 |
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Rehashing Old Thoughts--Intro; Homosexuality and the Church
I'm beginning to post more regularly in netalive.org, an online community i used to be active in. anyway, i was checking out some of the stuff i had written last year and even I was impressed, har har. anyway, i figured i wanted to post some of my old netalive essays here. not everything, obviously, just some of the stuff i really like. they will all be posted under the heading "Rehashing Old Thoughts." Some essays will be addressing a "second person," understandably because most of these were responses to threads on hot issues addressing other members of the community.
for anyone out there looking to contribute to an intelligent online community, join www.netalive.org. there you will meet intellectuals of all colors--computer geeks, political progressives, Christians, atheists, pagans, etc. beware though. the community is unabashedly proud of its intellectual character and is pretty cruel to dumb people with nothing intelligent to say.
The post below is an essay I wrote on
HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH
I think any belief system is bigger than the actions and attitudes of its practitioners. i can understand why you may think christians are oppressive and dogmatic. but christianity itself, as a world religion, is bigger than the local christians you may be familiar with.
like any belief system, the dynamism of early Christianity had suffered in the process of its institutionalization. remember, how radical it was?--the rich selling all their property and giving it all to the local church so they can live in a commune as equals with the poor, jews living with gentiles, women sitting at christ's feet as disciples when only men were allowed to do that. this all changed after centuries because it is easier for a big religion/organization to ensure unity by pegging down rules and a list of to-do's and not-to-do's than to try to struggle with the issues of its ever-dynamic cultural context.
however, vigilant practitioners of any belief system will always seek to seek the will of God's Spirit instead of depending on centuries-old texts that were written in a very different context. Even Paul recognizes this when he writes, "The written word kills, but the Spirit of the Lord gives life."
Regarding homosexuality, i think a lot of faith communities are struggling with the issue. There have been cases of Baptist and Presbyterian ministers who chose to administer marriage to gay couples in their own communities--and were therefore "excommunicated" (this isn't the exact term for the process) along with their churches.
i am a christian and i am proud to be one. i am not proud of the church and its tradition of cruelty--from the crusades, to the church's lack of action against Hitler and his genocide, to current evangelicals who openly support Bush's war policy. but i am proud of believing in a faith system that affirms goodness and love even if some christians find clinging to dogmas more important than loving their neighbors.
personally, i think being gay is not a sin. having gay sex is not a sin. however, the culture of promiscuity in both homo- and hetero-sexuality, i think, is--debatably--a sin. the church tells us to love our neighbors. loving, i think, includes making sure that you don't engage in sex with someone unless you plan to spend the rest of your life with the person. i know many of you are located in cultural contexts where sex is a very casual thing. but in my own geo-political context (let's just say i'm southeast asian) where sex means so much, break-ups can be traumatizing to both partners after being so intimate. Loving your neighbor means making damn sure you'll do your best not to hurt them.
In my country, there are still no gay marriages. So whereas, heteros can commit to be faithful to each other, many gay couples feel they have no such option. the gay culture here is characterized by very few relationships based on commitment. most gays go for one-night stands and short-but-intense relationships.
the official stand of the churches is still no to homosexuality, but if you interview individuals, more and more christians are starting to think about the issue instead of blindly appropriating dogma.
as a male heterosexual Christian, i know i can be dogmatic at times. i only started really struggling with the issue when i became very good friends in college with a person who was very kind, very intelligent, and very gay. i'm carrying the baggage of the instituionalization of my religion and being open-minded takes real effort. i am doing my best to deal with the issues of my age and many Christians are the same. Please do not associate all of us --and christianity itself -- with dogmatism.
as for all gays out there -- especially christian closet-gays -- i affirm your struggle and wish you well in your quest to be treated as equals and find meaningful and lasting connections that will be respected by our society.
Posted at 03:13 pm by bloodchilde
Permalink
Thursday, November 04, 2004
I must read this Quibuyen. Until then, I cannot but reject the idea of the nation as separate from the state. It is my belief that the state cannot have any other vehicle but a nation. I don’t know if I qualify as an anarchist, but I certainly do share a lot of their views. All this, however, has to spring from my Christian reading of history.
When the Israelites first left Egypt and became “a people,” they did not have a central government. They lived in communities and issues were resolved by “judges.” This is not to say that there were no leaders, they just happened to facilitate social activity in communities small enough for everyone’s concern to be considered when making political decisions. There was no parasitic center or parasitic class. God was their leader.
This theme of social harmony going together with personal harmony with God (rightness) is reminiscent of the Katipunan before the ilustrado takeover. The Katipuneros valued an upright inner self (matuwid na loob) and viewed freedom as a social condition where the poor would break free from bondage and become empowered. This, to them, did not necessarily mean, a central government taking over where Spain would leave off. And remember, Bonifacio was hailed as “king of the Tagalogs” and not President of the Philippines. The ilustrados, however, patterned their idea of freedom with national models they learned from Europe. Whereas Bonifacio was looking back to a primal past where everyone lived in abundance (kasaganaan, an egalitarian scenario which can only suggest the anarchist past of our ancestors), Aguinaldo wanted to invent the nation. Bonifacio was murdered and the ilustrado took over. Thus begins the story of the nation-state that is the Republic of the Philippines.
This is very similar to the story of how the Israelite nation-state was first created:
1 Samuel 8 (New Living Translation)
Israel Requests a King
1As Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons to be judges over Israel. 2Joel and Abijah, his oldest sons, held court in Beersheba. 3But they were not like their father, for they were greedy for money. They accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4Finally, the leaders of Israel met at Ramah to discuss the matter with Samuel. 5"Look," they told him, "you are now old, and your sons are not like you. Give us a king like all the other nations have."
6Samuel was very upset with their request and went to the LORD for advice. 7"Do as they say," the LORD replied, "for it is me they are rejecting, not you. They don't want me to be their king any longer. 8Ever since I brought them from Egypt they have continually forsaken me and followed other gods. And now they are giving you the same treatment. 9Do as they ask, but solemnly warn them about how a king will treat them."
Samuel Warns against a Kingdom
10So Samuel passed on the LORD's warning to the people. 11"This is how a king will treat you," Samuel said. "The king will draft your sons into his army and make them run before his chariots. 12Some will be commanders of his troops, while others will be slave laborers. Some will be forced to plow in his fields and harvest his crops, while others will make his weapons and chariot equipment. 13The king will take your daughters from you and force them to cook and bake and make perfumes for him. 14He will take away the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his own servants. 15He will take a tenth of your harvest and distribute it among his officers and attendants. 16He will want your male and female slaves and demand the finest of your cattle[1] and donkeys for his own use. 17He will demand a tenth of your flocks, and you will be his slaves. 18When that day comes, you will beg for relief from this king you are demanding, but the LORD will not help you."
19But the people refused to listen to Samuel's warning. "Even so, we still want a king," they said. 20"We want to be like the nations around us. Our king will govern us and lead us into battle."
21So Samuel told the LORD what the people had said, 22and the LORD replied, "Do as they say, and give them a king." Then Samuel agreed and sent the people home.
Here, the people reject the anarchist ideal of being ruled merely by God (the moral ideal of justice and equality), and they instead embrace the nation of Israel. They no longer wanted to live as twelve separate tribes, each tribe with dozens of politically autonomous clan units. Instead, they wanted the strength of a central government, believing that God or moral uprightness was not enough to defend them from other nations. This is similar to the ilustrado idea that military strength and not “katuwiran” would lead us to victory. For the birth of the nation-state of Israel, they sacrificed justice, they forsook God. For the birth of the nation-state that is the Philippines, we sacrificed “katuwiran,” we forsook the Spirit of 1896.
And it is because of this that I reject the nation. But having done so, who do I identify with? Who am I for?
I can identify with the oppressed, regardless of nationality. Does this sound Trotskyist?
I can identify with the oppressed of the land, while still rejecting nationhood, allowing myself to be called Filipino or to assume another nationality as a matter of convenience.
At this point, I don’t know.
But on your question of whether I am becoming or already am, I must repeat that I am becoming. Otherwise, I would stop talking. I think, it is the process of talking, or writing, that I allow myself to become. Because when I do not talk, I do not think. I just go to the office and work, never caring, never thinking, so that I may not go mad. I am a zombie when at work, because thinking would only make me think of the bigger picture. And this, as you must know, is not good for business. That I allow myself to spend time writing in this blog is my form of escape, a reminder that the day will come when the bigger picture and my place in it can be in harmony. The time when my external acts and the internal state of my loob will be as one. This is my way of not allowing myself to be swallowed by the darkness. In the end, I wish to go with God. If the nation is not with God, then to hell with the nation. My present opinion, though, is that God doesn't work well with nations. With communitites maybe, with tribes, but not with nations. God values the individual. the nation values itself over individuals. to me the nation cannot be anything else but a nation-state. and the nation-state can never go with God.
Posted at 10:32 am by bloodchilde
Permalink
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Before I proceed to engage you, let me express disagreement with some of the points you raised in your blog (bopis.dekarabaw.com) on november 2.
- you claim I “throw around the weight of my choice”? now where did you get that? I was always talking about MY choice, not yours. I don’t seem to remember telling you what to do with your life. I was merely expressing why I cannot “choose the nation.” And this is because the nation is a bloodsucking whore. At least, the way I see it. I’m not forcing you to justify anything. That I am spitting at your goddess is an unfortunate consequence of my perception, but if you insist on worshipping her, then by all means do so. I’m not stopping you. I recognize the fact that you see her in a different light and are not about to see her differently. Your choice. I neither need nor wish to hear your justification for it. I merely wanted to give you MY justification foe not choosing the nation.
- you compare me to a lover threatening suicide. You ask me, “why not just leave” if I’m so sick of the nation. To this I must reply: Have you been listening to me? Haven’t I told you that that is exactly what I plan to do, one way or another, before 2005 is up?
Now, on to engaging your point. If I were to sum up your response to my question (“why should I choose the nation?”), it seems to all boil down to one word: DEBT. Utang na loob. The farmers and the fishermen contributed to this system of labor value extraction and taxation that has allowed me to get a college education from the premiere state university. I have a debt to them.
I will not debate the reality of this debt. But excuse me for debating you on the point of to whom I owe it. you say that because the farmers and the fishermen bled for me that I owe it to the nation? You seem to be confusing the farmers and the fishermen for this idolatrous construct you call a nation. You speak as if there is a natural and moral social contract between me and the farmers because the nation took from them to give to you and me?
Let me tell you something, if the farmers and fishermen had their way, they would spend the true value of their labors on themselves and their children, not on a nation that channels the value of their labor through a system of taxation supporting a university which is a breeding ground of human resources for the state’s repressive and ideological state apparatuses that perpetuate this system of slavery. Why should I revere this “nation” because of what you and I have become?
You and I are products of a system designed to perpetuate itself and to contain dissent. It’s a mad cycle. We were in college when we heard of Philippine Studies graduates ending up as bank tellers. We were in college listening to “radical” nationalist professors spewing forth the gospel of nationalism because for some reason or another they themselves can’t make the ultimate sacrifice of joining the revolution, of dying for the “farmers and fishermen.” Instead they live through the delusion that their saliva will spur the nation’s youth into action, into living the dream they cannot live. And so they spent time with us kids who would one day end up as bank tellers and corporate employees—or university instructors preaching the same message. Like the phenomenon of the six previous versions of Neo in “The Matrix,” all our avenues for revolution have been illusion, a way of containing the true potential of radical dissent. The EDSA revolutions are one. The “revolution of the mind” in universities is another. In the meantime, generations of farmers and fishermen have been bleeding and dying for us with only some vague idea that this is the right way to go because we must all make sacrifices for
“The Nation,” thus preserving this construct founded on illusionary unity.
Here is how I view this Whore: She is an imposter.
In 1896, we broke with Mother Spain to affirm our new bond with Mother Filipinas. This is because as Procopio Bonifacio had rationalized, Mother Spain was a traitor, was in fact an imposter. The peasants revolted to bring to life our “true Mother,” but before the birth of Mother Filipinas could be completed, ilustrados like you and me corrupted her. Aguinaldo took over the reigns, formed a republican government, and banished the Katipunan and its egalitarian ideals to the periphery. The Katipunan, along with our True Mother, was buried alive. In her place, we have erected the Republic of the Philippines, the Nation. This Nations is the one that has now taken over the slavemaster’s whip once wielded by “mother Spain.” This nation is now the one responsible for the virtual slavery of “the people,” a system perpetuated through the power of capital, with the backing of foreign powers, and through the creation of human resources like you and me through state-sponsored education. “The people,” for now, are still under the illusion that they and the nation are one. This illusion is encouraged by the nation. And we lap it up, thinking we do this for “the people.”
The Nation and The People are not one. If you want me to define my loyalties, then I say that I want to be for The People. My only problem is I don’t know where to start. These two constructs may not be one, but decades of bureaucratic and ideological machinations have wound them up pretty close. Moreover, I as an entity am just as problematic. My urban poor background has allowed the Nation to feed me bourgeois desires through the media and other ideological apparatuses that preach that the power to “make it” is in our hands—the same apparatuses that displayed my picture and broadcast my story when Nathan the squatter boy ended up being valedictorian of his class and delivering the speech preaching “the gospel of solidarity.” Well, that was naïve and that was five years ago. Now I preach the gospel of chaos, of disjunction. I don’t know where to start, but I do know that we have to do something “different,” something that would break the chain, something the system can’t predict—all so that a new social consciousness can be created to bring down the tyranny of the Nation. Or perhaps it is not a matter of creating the new but of unearthing the buried. Somewhere out there is the true Mother for whom our ancestors died in 1896.
Thanks to your referring to this issue of debt, I now know that I cannot totally forsake our people. I belong to them, not to the nation. One way or another, I must find a way to pierce the illusion of nationhood that has enslaved them and me and find my part in this narrative. I’m afraid many things in my past has severely limited me in the kind of roles I can play.
You ask, “sino ka ba? Ano bang K mo?” Well I say, I am a human being, with the spark of the divine, made in the image of God, with the right to dream, the right to redemption. The same can be said of the people. But it cannot be said of the mechanical construct that is The Nation. It is nothing but an idol, a false god.
You say this is all about choice. Remember, though, that right after graduation I was looking for avenues to serve The Nation. I tried. But the last four years has revealed her true form to me. I cannot choose her. She merely wants to chew up my life an spit out the bones, the way she has devoured the lives of countless men and women who have gone before us.
And please, much as I respect the girl whose life you use to juxtapose against mine, i can trade anecdotes with you all day and it won't resolve anything. i, for one, know a doctor who like me lived a life of poverty. he studied medicine at the university philippines and learned all about nationalism. he learned it so well that he stayed in the philippines when 70% of all his batchmates already went abroad. he found passion in teaching at the university to "give back" to this nation. one year, he was awarded the honor "Best Teacher" in UP Manila. two years later, he even resigned from two consultancy jobs so he could concentrate on his passion. too bad, that was the year the university decided not to renew his contract in line with the university's new policies. after all the sweat, blood, and tears--the man was jobless, just another life spit out by the system. will you also ask him if he has "K"?
Death to the imposter, death to the whore. Long live our true Mother, the Spirit of 1896.
Posted at 10:51 am by bloodchilde
Permalink
Friday, October 29, 2004
to my dearest friend, bopis
it's about time somebody tried to talk to me to stop me from "playing chess games with myself."
my dear friend, in his blog entry dated october 29 (bopis.dekarabaw.com), has decided to reason with me. so, Pareng Dennis, let me respond to some of the points you raised.
You say:
We need to go beyond that cliche of a passive, whining Inang Bayan crying out for her sons to rush to her defense. The child (why oh why should heroism be reserved to the phallus?) must know by now that the Bayan (and why the feminine for the great collective?) is also to be her begotten.
I say:
The Inang Bayan is feminine because she is a whore. she has always acted like a whore in international politics. her entire consciousness was born of rape, shaped of rape, and now she knows no other way behaving except as a whore.
the reason why heroism should be phallic is because the language of screwing is what she understands. to the global phallic states, she is female. they screw her. but towards her children, she becomes a "he." why? because he, the Fatherland, screws us. the only people s/he doesn't screw are his/her incestous children who screw her--the elite, our economic and political leaders. she's not screwing them because they're screwing her. if anyone is to be powerful enough to stop her from whoring, it should be people who are powerful enough--phallic enough--to stop her from her whoring and to fight the rapists who are raping her and raping us.
as for the Inang Bayan as being simultaneously "mother" and "begotten," i have one word for you--"ABORTION."
You say:
At the outset, I want a basic engagement of the question of choice. The first answer that our current situation asks of us (who possess the luxury or burden of idealism, net hours, nationality, and time for Q&As) is whether we choose or a nation not. If you don't then that's it, you're out of the whole damned discussion, or, as Henares so tastelessly put it: "hasta la bye-bye!"
I say:
Exactly. I am at this point on the verge of choosing to reject the construct of nationhood. Nationality as assumed, by the way, is something that was not my choice. I was born a Filipino. I did not choose to be one. I did not choose to be burdened with the national past of rape and a national history of whoring. to be taken out of the discussion, if it means being severed from this baggage, is perhaps not so bad. i'd sooner be malaysian or thai. or canadian. definitely not american or japanese. how about new zealander? i want a past or a present i can be proud of. failing that, give me a future to look forward to. something that can be reached. something that can really happen. give me a dream.
You ask:
Who are you for?
I say:
If we take away nationhood, the bonds that remain are my personal bonds. My wife. My mother and sister. My friends. Who am I for? I am for you, brother. Nation or no nation, if someone messes up with you, I will fight for you. I guess it can be said that i still love the nation because I know that if someone messes with her, i will fight for her too. but right now, no one is messing with her. she's messing herself up. she is no longer being raped because she is in complicity with the powers to whom she is selling her soul, to whom she is selling MY soul! i refuse to be betrayed in this manner.
You say:
Only after we choose this 'nation' can we deal with it. I assert though that even with this choice, we step up against despair. We rise, so to speak. Hence it is the stamp of our time that, even by just choosing 'nation', we declare 'hindi aco patay' and infuse it with fresh meaning.
I say:
Hindi ako ang patay. How do you know that the "nation" is still alive? what if she has lost her soul and that is why she is the land of the surreal, full of sound and fury signifying nothing? then she is as good as dead. she has become nothing but a piece of meat, flesh for the sexual consumption of the powerful, phallic, and necrophiliac First World.
i know, i know, the bottomline of nation as "begotten" can still be my way to redemption. i can hate her for selling herself and selling me out, but i can make a choice to be part of a new consciousness that will take over the currently dominant one, the one in control of the state's repressive and ideological apparatuses.
but this cannot be done by a few people. this requires an overwhelming collective movement and consciousness. the question is, where do we turn? civil service is the perpetuation of it all. the business community, although claiming loyalty to the motherland, has other stronger loyalties. as much as i respect the NDF, it has been unable to take over what ileto calls "the underside of history," unable to communicate in a way that will reverberate in the national Unconscious, the way the likes of Apolinario dela Cruz and even Jose Rizal have communicated to the masses and spurred them to action. instead, the likes of Ninoy Aquino have spurred the masses to "revolutions" that have sapped their strength but did not change the relations of power in society, thereby taking away their momentum and subverting their chances of taking advantage of several crises of capitalism that could have pushed us to a socialist state and consciousness. as for identifying with the masses, even assuming that i want to identify with a culture of passive fatalism and ennui vulnerable to ilustrado manipulations, i'm afraid my bourgeois (however nationalist) education has alienated me from my urban poor roots.
yes, yes, this is all about choice. so then, my friend, give me one good reason why i should choose the nation. if it's all about choosing my friends and my enemies, well then i know who my friends are. as for enemies, if i were to, hypothetically, cut my ties from the motherland, it does not follow that the rapists will cease to become my enemies. i can leave my home, but the debts will remain and i will work so that sooner or later they wil be paid. oh yes, they will pay.
Posted at 04:11 pm by bloodchilde
Permalink
Thursday, October 28, 2004
20% of my income goes to the government. correction: it goes to the bottomless pit that is the pockets of corrupt politicians. how screwed is that?
every end of the month, you hear the same sound from people here in the office--groans. that's sad. people work their sorry asses off for a month and instead of looking forward with excitement to payday, we actually dread it.
so this is how i look at it: recently, some shmuck stole my wallet under the bridge of magallanes. that's being robbed by the poor. before that, my friends and i went to a bar called San Mig Place where we ordered beer without knowing that each bottle cost around sixty-five pesos (the pricelist for beer was not on the menu). That was being robbed by the rich, by the likes of Cojuangco and his ilk. And today, I get a paycheck worth minus twenty friggin percent of my income. Now that's being robbed by the government. There is no refuge in this country. everybody is out to rob me!
the Philippine government is blasphemous. it takes 20% from me. that's double what God asks from his worshippers! and God actually asks nicely, with promises of rewards and blessings:
"Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple. If you do," says the LORD Almighty, "I will open the windows of heaven for you. I will pour out a blessing so great you won't have enough room to take it in! Try it! Let me prove it to you! " (Malachi 3:10, New Living Translation)
GMA doesn't ask nicely. She just takes. God says, give me 10% of your income and see how I can bless you; GMA says, the government has screwed up so why don't you bless the government with your hard-earned money. How absurd is this? The National Power Corporation is in shambles, and we are forced to pay for their losses? the government has led us to a fiscal crisis because of corruption and bad decisions, and now we are enjoined to support GMA's "austerity measures?" since when is it the consumer's responsibility to bail out corrupt or incompetent companies or governments?
this isn't right! taxation isn't right. it isn't natural. we just feel it's natural because we were born into the system. but when God put us on this planet to work, i'm sure taxation was not on the agenda. God wanted us to enjoy the fruits of our labors. Instead, capitalism has alienated us from our labor by taking a huge chunk of the value of our labor to feed capital, and the government is making it worse by taking some more in order to perpetuate itself. this isn't right. this is robbery. the only thing that can justify this setup is if the government honors the social contract implicit in this system, the contract that demands that the government return the value of our sacrifices for the greater good of society in exchange for our complicity in its continued exixtence. the government should be serving us, not the other way around.
i can't believe that i'm actually saying so many cliches. but what can i do? when cliches fall on deaf ears and are unheeded, are they really cliches?
i am sick and tired of taking care of a society that has never taken care of me and has no intention of ever taking care of me! that idiot that said "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" should be hanged! oh i forget, he's dead by now having choked on his words. i swear, the next person who quotes this garbage to me will get a punch in the mouth! why should i not ask what my country can do for me? you may say, "but. bloodchilde, don't you feel any sympathy for our motherland who has been screwed by foreign powers and is still being screwed by foreign powers?" why sure, but that doesn't justify MY being screwed now by the motherland's state agents!
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
Posted at 05:28 pm by bloodchilde
Permalink
Saturday, October 23, 2004
i have recently re-read constantino, which has dampened my newfound rizal enthusiasm a bit. constantino's thesis in his writings is that we need to find or create new models for our national ideals and bonifacio better fits that model than rizal. how do i reconcile this with what i learned from ileto?
as i see it now, rizal may have been the great nexus of signs that spurred the masses (Bonifacio included) to revolution. he did this by becoming the Filipino Christ. but it should not stop us from finding or creating new models of heroism.
my only problem with this is that it's a tad artificial. the veneration of rizal that continues to this day in the communities around banahaw required no great mass media or educational campaign. Rizal the Christ struck a chord in the soul of the Filipino and that was that. is it not a bit ambitious to fight the national Uncounscious by consciously and deliberately creating new heroism? on the other hand, it can't be that hard to shape bonifacio into christ. he, like rizal, died in the hands of "the enemy." rizal just happened to die by the hands of the Spaniards. bonifacio died by the hands of the traitorous Filipino middle-class.
but hey, who am I to romanticize the masses? i lived with the urban poor most of my life and there was nothing romantic about most of it. and just this morning, someone stole my wallet under the bridge of Magallanes. can you believe it? i'm not even rich. i have five-hundred pesos till next payday and someone steals my wallet!
just when i'm starting to rediscover my love for this country, something happens to make me want to leave even more.
Posted at 10:17 am by bloodchilde
Permalink
Friday, October 22, 2004
my gratitude to jose rizal, rey ileto, and joey ayala
what was i thinking? yesterday i actualy wrote a couple of friends, telling them that i was ashamed of being a filipino and wanted to leave the country. that was crazy.
that was the kind of talk that would have never come from my lips four years ago. but four years of working in the kind of professional environment that the country has can really change an idealistic person. i have become disillusioned.
but last night i listened to a copy of joey ayala's new album, which included the single "Mi Ultimo Adios," the musical rendition of Jose Rizal's poem authored on the eve of his death. Incidentally, I have been reading Rey Ileto and his reading of how Rizal's life, not necessarily his ilustrado ideas, formed the underside of Philippine history which included the narrative of Rizal as the new Christ, Rizal as the nexus of all meaningful symbols that we Filipinos have written in our hearts--kalayaan, katarungan, pag-asa, and the coming of "panahon na!"
i was crying after that. despite my suffering, i do love this country. i realized this as i thought of rizal's final night, rizal's farewell marked by calm acceptance. i realized he died as a man at peace with himself, because he had done what he could for the motherland and he was ready to die. Rey Ileto's discourse made me realize that Rizal had to be evaluated as a hero not just with the words he penned but with the symbols he had created using the narrative of his life and his death, his emulation of Christ in order to become the Filipino Christ figure of the revolution. Joey Ayala made me want to be like Rizal. When the time of death comes, I want to be calm enough knowing I have lived my life to the full, for I would have lived serving things bigger than myself--God and for the motherland.
i'm currently applying for a scholarship. like rizal, i want to spread my wings and see what knowledge other lands has to offer. when first i started looking for scholarships, it was so i could escape. perhaps it still is true now. but rizal's poem, rey ileto's discourse, and joey ayala's music has put things in the proper perspective for me.
may God allow me to leave these shores in search of wisdom. and may God lead me to respond to the motherland when she calls me back, back into her arms.
Posted at 12:22 pm by bloodchilde
Permalink
Thursday, October 21, 2004
dear M.,
hi. kumusta ka na. happy ka ba sa iyong altrusitic work and
lifestyle, teaching the future leaders of this country? (har har, asa ka
pa. more like future single parents and unemployed bums the way this
country is going). if you are happy, good. i like for you to be
happy. siguro naman pinapaligaya kang lubos ni pareng D. if you
aren't, good pa rin. contradictions lead to decisions and
resolutions. which hopefully lead to happiness.
ako hindi happy sa trabaho o sa personal growth. pero happy ako sa
marriage. i feel secure. i feel so secure, in fact, na baka iwan ko
na muna ang asawa ko for a year or two kasi nag-aapply ako ng
scholarship abroad. pag di ako natanggap, i still plan to work
abroad. siguro susunod na lang siya later.
basta ang sumpa ko, hindi matatapos ang 2005 na narito pa rin
ako sa PIlipinas. hindi ko na kaya. feeling ko pinapatay akong
unti-unti ng Pilipinas, ako at ang mga pangarap ko. napapangitan ako
sa kanya, sa mausok niyang hangin, sa mainit niyang trapik, sa corrupt
niyang burokrasya, sa maliit ang value na perang pinapasweldo niya sa
akin, sa gahaman niyang pagkuha ng buwis mula sa dugo ko at
pawis--buwis na kung saan-saan napupunta. ayoko. ayoko na ngang
maging Pilipino. kinahihiya ko ang ating pagkabansa na bunga ng
kolonyal na panggagahasa at ngayon ay nagpapatuloy sa pagpuputa sa mga
imperyalistang lider ng global na ekonomiya. fuck that. wala lang.
i just thought, if you're wondering kung kumusta na ako, yan ang sagot
ko. not too good. can't wait to get out of this country.
but that's just me. siguro may pag-asa pa. lalo na dahil sa mga
hindi pa sumusuko. ako lang kasi, parang hindi ko na kaya. still i
hope for her recovery, this motherland of ours. sabi nga ng red sox
"we can change history...believe it."
kumusta ka na. sana masaya ka. sana masaya kayo ni D. sana
pakasal na kayo para may ball and chain na, which is great coz it
brings security. when there is no security to be found anywhere, isn't it
great when you can have absolute security with another person?
be well.
nathan
Posted at 03:45 pm by bloodchilde
Permalink
Thursday, September 30, 2004
last night i dreamt shaquille o'neal was dead. dwayne wade and pat riley were like, "holy shit! how could we have traded the core of our young team for a chance at the championship NOW, only to have our star acquisition die on us! now we have no future AND no present"
two things: either i have the third eye like my mom and sister and shaq is really gonna die, or it's a symbol of the dangers that my professional future is facing.
see, reading through columns about shaquille o'neal, i've started identifying with the big guy. he left the lakers who didn't appreciate him. i left the university of the philippines and its english department characters who constantly made me feel bad about myself. he has been working out like the devil to show them what they lost. i've kinda been planning to do the same. he says he's superman. well, i had my illusions of grandeur. frankly, despite some setbacks in my life, i still don't want to let them go. i still want to turn them into reality. i want to be superman.
i want to be superman. i have a friend now doing his PhD in Toronto. part of me envies him. i want to do what he does. i love the guy. i love him even though staying friends with him can be an exercise in massochism because i wish i was doing what he was doing. so sometimes, to ease the pain, i choose to think of us as an example of the Lex Luthor-Clark Kent archetypal friendship in the TV series SmallVille. he can be Lex--smart, powerful, etc., and I can be Clark Kent. it's like, you can do all these things, you'll be a great, great man, but i don't have to be insecure because i have superpowers.
i just don't happen to know what yet, but i'm sure i have superpowers.
if my dream of shaq's death is symbolic of the death of my professional ideals, then i shudder at the thought. much as i don't want him to die because i want him to dunk on kobe bryant and kick his ass, better him than me.
with any luck, it's nothing. shaq will reign supreme in the hardcourt. and someday, the world will be my oyster.
Posted at 05:39 pm by bloodchilde
Permalink
Monday, September 27, 2004
| Which Tarot Card Are You?" - Results: |
 |
| You are the Chariot card. The Chariot has the energy to succeed. Their ambition and drive leads them into competition, and they often come out the victor. The fast-paced energy of the chariot is met with the ability to control and lead. The Charioteer's leadership is not authoritarian but rather an attempt to bring their team to victory. The Charioteer can be obedient to those who have proven themselves in a position of leadership. Physical prowess and activity are important to the meaning of this card. Travel is found here as a journey of personal growth. Moving from one point to another in attempt to find a better place may be taken both literally and as a metaphor for the inner self. Image from: Dorothy Simpson Krause. http://www.dotkrause.com/art/tarot/tarot.htm |
Posted at 02:17 pm by bloodchilde
Permalink
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
Sex, religion, politics, culture, literature, etc. The usual. Joseph Nathan Cruz hereby marks his corner of the universe with blood...
Blood flowing is life.
Blood spilled is death.
The taking of blood is immortality.
The giving of blood is history.
The drinking of blood is a promise.
The offering of blood is redemption.
The blood of the lamb is salvation.
The blood of the prophets is revolution.
I am the bloodchilde. I am of the blood and the blood is mine.
 Free Counters
|
|
|
|
