"In the dark times, will there also be singing? Yes, there will be singing about the dark times." - Brecht

i n s t i s

Aklat ng Bayan

Arkibong Bayan

Sinewaya

Pinoy Weekly

Name-calling

What stuck out like a frigging sore thumb, however, was her lavish praise to Gen. Jovito Palparan, who took time out of his busy butchering schedule to attend Arroyo's address.

"Sa ganitong mga proyekto, palalakasin natin ang ekonomiya ng mga barangay at lalawigan. And we will end the long oppression of barangays by rebel terrorists who kill without qualms, even their own. Sa mga lalawigang sakop ng 7th Division, nakikibaka sa kalaban si Jovito Palparan. Hindi siya aatras hanggang makawala sa gabi ng kilabot ang mga pamayanan at maka-ahon sa bukang-liwayway ng hustisya at kalayaan."

I never would have thought I'd see the day when the words "Jovito Palparan" and "nakikibaka" would be said in the same sentence, underestimating Arroyo's capacity to lose all sense of irony.

Lost, too, is the fact that it is not the rebels who are sowing terror in Central Luzon now, but Palparan himself. Stories abound about how difficult it is to go to the barangays in the region without cedulas. Palparan's troops are said to be reigning in on individuals who walk the streets without cedulas. A TV news item last week interviewed a middle-aged man who was forced to "live" in the barangay hall for fear of being arrested after losing his cedula and being unable to buy one (prices of cedulas had since jacked up from P10 to P30 due to high demand).

I may be wrong, but I do think this is the first time I actually heard Arroyo refer to the NPA as "rebel terrorists". The AFP, however, has been using "Communist-Terrorists" to refer to the guerrillas for years. They also refer to communism as a "godless ideology".

This got me to thinking about the role of labels in abetting war. It is, after all, much easier to hate the enemy if you call them names that no one would want to be called. I do not think, for instance, the members of Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein's army wanted to be called "terrorists".  Nor did the governments of Iran and North Korea want to be part of "axis of evil", as US President Bush once called them.

I don't know about the military culture in the AFP, but the US troops, to which the AFP is much indebted, in their wars called their enemies much worse than calling them terrorists. 

Recent reportage on the war in Iraq has the US soldiers calling their enemies "towelheads", "ragheads" or "camel jockeys". During the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese were called "dinks", "gooks" or "slopes".  Michael Herr's journalistic account of the Vietnam war in his book "Dispatches", offers an etymological study of the word "dink":

"A bird colonel, commanding a brigade of the 4th Infantry Division: 'I'll bet you always wondered why we call 'em Dinks up in this part of the country. I thought of it myself. I'll tell you, I never did liek them hearing them called Charlie [radio code for the Viet Cong]. See, I had an uncle named Charlie, and I liked him, too. No, Charlie was just too damn good for the little bastards. So I just thought, What are they really like? and I came up with rinky-dink. Suits 'em just perfect. Rinky-Dink. 'Cept that was too long, so we cut it down some. And that's why we call 'em Dinks.'"

As with calling the NPAs "terrorists" (bereft of any proof of their "terrorism"), the US soldiers calling their enemies "dinks", "gooks" or "ragheads" would allow them not to feel empathy towards the Vietnamese and Iraqis. Normally, in war, as  Joanna Burke of the LA Times once noted, "Men in the trenches were much more liable to feel pity for their opponents. After all, front-line soldiers knew that the men in the opposing trenches were cold and hungry, cannon-fodder just like themselves."

By calling them names that are less than human, the soldiers are lead to believe there is nothing wrong in harming their enemies and not respecting their human rights.

It was Muhammad Ali, the consummate American hero and anti-war advocate, who once famously articulated such empathy with his country's enemies, committing the sin of designating to the Viet Cong human traits like kindness and respect for others, especially those of other ethnic origins.

"I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong,” Ali once said, when asked to comment on the Vietnam War. “No Viet Cong ever called me nigger."

Posted by: kr.guda at 13:16 | link | comments (1)

Pacquiao Would Have Been A Killer Midfielder

I often wonder if the things that we as a people are very fond of are the very things that prevent us from unifying and prospering as a nation. By this I mean, of course, many of our cultural practices.

What if, for instance, basketball were not introduced and promoted by the Americans, and football, er, "soccer",  remained the most popular sport? Would we figure internationally in the sport? As Recah Trinidad pointed out in his column, the sport is virtually in its death throes despite its immense, even shocking, popularity around the world. Kids from Africa to Antartica (well, assuming there are enough people in Antartica to form a football team, hehe) play football, not hoops, in their backyards. Although invented in Europe as a game among "gentlemen", i.e. rich male yuppies, colonialism eventually brought the sport to virtually every corner of the world. Today, some of the world's football powerhouses are national teams of "developing" countries like Brazil, Argentina and some of the impoverished African countries like Senegal and Ghana.

Meanwhile, in the Philippines, even the most ardent sports enthausiasts remain unconcerned with the events currently unfolding in Germany (hello? World Cup!). While the world awaits with bated breath the winner of the World Cup final between Italy and France, -- even who between Portugal and Germany will salvage their pride and claim No. 3 -- local sports channels continue to refuse covering the games live. Live matches are available only  in pay per view and "exclusive" sports bars and hotels, inaccessible to the TV-watching masses whose sights just last week were transfixed to their sets watching the "semi-live", ho-hum Pacquiao-Larios fight.

This puzzles me, because as a kid, I never knew of anybody in school or among playmates who wanted to be a professional boxer  (admittedly, though, this may have been a function of my lower middle-class upbringing: boxers ' physiques are easier developed with manual labor ; interest in it usually cultivated with the lack of employment opportunities). I do remember, however,  friends who were passionate about football. It was, in fact, the most popular sport in school second only to basketball. I myself was drawn to football, though only after realizing I lacked the aptitude and altitude required in basketball.

Whatever the motive, though, I remember so thoroughly enjoying playing football -- the running, the kicking, the exhilaration, even the frigging cramps after hours of playing. Sheer difficulty of the sport (watching it, one usually has the impression that football is an easy game to play. Try running up and down a 90-meter field for an hour and a half, in between moments of being roughed up by opposing team players) and the pure joy of each rare goal.

Filipinos love sports, and we would probably enjoy football given the opportunity.

Posted by: kr.guda at 22:13 | link | comments (3)