The transformation of Philippine society occasioned by colonial policies and the penetration of the world market economy, particularly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, had a lasting impact on Philippine cultural traditions and the nature of state-society relations. Spanish and later U.S., colonial policies dramatically recast land-tenure patterns. With the commercialization of agriculture came important changes in social mores and institutions, peasant survival strategies, and the strengthening of regional economy elites. The mode of colonial rule—indirect rule through collaborating elites—had equally important implications for elites-mass social relations and for patterns of social control.
Although there is continuing fluidity in the composition of the Philippine elite, many of the leading families first prospered under Spanish colonial rule and then consolidated their economic and political power under American colonial rule. While governmental authority was formally concentrated in Manila, local caciques strengthened their influence over local behavior, constraining the power of the state.
Philippine peasants have responded to the varying impacts of commercialization and Spanish, American, and Japanese rule with episodic rebellions, in addition to “everyday forms of peasant resistance.” This legacy and its cultural underpinnings are important to our understanding of present-day peasant activism and the role peasant-based organizations have played, and can play, in advancing redistributive reform in Philippines. One theme that runs through much of the analysis is the existence and persistence of powerful, crosscutting class and group cleavages in Philippine society. These cleavages make national reform of any sort problematic. One concern of the analysis, then, is the salience of various identities and cleavages in explaining the outcome of reform under the Aquino and Ramos regimes.
Philippine history is not characterized by a dominant or unifying cultural tradition of the type found in other Southeast Asian o East Asian countries. Since the fourteenth century, the Philippine people have felt the successive influence of Islamic, Spanish, American, and Japanese cultures. One consequence is the continuing search for a Philippine national identity, reflected both in scholarly work and in the nationalist appeals of a series of Philippine social and political movements. In recent decades, Philippine historians have reexamined their national history, rejected the dominant paradigms of colonial scholarship, and given new emphasis to the rule of the working class in the struggle for independence, and the harmful influence uncritical acceptance of an alien language and values has had on Filipino identity.
Nationalism was a prominent theme in the fight for independence from Spain, in the resistance to American intervention and conquest, in the rise of the Nacionalista Party during the commonwealth period, in the resistance to the Japanese occupation during World War II and most recently in the armed struggle of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA). Yet even as Filipinos have sought a national identity, there have been important centrifugal forces—regional, linguistic, and religious—at work.
To Be Continued…
Although there is continuing fluidity in the composition of the Philippine elite, many of the leading families first prospered under Spanish colonial rule and then consolidated their economic and political power under American colonial rule. While governmental authority was formally concentrated in Manila, local caciques strengthened their influence over local behavior, constraining the power of the state.
Philippine peasants have responded to the varying impacts of commercialization and Spanish, American, and Japanese rule with episodic rebellions, in addition to “everyday forms of peasant resistance.” This legacy and its cultural underpinnings are important to our understanding of present-day peasant activism and the role peasant-based organizations have played, and can play, in advancing redistributive reform in Philippines. One theme that runs through much of the analysis is the existence and persistence of powerful, crosscutting class and group cleavages in Philippine society. These cleavages make national reform of any sort problematic. One concern of the analysis, then, is the salience of various identities and cleavages in explaining the outcome of reform under the Aquino and Ramos regimes.
Philippine history is not characterized by a dominant or unifying cultural tradition of the type found in other Southeast Asian o East Asian countries. Since the fourteenth century, the Philippine people have felt the successive influence of Islamic, Spanish, American, and Japanese cultures. One consequence is the continuing search for a Philippine national identity, reflected both in scholarly work and in the nationalist appeals of a series of Philippine social and political movements. In recent decades, Philippine historians have reexamined their national history, rejected the dominant paradigms of colonial scholarship, and given new emphasis to the rule of the working class in the struggle for independence, and the harmful influence uncritical acceptance of an alien language and values has had on Filipino identity.
Nationalism was a prominent theme in the fight for independence from Spain, in the resistance to American intervention and conquest, in the rise of the Nacionalista Party during the commonwealth period, in the resistance to the Japanese occupation during World War II and most recently in the armed struggle of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA). Yet even as Filipinos have sought a national identity, there have been important centrifugal forces—regional, linguistic, and religious—at work.
To Be Continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment