There’s a bit of a debate going on in one of the group blogs I’ve been following. One camp seems to espouse the idea that much of our country’s present problems can be blamed on the abuses and excesses of the elite while the other stands by the belief that these problems are nothing more than the result of a flawed Filipino culture and character. I’m not really sure if that’s the crux of their debate but that is obviously one of the underlying themes.
Personally, I believe both sides have valid points. On one hand, I would agree that certain things about our culture and character tend to limit our potential for greatness. Some of us like to think that we lack imagination. Sure, we can be imaginative enough to turn old, discarded US military vehicles into jeepneys complete with shiny horse ornaments and other bling bling but we don’t seem to have the ability to realize that its design is already in need of a major adjustment if not a complete revision. I think this also has something to do with our “pwede na yan” attitude. In any case, it’s not hard to imagine how having such an attitude can lead to many problems, big and small.
On the other hand, I can also see how our elite — who, in my understanding, are those belonging to the old rich and landed families — can adversely influence how things go in this country of ours. It’s no secret many so-called public servants belong to this class and they seek and cling to power not because of a desire to serve but to protect or worse to expand their interests.
This particular notion about this country’s elite is explored or rather exposed in a report written by Greg Rushford in the July-August edition of the Far Eastern Economic Review. It’s supposedly an investigative report about the alleged feud between the Macapagal-Arroyo and Lopez families and how this decades old clan war has become a hindrance to the country’s development. From what I’ve read in a report released yesterday by Inquirer. net Rushford’s article makes for very interesting reading.
I find it particularly interesting how our elite got to be so wealthy. Obviously the source of their wealth is land. But that hardly explains it. What I want to know is how these families were able to acquire all their real estate. Was it by force, political maneuverings or by some twist of fate?
If you want a teaser of Rushford’s article go to Inquirer.net.
Trixie Cruz Angeles pointed to a book about the 77 families who have dominated the Philippines since the Spanish times. For some reason, I keep forgetting the frickin’ title.
Anyway, I have an idea that some of the wealthiest families (including that of Roxas, the Aguilars of Las Pinas, Macapagal Arroyo, Cojuancos) acquired most of their land during the revolution and World War II.
This is actually a good topic for research.
[Reply]
lpgd Reply:
July 15th, 2009 at 1:36 am
history shows us that many old rich families all over the world got their wealth not through industry but through feudalistic means.
i remember a line someone said to me a few years back: Paano naging pag-aari ng tao ang lupa eh nauna ang lupa sa tao?
just a thought.
[Reply]
I was actually paying attention to one of our history classes and remember one of our teachers saying that Priests back in the Spanish times acquired quite a bit of land. And to get ahead in the Philippines, some people trained to be priests with the ulterior motive of getting an encomienda or stewardship over large swathes of land in the colonies.
I wish we could also offer some of our politicians land on the Moon, provided that they live there.
[Reply]
Actually the Macapagal family isn’t part of the “elite.” Diosdado Macapagal was indeed “the poor man from Lubao” because indeed he was poor and his diligence got him up there.
On the other hand, the Tuason family (First Gentleman Arroyo’s mother’s family) is part of the land-owning elite. They owned a large chunk of what later became Quezon City as Diliman and certain nearby areas were owned by that clan.
I do think it is unfair when people keep saying that GMA is from the land-owning elite. She’s not. Her husband is.
A lot of land-ownership came about in the American times when the USA basically took Church-owned land and made it available for private ownership by individuals, when previously a lot of the land was owned by the Spanish Crown, and under the encomienda system, placed under the stewardship of the Church or the tutelage (but not ownership) of people who were expected to guide the people to become better Christians.
When the Americans seized such land and wanted the land taken over by private individuals, the members of the upper classes who were more sophisticated about Law and were better informed used this information to their advantage. The less educated/less informed poorer people unfortunately couldn’t take advantage of this because they were beaten to it by the better educated elites.
[Reply]
lpgd Reply:
July 21st, 2009 at 7:04 am
ah yes. thanks for the clarification informer. should have been clearer about that. thanks for visiting.
[Reply]