Missing Identities
There are numerous other issues with the way Muslims themselves are presented by Philippine textbooks, again pointing out how effective mental control has been. Some other examples include the following historical figures in early colonial history: Soliman of Manila, Lapulapu of Mactan, (Raja) Ladyang Matanda of Manila (whom the Chinese called “King of Luzon”), and Aceh of Manila. All of those figures can be traced to Tausug and Bruneian tarsilas (genealogy charts), which strongly suggests they were all Muslim. The accounts of Tomas Piras in his Summa Oriental in the 16th century also support that many Tagalogs, Visayans, and Tausugs–particularly the merchants and the ruling class–were “Mohammedans”. These facts were also completely ignored by most Filipino lawmakers and history teachers. In addition to erasing the role of Filipino Muslims played in Philippine history, there is also no mention about the famous Hindu-Buddhists. Lakandula, for example may have practiced a form of Buddhism which mixed Islam and indigenous religious beliefs.
Muslim History in the Philippines
While Christianity enjoys a privileged status in Philippine history texts, there are also issues with the way Philippine history is taught by Muslims. Most madaris (the plural form of madrassah or Islamic school), if they include Philippine history at all, mostly start with the arrival of Islam into the country. Thus history begins in either 1380 which marks the date of the arrival of Islamic missionaries, or 1490 which marks the date of the first Muslim state in the Philippines, the Sultanate of Sulu. The 20,000 years of history prior to that is essentially left out just as nearly everything before 1521 is blurry in national textbooks. Thus Butuan, which was predominately a Hindu-Buddhist kingdom founded by Tausugs and which flourished for 500 years, is left out along with the art works it produced such as the Tara of Agusan.
There are significant problems with those dates even from a Muslim perspective. We know that there are graves of Muslims–mostly Chinese–from the 12th and 13th century in Tawi-Tawi and Jolo. The earliest we know of dates from 1210. We also know Tausug rulers visited China and a Tuhan Makbalu, a Muslim, died there in 1310.
Female Sultans
Another issue with the way Muslim Filipinos are teaching and writing is the role of women. Though this problem also exists with the way national history texts portray females, the erasing of female leaders from history is a recent phenomenon. Up until the late 20th century, woman exercised a great deal of authority both at home and in the Astana Putih (the White Palace, the royal of the Sultanate of Sulu). One of the most remarkable women in Philippine history was Sultana Sittie Kabira (Siti Cabil) in the 17th century. She was part-Tausug and part-Maguindanaon. Eventually over the objections of more conservative elements, she was enthroned as the female Sultan of Sulu and Maguindanao after the death of her grandfather. To bring about a closer alliance with other sultans, she took a Maranao prince as her husband thus uniting the three largest ethno-linguistic of what is now the BangsaMoro. She survived attempts by replace her by the Spanish, the Dutch, clerics, and rival families. Eventually her successor, Kudarat, would expand further to Borneo and negotiate a treaty with the Spanish.
However, today, a Muslim Filipino would be hard pressed to find information about pioneering females such as Sultana Sittie Kabira, Queen Regent Raja Portri of Maguindanao, Princess Tarhata Kiram or Dayang Dayang Piandao of Sulu. A cursory look at “Heroes of Moroland” or “Heroes of the BangsaMoro” on Google would reveal almost no women on their websites. Textbooks in madaris also generally do not celebrate these female rulers. Female sultans have been removed from official tarsilas within the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao after the 1980s. However, that is not traditional. The Darangen epic of the Maranaw for example celebrates the woman. In fact, Princess Lawanen is the central character. This new attitude can be attributed to the fact that many clerics have been greatly influenced by attitudes from the Middle East and are imposing a new social order in the name of Islam and BangsaMoro unity.
A Use-able and Filipino-Friendly History
While there are a number of good history texts out there, the teaching of Philippine history is left too much in the hands of individuals schools. When one considers how badly written some of the math textbooks are, it’s no surprise that our history books also are a casualty. It is also unfortunate that the National Historical Institute basically writes trivia and investigates how the national anthem is sung rather than actually trying to build a more use-able and Filipino-friendly (as opposed to the useless and Euro-centric one we have now) history course through the education system. There should be stronger legislation in how history is taught and a civil-orientation of history textbooks. This means a more balanced and scientific approach in all history textbooks, a better construction of “pre-colonial history”, accurate 21st century data, removing religious and ethnic bias, the incorporation of more history from various regions and especially from national minority groups including the Aeta, the Lumads, the Moros, the Igorots, as well as reflecting more on the way women are portrayed in history texts.
We can not begin to really build a national community until we can really examine our history and recognize the contribution of these many people have made in nation-building. José Rizal, after all, said: “He who does not know how to look back at where he came from will never get to his destination.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyoxxsnx8ls&l…
What is your opinion on the Sharia law element of the Bangsamoro bill?
Great post, I have to agree with Mike here, in that the hardest solutions are often the most rewarding in the end.
Its really a cool and helpful piece of information. I¡¦m happy that you simply shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.
We should not let nationalism or ethnic identity issues cloud historical objectivity. Lapu Lapu was almost certainly NOT Muslim. Magellan's slave Henry was also almost certainly NOT a Cebuano/Bisayan. etc. etc,
Great Article again! (Also counting the first part).
Well thank you for your comments.
But again, are only sources from Catholic sources valid? In this article I listed the tarsilas from the Tausugs and the Bruneians.
In addition, Henry William Scott himself believed that there was some evidence to suggest that Lapulapu was Muslim based on accounts from Tomas Pires.
As for Pigafetti, again Dutch accounts contradict some what he says about Philippine society in the 16th century or add more details. Again, are only Spanish accounts valid?
Furthermore, Tausugs have existed in the Philippines for thousands of years. Do you think that Tausugs magically appeared in the Philippines during the time of the Spanish? By accounts from Lumads, especially the Manuvo, as well as the Samals, Tausugs were from the northern-western part of Mindanao. This matches
I do not think that Gordon or Muslims for that matter have a vested interest in Lapulapu being a Muslim or what not. In fact, many Moros are uneasy about including him in any list of heroes because it could re-enforce Filipino claims to Mindanao and therefore invalidate some of the claims being made said by particularly Tausugs that the BangsaMoro people were always a separate people therefore should be given self-determination.
I think that Visayans, particularly Cebuanos, have a vested interest in keeping him as a Cebuano because the truth of the matter is that Cebu was not an important commercial or historical center until the American era. The largest group of Visayans until the American era were the Ilonggos, which is why we have a lot more written materials about Hiligaynon than we do about Cebuano. Jaro (Ilo-Ilo) was the most important city in Visayas region. If you read through the documents of the Philippine revolution you'll find that actually the second star in the Filipino flag represented the Visayas but particularly the island of Panay. You can even see that in the Declaration of Independence which flatly states "the three stars represent the principal islands of this Archipelago: Luzon, Mindanao, and Panay". If ethnolinguistic group have a vested interest in obscuring history as far as Lapulapu is concerned, its not the Moros but the Cebuanos.
Cilapulapu: Was he Muslim?
Let me start by referring to a recent claim made by Philippine Senator Richard Gordon:
Was Mactan's lord Cilapulapu? Lapu-Lapu? Kalipulako? Qari Pulako? Lupalupa?
Share
Saturday, October 10, 2009 at 5:44pm | Edit Note | Delete
The claim of Sen. Richard Gordon that Lapu-Lapu was a Muslim lord is a watershed in how Filipinos determine historical truth. It's in this context that I am further exploring the conversation on Mactan's chieftain's true name and identity.
As stated in my earlier article, Antonio Pigafetta is the only eyewitness, out of nine who wrote firsthand accounts of Magellan's voyage, who gave the name of Mactan's “lord” who is hailed today as a Filipino hero. The spelling of his name, "Cilapulapu," the c being a cedilla (c with a tail), the archaic spelling of s in the Romance languages, is uniform in all the four surviving codices of Pigafetta’s account of Magellan’s expedition.
This singular spelling is followed in all transcriptions and translations down through the centuries…even in the corrupted copies of Pigafetta’s account by Gian Battista Ramusio who garbled many parts of Pigafetta's story that Ramusio's editions are falsifications Pigafetta. (See Jpeg images attesting to this unbroken chain of orthographic purity).
Even the first authentic edition of Pigafetta, Carlo Amoretti‘s 1800 transcription and rendition into modern Italian of the codex known as Ambrosiana, does not deviate from “Cilapulapu” inspite of the ex-Augustinian Amoretti's "ex cathedra" dictum that the “Ci” in the names of the various chiefs in the Philippine archipelago was a prefix that was an honorific. Amoretti asserts, "…It appears that Si or Ci placed before a man's name is a title of honour." (See http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=WxsnAAAAMAAJ&… Also see Jpeg image of Amoretti annotation.
This dictum is rejected and transmogrified by the first Filipino to have read Pigafetta-—the Amoretti Italian edition-—Jose P. Rizal who broke away from the classic orthographic tradition "Cilapulapu". Rizal brushed aside Amoretti’s honorific dictum and instead assigns the “Ci” a different value, as article "si" that in many Austronesian languages precedes a name. Rizal gives no explanation for his operation, offers no argument, cites no authority, invokes no linguistic principle to support his action.
He for the first time spells the Mactan chieftain’s name “Si Lapulapu” in an annotation of his 1890 edition of Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de las islas Filipinas por el doctor Antonio de Morga, obra publicada en Méjico el an̄o de 1609. nuevamente sacada à luz y anotada por José Rizal y precedida de un prólogo del prof. Fernando Blumentritt. See attached Jpeg image of Rizal alteration.
Rizal's novel spelling appears in his Spanish translation of a Pigafetta passage found in Amoretti’s Italian edition. Rizal intercalates his Si Lapulapu in place of Pigafetta’s “Cilapulapu.” (See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-i… Rizal does not explain his operation and fails to give a precise citation of his authority, Amoretti.
In modern historiography one cannot deviate from the exact wording of a text one is copying without explaining the alteration. One has to explain and justify and validate. Rizal does none of these. The change from "Cilapulapu" to "Si Lapulapu" is an invalid operation.
It took some time before Rizal’s Si Lapulapu is further transmogrified to what is today universally used, Lapulapu or Lapu-Lapu. The first I can trace is in Paterno, Pedro A. (Pedro Alejandro). Los Tagálog. Madrid: Tipografiá de los sucesores de Cuesta, go to http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-i….
In the case of Amoretti’s honorific, this is falsified by the fact the most powerful king of all, Cebu's Humabon, did not have a "Ci" before his name. There were so many other chieftains, no less powerful than Cilapulapu, whose names were not prefixed, e.g., Zula, the other lord of Mactan. Rizal’s presumption “Ci” was an article is invalidated by the fact so many chieftains in Mactan and Cebu were named without the prefix, e.g., Bondara, Magalibe, Zula, Mandani, Teten, Japaa. The chief of Panaon was Cabulon; Baibai was Malegis; Butuan, Calambu; Chippit, Calanoa.
Amoretti‘s assertion would have been valid if the people of Zubu were Muslimized. But they were not. In Tausug si means sheikh, a title given to the early Arab missionaries and their descendants. In 1521, there were no Tausugs. The Tausugs were still Butuanons, inhabiting Northern Mindanao and would not make the exodus to Basilan and Sulo where they then assumed a new identity, Tausugs, an event that would happen only long after the archipelago had been colonized by conquistador Legazpi in 1565. Philippine historians mishandled this incident by erroneously reconstructing the event in this manner, "The Tausugs left Butuan and went to Basilan and Jolo where they became the reigning clan." This is akin to writing the American history this way, "The Americans left England and ruled the United States of America."
The story of the Butuanon exodus is told in the historical study by Fr. Francisco Combes, S.J., Historia de Mindanao y Joló, por el p. Francisco Combés… Obra publicada en Madrid en 1667, y que ahora con la colaboración del p. Pablo Pastells … saca nuevamente á luz W. E. Retana. and starts at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-i…. A. Kemp Pallesen wrote a book, Culture contact and language convergence, that provides the lexicostatistical evidence for Combes's story. The book was published in 1986 by Summer Institute of Linguistics. See http://openlibrary.org/b/OL18106522M/Culture_cont…
Pigafetta gave a careful distinction between "heathens" and "Moors." In the entire Cebu incident of April-May 1521 Pigafetta specifically referred to only one "Moor," the trader from "Ciama" which could be either Champa or Siam. (Click http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-i…
Is it possible Magellan, out of lack of interest, did not know if the people of Cebu and Mactan and everywhere else were Muslims? But it was vital for the Spanish expedition to know who were “Mahometans”, in fact Pigafetta was particular on this point. This is further proven by the Cebuano-Butuanon "dictionary" or "vocabulary" of 150 words which Pigafetta titled, "Words of those heathen people." Furthermore, when Magellan burned the houses in a village in Mactan, Bullaia, it was explained that "a cross was erected on the spot, because it was a village of idolaters; if the inhabitants had been Moors, i.e., Mahometans, a pillar of stone would have been raised to mark the hardness of their hearts." (See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-i…
As for the name, "Kalipulaku" this is the handiwork of a non-eyewitness, Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes, who wrote Historia de las Indias (Valladolid: 1557). The part on Magellan and his voyage is in Book XX, Part II. Oviedo's source was Sebastian Elcano who he interviewed for his book. Not being an eyewitness report, Oviedo commits a number of errors, including his report that the Easter mass of March 31, 1521 was held at Cebu.
From Oviedo's "Kalipulaku" it becomes "Calipulapo" in Fr. Prudencio de Sandoval's Historia de la vida y hechos del Emperador Carlos V…. Valladolid, 1604. See Jpeg image.
The name "Qari Pulako" and "Kaliph Pulaka" are spin offs of Oviedo’s “Kalipulako” made to sound Moorish. It’s a product of imagination based on the fallacious assumption Mactan was Muslimized. “According to Sulu oral tradition, Lapu-Lapu was a Muslim chieftain, and was also known as 'Kaliph Pulaka'. The people of Bangsamoro, the Moro homeland in the Philippines, consider him to be a Muslim and a member of the Tausug ethnic group." See http://manilagalleontrade.webs.com/kalipulakoprec… There is no provenance, as far as I can determine, outside of Oviedo's "Kalipulako". It's on the same level of imaginative history of Isidro Escare Abeto who, on his own authority, declares Mactan’s chief's real name was "Lupalupa." (See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-i… His book, Philippine history: reassessed, was published in 1989.
Is historical truth important? Is Gordon interested in historical truth? Or, something else? The Muslim votes, maybe? Are our Muslim brethren interested in the truth of Cilapulapu? Or, will they insist on "Qari Pulako" the Tausug lord at a time when there were no Tausugs walking on this planet earth?