pres. Ramos signed on it.

We are what and where we are because of what were practically imposed
on our homeland, with the cooperation of our past and present rulers.
 Each of our succeeding national governments has followed the same rules
of the game, i.e. thinking that following or copying America will be good
(since they were good for the latter) and thus with ever-worsening effects
to the native majority.

If you live and work here in the States, make time to study and deeply
think about then and the present American economic and cultural
landscape, you'll realize that globalization for middle class America has
not worked well; that the so-called American Dream has become quite
unattainable to many; that it has become more a country of shopping
malls; and waiters and waitresses; and the manufacturing industries that
made the country wealthy and majority middle class have disappeared
together with the jobs -to Mexico (NAFTA), then to SE Asia and now
mostly to China.

The future generations of Americans will be in misery vis-avis standards of

living of their grandparents and parents.

Anybody who took Economics 101 know that without manufacturing a

country can not be not be wealthy or maintain wealth. And without
nationalistic thinking or decisionmaking, and working towards national
unity and national progress; the majority of the citizenry will not progress.

What's my point? If you have time to visit my blog, you'll see my objectives
at the very top of the blogsite -- on why I still post or raise issues that are
"history."

And unfortunately, we do not even try to study, learn and understand our
economic, social and political histories and so our native people in the
homeland are perennially and in ever-worsening deep shit.

- Bert

7:20 AM
Anonymous said...

Bert,
I am 55 years old and have lived here in the US close to 35 years
practically having visited RP twice.

First, Ramos is a crook. The Philippines what and where it is because of

who is and has been running the country the past few decades. So I
assume this is USA's fault,too.

My father-in-law retired from J&J in the Phillipines as a senior regional

director after 25 years. his take: Union leaders killed alot of operating
 businesses both local and foreign and forcing them either to close shop or
move their manufacturing to neighboring Asian countries.

A lose-lose situation. No companies, no jobs. bad economy.

In a few years, I will retire comfortably. a home that's almost fully paid,
kids going to college, two Mercedes, vacations twice a year, healthy and
most of all, time to enjoy all my toils, thanks to USA.

Filipinos are one the most hardworking people in the world. It's a shame
their government
is almost impotent in improving their lives. They deserve better.
Globalization or not.

But do keep spreading the good word. This is just my own perspective.
Doug

10:37 PM
Bert M. Drona said...

Doug,

Pretty close I have lived and worked in the USA for 30 years.

Sadly, all our so-called leaders (I prefer calling them rulers) have led our
country and people to perdition. All of our presidents would not have
become one without the blessing of America. Even the late Pres.
Diosdado Macapagal publicly admitted to it. Note that all past and present
Philippine President come to America within a few weeks after winning
and read what they recite and promise to the America Congress.

I am not surprised. Anyone who worked for an American company will tell
you the same story. That is why, American companies immediately
backed the Marcos dictatorship and praised its imposition of Martial Law,
destroying the characteristics of democracy: killing dissent and dissenters,
removing the right to strike, etc. as they have been happening since the
Marcos Dictatorship, through the presidencies of Cory Aquino, Ramos,
Estrada and now Arroyo (under Arroyo, so far over 800 labor/peasant
leaders and activists have been confirmed assassinated and cases
unresolved). Business flourish under sociopolitical stability but at
what cost to the ordinary citizens?

Of course, American and/or foreign companies can always move out and
seek the cheapest and most pro-business climate they can find: so they
went to Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia all under military dictatorships
and these countries economically progressed. But the important thing we
 seem to forget or ignore is that though a dictatorship, each of them were
nationalistic! The military rulers were overall FOR their own homelands
and gradually - however slowly- realize to let democracy grow into reality
as expressed through dissent, strikes, etc.

Which was not the case with Marcos, which was a dictatorship for his own
selfish ends. He was backed by the US because he professed anti-
communism; the magic word that guarantees/earns unquestioning
American support (as an American president said: "he may be a SOB, but
at least he is our SOB.")

Agree. Filipinos who work hard and smart will attain the American Dream,
its high standard of living. Not only obtaining material success but
attaining the so-called higher human needs, i.e. personal and intellectual
growth, etc. We are still fortunate to have the education and thus ability to
work on these "normal" societal goals; but in the last 30 years so much
has worsened even here.

But Filipinos, now 92 million or so, cannot all be here. I write for those "left
behind;" for them to understand the roots of their impoverishment and to
realize that without knowledge and understanding, they will only and
endlessly grapple in the dark, led by unFilipino/traitorous rulers, of existing
under false and destructive assumptions. Sure they deserve better as any
human being deserves decent livelihood and existence. And globalization
will not and has not worked as promised.

I do not seek agreement or disagreement, like you I just call it as I

see it. And I write mainly for those left behind, not those among us who
are abroad or at home who are materially successful and supposedly
"blessed," and do not truly care --as a former boss and still in the
Philippines wrote about most Filipinos who emigrated to the USA; he
suggested that I blog-- since back home they do not have much
documented information; as I did not have when I was there. My blogging
is one small way towards that end.

Thank you for the feedback.

Bert

10:38 PM

Source: http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2008/08/myths-we-live-by-senator-lorenzo-tanada.html