CORDI101 PDF - Indigenous Peoples, Land Rights & Heritage

Module 1 Topic 2 1 MODULE 1 – TAWID KORDILYERA Topic 2: Heritage as a process Key Concepts to Understand land as respect and recognition for culture land as opportunity land as security Excerpt: Young, S. (2020). Indigen...

Module 1 Topic 2 1 MODULE 1 – TAWID KORDILYERA Topic 2: Heritage as a process Key Concepts to Understand land as respect and recognition for culture land as opportunity land as security Excerpt: Young, S. (2020). Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Rights: Troubling Subjects. NY: Routledge. Self-determination in UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). As Engle has argued, the 1993 Draft Declaration Article 3 recognized self- determination as continuing the processes of formal decolonization, rather than a liberalized, democratic human rights understanding.... Article 4 declares that the exercise of Indigenous Peoples’ (IPs) self-determination is a ‘right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal or local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions’. It restricts self-determination to internal self-governing and funding as they see fit. Article 46 contains a territorial integrity clause, which traditionally legitimates internal colonialism by preventing secessionist movements or claims to ‘external’ sovereignty … These additions to UNDRIP reframe self-determination as a democratizing concept, a ‘continuing right of all peoples’, who may self-govern, internally develop and decolonize themselves. It could mean that self-determination ‘is met whenever the government is elected in free and fair elections by universal suffrage and in a secret ballot’. … FPIC in UNDRIP. …, UNDRIP recognizes Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) but the intention, according to Chávez, was not to recognize a veto.... Articles 10, 11(2), 29(2) and 28(1) use the obligatory legal word ‘shall’, as in ‘Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands’ without their FPIC, or states ‘shall provide redress’ for ‘property taken’ without their FPIC. More permissive language is in articles 19 and 32(2). They declare that ‘[s]tates shall consult and cooperate in good faith … in order to obtain their [FPIC]’. Each article employs an obligatory legal term, ‘shall’, but as an obligation to consult and cooperate in order to obtain FPIC, rather than an obligation to obtain FPIC. …, … FPIC as part of a state’s ‘duty to consult’, … The foundations of Indigenous peoples’ FPIC. …, Francisco de Vitoria’s and Bartolomé de las Casas’s acknowledgments of native sovereignty are the international legal bases for Indigenous peoples’ FPIC. …, when European and Indigenous peoples began interacting they exhibited ‘equal weight [and] something akin to a genuine rights-based conception of consent emerges’. Those early moments of equality existed only briefly, because non-equal interpretation, enforcement, and implementation were imposed through what Doyle calls a ‘rights constraining colonial legal doctrine’. In the rights-constraining colonial era, Europeans took advantage of inequalities ‘in power, manifested through the use of force, coercion, and legal subterfuge’, to unilaterally define ‘consent’. Because the ‘consent’ requirement had been unilaterally determined by states, the relationship between Indigenous peoples and states had been ‘one based on power and dominance’ as opposed ‘to one premised on equality and consent’. Doyle then contrasts the rights-constraining colonial era with the contemporary human rights-granting era. It is crucial, under Doyle’s account, that ‘indigenous peoples’ claims to ancestral territories [are] within a rights-based perspective’, as a ‘rights-  Module 1 Topic 2 2 based framework grounds indigenous peoples’ self-government and land rights in a nondiscriminatory approach’ within their own systems. As such, proper recognition of Indigenous rights ‘draws on indigenous perspectives on law and justice and is premised on indigenous control over its realization’. Doyle … argues that a proper understanding of FPIC as a natural right stems from Indigenous peoples’ own rights to self-determination and sovereignty. Hence, proper implementation of FPIC requires the content and processes of consent to be determined by Indigenous peoples, so that they can define it and implement it in ways that manifest their natural self-determination. Doyle argues that Indigenous peoples are sovereign peoples with a right of self-determination, which is natural law … Indigenous peoples’ FPIC reaches a tipping point. Another issue with FPIC’s status is that neither the laws of Indigenous peoples nor the multiple sources that recognize FPIC are, under the international law traditional sources doctrine, traditional and accepted sources of public international law. As described above, the problem with UNDRIP and other international human rights instruments is that they do not legally obligate states to obtain Indigenous peoples’ FPIC. Doyle solves this problem by pointing to FPIC’s ‘tipping point’. According to Doyle, ‘we appear to be witnessing the crystallization of the norm of FPIC at the international level …, Doyle explains that Indigenous peoples reasserted their natural rights in international law, the rights were dispersed throughout that order, and states will be required to recognize those rights. Under this theory, FPIC’s momentum began when it was adopted in ILO Convention No. 169. Between Convention No. 169 and UNDRIP, the UN treaty bodies, …, Special Rapporteurs, and regional human rights bodies began articulating FPIC to protect Indigenous peoples and their territories, livelihoods, and rights. When the General Assembly endorsed UNDRIP, it affirmed that ‘indigenous peoples are vested with a right to self- determination’ and connected it to FPIC through the Declaration’s content and conceptual framing. Recognition of the requirement for FPIC also extends beyond the human rights legal framework and is exhibited by its uptake by multilateral development banks, international finance institutions, industry actors, NGOs, voluntary initiatives, and Indigenous peoples’ organizations. Because UN Member States have overwhelmingly approved UNDRIP and a diverse range of institutions and actors have adopted FPIC, …, there is a ‘jurisprudential trend towards affirming a requirement for FPIC in order to constrain state power to infringe on indigenous peoples’ enjoyment of their rights in the context of resource extraction projects impacting on their well-being or territories’. Thus, …, the numerous recognitions of FPIC are intertwined and evolving to provide Indigenous peoples with the ability to define for themselves what self-determination, sovereignty, and development mean to them.... Doyle writes: For indigenous peoples to be free to exercise their right to self-determination a ‘philosophical space’ within which they can continue to construct their own perspectives and worldviews is essential. The requirement for FPIC can facilitate the preservation or creation of these philosophical spaces … If this is realized, indigenous peoples will have the freedom to imagine their own futures, secure in the knowledge that they will have the physical spaces and the control over them necessary to translate these visions into reality.  Module 1 Topic 2 3 Click the given site to watch the documentary film, "Making Monkey Business:" Building Company/Community Dialogue in the Philippines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBhJ-FdrCu4 The following should guide you in appreciating the film: 1. identify the grievances of the communities affected by the Ambuklao and Binga Dams 2. tangible cultural heritage that was lost and impact of the loss on the community’s food security and sovereignty 3. indigenous perception of land 4. initial challenges to the collaborative negotiation and how these were overcome 5. factors of successful collaborative negotiation 6. land as respect and recognition for culture, opportunity, and security 7. win-win resolution of the issues Reflection Heritage as a process and democracy Aspirations and concerns of indigenous people that are similar to the aspirations and concerns of the Filipino people in general Lessons learned that you can apply to your personal life and future career  Module 2 Topic 1 1 MODULE 2 – COLONIAL IDEOLOGY OF “DIVIDE AND RULE” Topic 1: Ethnic Classification Key Concepts to Understand Igorrotes Indio infieles labeling theory majority-minority Table 1 is lifted from IFAD’s (2012) list of the indigenous cultural communities in the Philippines. The list may not be complete since some ethnolinguistic groups have their respective subgroups and surfacing subgroups wanting to be recognized as distinct groups. Table 1 List of indigenous people in the Cordillera Ethno-linguistic Group Location of Domains Eastern Bontok (Balangao, Tonglayan, Sakki, Mt. Province Madukayan, Barlig) Central Bontok (Bontok, Sadanga, Alab) Mt. Province Isneg Apayao, Ilocos Norte Tinggian (Adasen, Binongan, Ilaud or Itneg, Masadiit, Abra Banao, Gubang, Mabaka, Maeng, Mayudan, Danak) Northern Kankanaey (Kankanaey, Iyaplay/Applai) Mountain Province Kankanaey Ibenguet Benguet Kalanguya Benguet, Ifugao Karao Benguet Mandek-ey Benguet Ibaloy Benguet,Baguio City, Pangasinan Ayangan Ifugao Ifugao Ifugao Tuwali Ifugao Kalinga (Banao, Mabaka, Salegseg, Guilayon, Kalinga, Apayao Cagaluan, Guinaang, Balatoc, Lubuagan, Malbong, Naneng, Taloctok, Mangali, Lubo, Tinglayan, Tulgao, Butbut, Basao, Dacalan, Sumadel, Dananao) Apayao Kalinga, Apayao Bago La Union, Ilocos Sur  Module 2 Topic 1 2 Origins and Migration Anongos (2023) opined that Central Cordillera was peopled by migrants. He further argued that: [T]he earliest are the Negritos whose descendants are still found in Apayao and Abra. A major migration after was the Austronesian movement from Taiwan to the Philippines, which occurred between 4000 B.C, and 1000 A.D. (Bellwood, 1985). All people in the Cordillera Central, except the Negrito descendants, descended from the Austronesian migrants (Reid, 2018). … the linguistic relations of the different languages in the Cordillera, indicating diversions in the Austronesian language overtime. Austronesian movements within northern Luzon are unclear but Keesing (1962) writes that Ibaloys are descendants of the migrants from Pangasinan, while the Kankanaeys of Benguet and Mountain Province, the Bontoks, and Tingguians came from Ilocos. Isneg came from coastal Cagayan. Southern Apayao and Kalinga came from the lower Chico River on the border of Kalinga and Cagayan. Mining activities explain the movement to Lepanto area and Itogon in pre-Spanish times. Others moved to the mountains of Cordillera as “runaways,” or to avoid Spanish rule, such as the case of Isneg in Apayao, some Tingguians in Abra, as well as Kalinga and Ifugao in the east (Keesing, 1962). Other studies argue based on linguistic similarities that Kankanaey, Bontok, and Ifugao entered Luzon by the Cagayan River and remained together in some way until they arrived at the Chico River, which the Kankanaey-Bontoc subgroup followed, while Ifugao continued along the Cagayan river and established themselves first in the Magat region before following Alimit and Ibulao rivers (Lambrecht, n.d.). … At the time of Spanish arrival, highlander territories extended to the lowlands of today’s Nueva Vizcaya, Cagayan, Isabela, Pangasinan, La Union, and Ilocos. Highlanders were scattered as numerous and autonomous villages, a condition the Spaniards described later as “tribus independientes.” Anongos’s narrative finds support in Castro’s anthropological study that was cited by Doyo (2015), who emphasized that: Prior to the coming of the colonizers, …, the cultures of the lowlanders were not very different from that of their counterparts in the hinterlands. Based on early Spanish chronicles, the Visayans of the sixteenth century wore G-strings, tattooed their bodies, and engaged in endemic warfare just like the Kalingas of the twentieth century. Thus, colonization can be considered as the trigger process that brought about the dichotomy of the Filipinos into the "majority" and "minorities." Those who have been acculturated to the ways of the colonizers have become the majority while those who have managed to resist Westernization have become the "minority." Specific to the Cordillera, the peoples in the area became distinct from the rest of society because they were successful in thwarting Spanish incursions into the area. While the Spaniards managed to establish politico-military districts in Lepanto and Amburayan, these were short-lived due to continuous Igorot revolts.  Module 2 Topic 1 3 On the other hand, the neighboring Ilocanos and Pangasinenses succumbed to Spanish colonial rule. Prior to the latter's hispanization, the lifestyles/culture of the Ilocanos and the Pangasinenses were no different from those of the Cordillerans. Linguistically, for example, the Ilocano language is closer to Kankanaey than the latter is to Ifugao. Similarly, the Pangasinan language is more related to Ibaloy than the latter is to Bontok. Moreover, there is anthropological evidence indicating that the Ibaloys and Pangasinenses had a common ancestry. The Ibaloys trace their origins to Lingayen Gulf, but the group traveled upward to the Cordillera during the prehistoric period by following the Agno River." The link between the upland Ibaloys and the lowland Pangasinenses was severely curtailed, however, during the Spanish colonial period. Thus, it is not an exaggeration to say that the present Pangasinenses are basically Igorots who have been hispanized. Ethnic Classification under Spanish Colonialism Based on the preceding discussions, the people of the Cordillera descended from migrants from the surrounding coastal territories of northern Luzon. Their identities were primarily geographical identities or based on the villages where they resided. Anongos (2023) noted that” [T]here was no systematic identification of ethnic groupings during the Spanish rule but scattered classifications during this period were consolidated in the works of Blumentritt (1890) who listed 36 ‘tribes’ of Northern Luzon, around 29 of which are found within the Cordillera. These include, among others, Igorrotes, Busaos, Panuipuy, Mayoyaos, Ifugaos, Gaddanes, Itetepanes, Guinaanes, Calingas, Tinguianes, Apayaos, Ilamut, and Ileabanes. The Jesuit mission of Manila also came up with a list of 26 tribes in Northern Luzon, with around 10 from the Central Cordillera (Worcester, 1906) In general, though, Spaniards adopted geographic identifications, which they apparently learned from lowlanders, such as Ygolottes1 (gold traders-Benguet, Kayan, Ifugao), Tingguianes (Abra, Ifugao), and Mandaya (Apayao). Ygolotte, which was later respelled as Igorrotes, was consistently applied to Benguet people, particularly the Ibaloy, but was also used on other and all people of the Cordillera region. The term literally means “people from the mountain” in an old Malay language. Tingguians, from an old Malay word tinggi meaning “high” or “elevated,” also persisted as a group label for Itneg-speaking people of Abra. Mandaya literally means “those up above” and was applied to some Apayao groups (Scott, 1987). From a geographic classification, the Spaniards later adopted labels indicating how they perceived the level of civilization of the Igorrotes like infieles (pagans) and salvajes (savages) which were used against those who refused to be assimilated into their Christian civilization (they were later on called the cultural minority while the Christianized Filipinos are called the majority), live in the reducciones (villages), and submit to their political rule. It is through these labels that the term Igorrotes earned a negative connotation. 1 Notice that the term has no negative connotation when it was first used by the Spaniards as a label for a geographic identity.  Module 2 Topic 1 4 The Resulting Ethnic Divide and Stereotype In explaining the resulting majority-minority divide, Doyo (2015) posited that [T]hose who have been acculturated to the ways of the colonizers have become the “majority” while those who have managed to resist Westernization have become the "minority." Buendia (1987) adds that: In the process of colonialism, the Spaniards to rule effectively, steadily divided the Filipino people. The lowlanders were conscripted as soldiers in the punitive expeditions waged by the colonizers against the Igorots. The divide-and-rule tactics institutionalized by the Spanish conquistadores thus laid the foundation for the wedge between the Filipino majority and the indigenous national minorities. As the colonized people modified their native customs under foreign domination, i.e. attending mass, paying taxes, obeying Spanish laws, going to war when the government said so, the Igorots of northern Luzon continued to resist Spanish assimilation and refused to submit to foreign domination. The existence of two types of Filipinos led the Spaniards to categorize our people into two - the submissive and the unsubmissive, the faithful and the faithless, the good and the bad. The Igorots belonged to the latter group, while the former were called the Indios. Towards the end of the Spanish colonial rule and even towards the direct rule of succeeding colonial masters in the country.. the Indios adapted more of their conqueror's culture and ways of life. In the process, they became more and more like each other and less and less like their ancestors. Conversely, the Igorots, together with the other freedom-loving Filipinos, preserved more of the culture of their ancestors and came to look less and less like their acculturating neighbors. In this way a cultural minority was created who retained their traditional lifestyles. Another negative consequence of the Spanish colonial rule is the undying or pervasive stereotype against the Igorots. Negative labeling was effectively used by the Spaniards to divide the Filipino people and which division aided their colonial rule for 333 years. Understood from the lens of labeling theory, the authority of the Spanish colonizers lends credence to the negative labels they used against the Igorrotes. The purpose of the negative labels was to stigmatize and discredit the target group. The long-term effect of this stigmatizing process is to lock the target group into that negative image, close off legitimate opportunities, and erode the trust of other people in them (Giddens, 1992). Bacdayan (2001) explains that: [T]he negative stereotyping of the Igorot which is at the root of the ambivalence toward him in Philippine society at large, is a legacy of colonialism, particularly Spanish colonialism. Records of early colonial Filipino society do not reveal any ill will and radical cultural separation between lowlanders and highlanders. There apparently was free and easy movement through trade between the two groups relating to equals. There were cultural similarities: head taking, family organization, animism, and use of the breechclout or G-string. Highlanders making extensive contacts with lowlanders today,  Module 2 Topic 1 5 especially in rural areas, are often amazed by the similarities of some superstitious and magical folk beliefs the two groups share. The rich common cultural ground was largely forgotten as the negative stereotype developed. It grew out of the frustrating inability of the Spaniards, helped wittingly or unwittingly by their Hispanized lowlander allies, to impose their will, their religion, and their law, on the technologically and politically simple indigenous societies of the Gran Cordillera Central. The stereotype was well entrenched in the conventional wisdom and mind-set of the lowland Christian population by the end of Spanish rule in 1898, surviving into the period of American colonial rule and on to this day. … The first statement of the Spanish anti-Igorot view was occasioned by the efforts of the governor general to legitimize the launching of the first major expedition in 1618 to search for the mines from whence the Igorots got their gold. The Spaniards got wind of these gold mines shortly after establishing Spanish authority at Cebu in 1565. Since the return of Juan Salcedo to Manila in 1572 from his expedition to the Ilocos which established the existence of these gold mines, Igorot gold had come to be seen by the crown as a lucrative source of revenue. Thus, when the royal treasury was depleted by the Thirty Years War, the King sent a Royal Order on December 19, 1618 to the governor general in Manila commanding him to go after the Igorot gold with all due speed and by whatever means he thought best, including offering economic incentives to participants in the effort and enlisting the help of the religious orders. An expedition to expropriate Igorot gold was in order! Appreciating that the Igorots would resist such an undertaking and perhaps feeling awkward about striking the first blow, the governor-general convened a conclave of theologians to consider and decide whether or not a war against the Igorots was a “just war.” The charges against the Igorots were that they were “highwaymen, bandits, and murderers who killed for purposes of revenge, robbery, intimidation or extortion and mutilated the bodies of their victims.” Further, it was charged that “they prevented other Filipinos from becoming Christians, kidnapped baptized children to be raised as pagans and gave refuge to ex-convicts, lawbreakers and delinquents. Worst of all they prevented innocent passage to Spanish vassals from one area under Spanish jurisdiction to another.” … Most likely reflecting their experience with the Igorots in the foothills of the Cordillera such as northern Pangasinan, La Union, Ilocos Sur and Ilocos Norte, rather than in the Cordillera proper, the image portrayed is interesting in being already so negative so early. … In any event, the list may have been considered validated and added to by the experiences of the three or four gold-seeking expeditions that followed. The first one lost the heads of two lowlanders who wandered off from camp at Boa, and the commander was laughed at when he started to ask the people to become vassals of the King and to accept Christianity. The second expedition was tricked into thinking that the Igorots wanted peace, only to be attacked when supplies ran low, necessitating that the expedition’s survivors run for dear life. The third one managed to find some mines but failed to get gold because working them ran away, staying beyond musket  Module 2 Topic 1 6 range, shouting at and deriding the expedition. In any event, the ores tested were of poor quality. So the disheartened force withdrew. In his report the leader of this last expedition expressed the view that Igorots are dumb and stupid and are wont to be treacherous. The final gold-seeking expedition also did not get any cooperation from the people who had pretended friendship. … These attributes were to be further reinforced in the course of the subsequent efforts of the Spaniards to induce the highlanders to join the Hispanized society that was rapidly evolving and solidifying in the lowlands through what is called reduccion – Christian converts to settle in a town where religious instruction and supervision and where town life would be guided by rules and duly constituted authorities. … It is not surprising that concerts became the enemies of those who remained true to the original animistic faith and culture. Attacks on the towns of the “reduced” were not uncommon. Apostasy or reversion to animism with the apostates turning on and killing those who remained faithful Christians was experienced in Kalinga, Ifugao, the Magat area, in Aritao and elsewhere. Igorots also feigned conversion and willingness to pay tribute to put off the invaders and then reverted to the old ways when conditions turned favorable. … It is arguable that the lowland Filipino had a more deep-seated visceral or emotional response to the Igorots than did the Spaniards. Although the incredible resistance of the Igorots to religious and political subjugation hurt Spanish pride as well as cost them some lives, it was lowland society that bore the brunt of the Igorot resistance. The Spanish forces consisted mostly of soldiers and civilian auxiliary personnel recruited from the ranks of Hispanized lowland Filipino groups – Pangasinenses, Ilocanoes, Pampangoes and Tagalogs. Quite naturally most of the casualties of the long and protracted anti-Igorot campaigns would have been from these groups. Therefore, the families – wives, children and relatives – that suffered the anguish of the loss of loved ones at the hands of the Igorots for centuries were mostly lowland Filipino families especially from the aforementioned groups. Given the lowlanders’ expectation that the Igorot should be subject to Spanish Authority as they were, and should surrender his territory, his religion and way of life to the invaders, it was logical for them to blame Igorot bloodthirstiness, recalcitrance and unreasonableness for their losses rather than their Spanish governors. Most likely no thought was ever given to the perspective that to the Igorots the invasion of their homes and villages was a life and death situation. The negative beliefs and attitudes toward the Igorots, forged and nurtured throughout the long years of conflict, eventually became a deeply imprinted mindset among the lowlanders. Subsequent developments starting with the American period which resulted in ever-widening avenues of contact between the lowlanders and the mountaineers by and large failed to shake those attitudes. … Ethnic Classification under American Colonialism In comparing the Spanish and American colonial rule, Doyo (2015) concluded that: The American colonizers also employed the divide-and-rule strategy against the Filipinos. They encouraged and reinforced the mistrust of the minorities in the lowland  Module 2 Topic 1 7 Christian groups. Thus, the cultural differences between the Cordillerans and the lowlanders were maintained and, to a certain extent, even institutionalized. Of course, the Cordillerans also benefited from this policy by being able to preserve their indigenous culture. As regards the contribution of America to ethnic classification in the Philippines, Fry (2006, as cited in Anongos, 2023) mentioned the creation of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes (BNCT) the aim of which was “to investigate the actual conditions of the pagan and Moslem peoples and to conduct a scientific investigation regarding the ethnology of the Philippines” The accomplishment of the BCNT is summarized by Anongos (2023), as follows: Studies conducted under the BCNT and later the Ethnological Survey did not contradict earlier Spanish and other European observations about the highlander. In general, the people of the region were perceived to be “less civilized” and culturally as well as racially distinct. Ethnic classification of Philippine population was also formalized under the BCNT and Ethnological Survey, the results adopted by the 1903 Philippine Census. The head of the bureau, David Barrows, disregarded the Blumentritt classification and went on to identify only one ethnic group (Igorot) in the Cordillera region. This Igorot group is made up of different sub-groups including Gaddang, Dadayag, Kalinga, Banao, Bontoc Igorot (Ipukao), Bunnayan, Silipan, Mayoyao, Tingguians, Kankanay, and Nabiloi. The use of Igorot for all Cordillera people by Barrows is a departure from earlier association of the term with Benguet people. And because Igorot as “tribal” name was used for all inhabitants of Cordillera Central in the 1903 Census, it was formally recognized as a label. By this time also the Igorot identity was already mired with negative meanings being associated with backwardness, savagery and paganism, a connotation the American ethnology did not attempt to contest. In 1906, Dean Worcester, who was Secretary of Interior and member of the Philippine Commission, questioned Barrows’ classification and asserted his own to include Kalingas, Ifugaos, Bontoc Igorot, Lepanto-Bontoc Igorot, and Tinggians. Notice that Worcester applied the label Igorot only to Bontoc, Lepanto, and Benguet, acknowledging that he included Bontoc as Igorot because he could not find any appropriate classification for them. Apayao people were not also included in the list but were presented as part of Kalinga or Tingguian group (Worcester, 1906). Worcester’s classification clearly defined the administrative division of the newly formed Mountain Province in 1908, and influenced later ethnic classifications. Ethnological studies from UP Diliman headed by Otley Beyer adopted Worcester’s list of “tribes” but corrected the application of Igorot back to Kankanaey and Ibaloy. Beyer also added Apayao and Gaddang as distinct ethnographic groups (Beyer, 1917), this list and Beyer’s categorization of Philippine population as Negrito, Indonesian, and Malay were included in the 1918 Philippine Census.  Module 2 Topic 1 8 Table 1 Beyer’s ethnographic groups in Central Cordillera Ethnographic Languages Groups Apayao Apayao or Isneg Bontok Bontok/ Kadaklan-Barlig/ Tnglayan/ Dananao- Bangad Gaddang Gaddang/ Yogad/ Maddukayang or Kalibugan/ Katalangan/ Iraya Ifugao Pure Ifugao, or Kiangan/ Sub-Ifugao, or Silipan. Lagaui Igorot Kankanai/ Baukok/ Malaya/ Inibaloi/ I-waak Kalinga Dadayag/ Kalagua or Kalaua/ Nabayugan/ Mangali-Lubo/ Lubuagan/ Sumadel/ Gina-an Tinggian Itneg or Tinggian Source: Beyer (1917, as cited in Anongos, 2023) Beyer’s ethnolinguistic groupings remained unchanged up to the end of American rule as evidenced in the recognition of the same group in the 1938 and 1948 Philippine Censuses. Under US rule, Igorots were also assigned other tags such as “Non-Christians,” “tribes,” “headhunters,” “savages,” and “wild,” a continuation of Spanish labeling. The creation of the BCNT was itself revealing of American categorizations. American officials explained that the use of the term non-Christian is not purely along religion but more cultural and historical, to refer to those who cling to their indigenous culture and refuse to submit to Spanish-American ways. The assignation of “tribal” was also something tentative and misused as there really were no tribal boundaries, nor did Igorots fight tribal wars or claim descent from common tribal ancestors. American officials acknowledged that Igorot groups do not qualify as tribes. Tribe was simply used for the absence of a better word to indicate distinct cultural and linguistic identities. Doyo (2015) adds that: While the country gained formal independence from the Americans in 1946, many of the colonial policies vis-a-vis indigenous peoples were continued by the Philippine state. The former BCNT established by the Americans was transformed into the Commission on National Integration (CNI) which, as its name suggests, aimed to integrate the national minorities into the mainstream of society. This would imply that the minorities were  Module 2 Topic 1 9 considered as "deviants" from what Filipino culture "ought to be," that is, the same as the culture of the lowland Christian groups. The Philippines was projected as the only Christian nation in Asia. Thus, to be non-Christian was "un-Filipino." Based on the preceding narratives, three layers of identity developed over time: geographic location, level of “civilization,” and ethnolinguistic groupings. Reflections: The stereotype used against your ethnolinguistic group and how you managed it. Label against your ethnolinguistic group you wish to clarify and rectify.  Module 2 Topic 2 1 MODULE 2 - COLONIAL IDEOLOGY OF “DIVIDE AND RULE” Topic 2: Political Division Key Concepts to Understand EO 220 militarization PANAMIN PD 01 SIPAT The fourth layer of Cordillera identity is based on political affiliation (Anongos, 2023). This layer resulted from the political creation and later a series of divisions of Mountain Province. Doyo (2015) remarked that: The Americans were able to consolidate their political control in the Cordillera with the establishment by the Philippine Commission of the Mountain Province in 1908. This new province, with Bontoc as the provincial capital, had seven (7) sub-provinces: Benguet, Amburayan, Lepanto, Ifugao, Bontoc, Kalinga, and Apayao. There was a governor for the entire province and one lieutenant governor for each sub-province. Florendo (as cited in Angnged, 2019) observed that: Most of the Americans who were sent to the Cordillera were designated rank of lieutenant governor who were in charge of the governance in the sub-provinces of the Mountain Province. The more familiar ones are: John C. Early (Amburayan), Norman Conner (Apayao), Elmer Eckman (Bontoc) J.H. Evans (Benguet) and Walter Hale (Kalinga), Charles Nathorst and Willima Dosser”. In 1920, a boundary realignment was done, and the effect on cultural identity is described by Anongos (2023) to have: caused identity adjustments for some. Alilem, Amburayan, and Lepanto were dissolved and boundaries between Mountain Province and the lowland provinces were redefined. Consequently, Tagudin and other parts of Lepanto and Alilem were added to Ilocos Sur (Act No. 2877, 1920). Much later, Langagan and Allacapan were transferred to Cagayan. It is from these boundary changes that placed many people in units outside of their cultural connections. Some of these have been labeled as Bago but continue to align themselves with their Kankanaey roots. The boundary rearrangements came a few years after the implementation of the Jones Law in 1916. The Jones Law allowed for the Filipinization of numerous government positions. As a result, the upper house (Philippine Commission) gave way to an all-Filipino senate. Non-Christian provinces were given special representation in both senate and the lower house, and Mountain Province was represented at different times by Juan Carino and Henry Kamora of Benguet sub-province, Rafael Bulayungan and Joaquin Codamon of Ifugao sub-province, Clemente Irving, Hilary Clapp, Rodolfo Hidalgo, and Felix Diaz of Bontoc sub-province. The BNCT was also revived not as a research arm but as an administrative office in charge of all non-Christians. This was placed under the control of Philippine legislature. For the first time, Mountain Province was, therefore, under the direct supervision of Filipinos through the BCNT. Joaquin Luna, from La Union, became its first Filipino governor. At the end of the American colonial rule, science and census have already classified the people of the Cordillera Central according to perceived cultural and linguistic features. Despite clarification in ethnological works, the term Igorot, and all its bad connotations, continued to be applied to the general population. Such unfavorable connotations were translated into prejudices and discrimination when Igorots encountered outsiders. Some lowlanders, particularly, have looked down with contempt upon Igorots, and discriminated against educated natives. Customs, usages, and traditions associated with Igorotness have also been despised, even by lowlander officials and employees of Mountain Province. The term Igorot, which was reportedly used by lowlanders to frighten or reprove their children, has by this time become an  Module 2 Topic 2 2 opprobrium (Keesing, 1934). By the 1930s, Igorot themselves developed a growing aversion to the term that an alternative label, “mountaineer,” has become more acceptable. An Igorot organization of professionals that called itself BIBKA, which stands for Benguet, Ifugao, Bontoc, and Kalinga-Apayao, preferred the term “native” over “Igorot” (Finin, 2005). … Schooled Igorot tried their luck in employment, which placed them against outsiders and in the course of such felt discriminated (Finin, 2005). Apparently, such different treatment of Igorots stemmed, not from intellectual inferiority, but from their being Igorot and all the negative connotations attached to it. In 1958, a bill was proposed by Congressman Luis Hora prohibiting the use of “Igorot” in printed materials. The bill supported the use of “highlander” but failed to progress into law. Highlander students in Baguio responded to the discrimination by organizing themselves, exemplified by the BIBAK (Benguet-Ifugao-Bontoc-Apayao-Kalinga) organization that unified students from all corners of the region. BIBAK allowed cultural expressions for the students, becoming the sanctuary of highlander students in Baguio and nearby tertiary schools. Alternative labels were also raised to replace “Igorot” such as “mountaineer,” “native,” and “highlander,” but these were adopted individually according to one’s liking. Mountain Province was subdivided into four (4) new provinces in 1966. This division created Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga-Apayao, and a new Mountain Province, which covered the Bontoc territory. It was believed that a division would bring the administration closer to the people. The proposal was not, however, new as Benguet leaders have been pushing for this action early on. They felt that Benguet holds the economic burden for the whole province because it hosts key and productive industries like mines (Fry, 2006). Doyo (2015) added that “[L]arge portions of the former sub-provinces of Amburayan and Lepanto were ceded to Ilocos Sur and La Union while the rest was divided between Benguet and Mountain Province.” Partitioning the Cordillera During the Martial Law period, former president Marcos, Sr. enacted laws through presidential decrees (PD), one of which was PD No. 1 of 1972 resulting in the regionalization of the Philippines, that is, provinces were grouped into regions. In the Cordillera, Mountain Province and Benguet were placed under Region I together with the Ilocos provinces. On the other hand, Ifugao and Kalinga-Apayao were placed under Region II together with Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, and Quirino. In relation to the partition’s effect on regional identity, Anongos (2023) commented that: [the] “subdivision threatened a regional identity developed earlier. Under these separations, what kept regional affiliations among the highlanders was a historical similarity and a common label of being a cultural minority. The contentious “Igorot” label remained acceptable to others but the political division killed the spread of such acceptance. Meanwhile, scholars continue to iron out ethnic classification in the Philippines. For Cordillera Central, an authoritative map by Robert Fox and Elizabeth Flory prepared in 1974 named 12 groups with Balangao, I’wak, Ikalahan, and Amduntog Atipulo being added to Beyer’s list of 1916. The use of “Igorot” as an ethnic classification disappeared in this work and other works including the government censuses In explaining the partitioning of the Cordillera, Doyo (2015) claimed that:  Module 2 Topic 2 3 The splitting of the Cordillera was in line with the government's strategy of treating the region as resource areas for Ilocos and the Cagayan Valley. Because of this, there was dissatisfaction among the Cordillerans that development thrusts in northern Luzon were primarily geared towards the lowland areas while the Cordillera itself has largely remained underdeveloped. And what resources are there in the Cordillera region that can be tapped for the development of the two regions? Buendia (1987) provides the answer: The whole area of Cordillera is rich in natural resources. Its mountains used to be thickly forested before commercial logging corporations denuded much of the forests. Its mossy pine, and hardwood forests provide the backdrop of many plants and animal species and likewise serve as watersheds for great rivers and waterways which flow from the uplands down to the lowlands. Aside from land, forests, and rivers, mineral resources have been bountiful. Among the metallic resources found in ‘different parts' of the Cordillera are gold, silver, copper, zinc, molybdenum, manganese, cadmium, tellurium, iron, and chromite. Among the non-metallic resources found are limestones, pyrite, silica, cement, clay, coal, guano phosphates, gravel and stones. 'Uranium, on the other hand, has recently been discovered in Monggayang, Kiangan, and oil has been reported in Natonin-Paracelis area and other parts of the Cordillera. In 1995, RA 7878 was enacted and resulted in the separation of Kalinga and Apayao as distinct provinces. (Anongos, 2023) Reviving a Regional Identity The enumerated natural capital of the Cordillera made it an easy victim of development aggression, that is, development projects were planned and implemented by the national government in violation of the IP’s rights. However, the issue of development aggression was a unifying element among the varied ethnolinguistic groups in the region. Anongos (2023) provides the historical foundation of the movement that sought an acceptable and unifying regional identity for the varied ethnolinguistic groups in the Cordillera region. Chico river runs through Mountain Province and Kalinga. In 1973, the National Power Corporation (NPC) began its survey of a planned dam along this river. The plan was to build four dams from Sabangan in Mountain Province to Tabuk in Kalinga. The project, which did not care to secure any consent from the affected areas, was opposed by communities directly affected by the dam construction. Locals dismantled camps of the exploration group and petitioned government agencies and Malacanang to discontinue the dam. In response, the government used a new office called Presidential Assistant on National Minorities (PANAMIN) in an attempt to stop the opposition. PANAMIN took over the functions of the CNI as overseer of the national minorities. During the Chico controversy, PANAMIN distributed goods and money to affected areas and facilitated meetings with government authorities. It also offered similar scholarship grants to selected students as the CNI did earlier. When the strategy failed, soldiers were brought in to secure the operation. In nearby Abra, a logging concession was granted by the government to a corporation covering 200 hectares of Benguet pine trees. Cellophil Resources Corporation (CRC) began its operation also without consultation with the affected areas. The logging invited Tingguian opposition, which was countered with militarization of the logging areas. Non-government organizations, churches and the media joined the opposition against the two projects. The New People’s Army (NPA), which was just starting its operation in the region, sided with the affected communities, attracting hundreds of  Module 2 Topic 2 4 recruits as a consequence. Among those recruited in Abra were Catholic priests like Conrado Balweg, Bruno Ortega, Cirilo Ortega, and Nilo Valerio. It was on the occasion of these oppositions that the traditional Vochong or peace pact system was utilized by affected communities to forge united resistance to the dam project and later to the logging activities. Part of the strategies employed by opposition to the dams was to attract attention from the public and the media. For this it was decided that it was easier to do so by utilizing the “Igorot” as such term would easily bring to mind the stereotype of a loincloth- wearing man with unkempt hair playing gongs. The term also was meant to project the warrior spirit of old headhunting practices against a government enemy. The use also revived historic and successful Igorot resistance to Spanish colonialism. Speeches, communication, and conferences made use of “Igorot,” and “Kaigorotan” was also coined as an inclusive name for the entire Igorot population. In a way, the opposition to these projects brought affected communities closer, bringing Tingguians closer to other highlanders of Mountain Province and Kalinga. In this context, “Igorot” was somehow redefined as an identity to a resistance. The projects eventually were discontinued but not after it occasioned disunity and violence in Abra, Mountain Province and Kalinga. In 1980, a known opposition leader from Kalinga, Macliing Dulag, was gunned down in his own home in Bugnay. Instead of silencing the opposition, the assassination of Dulag widened support, including international groups, for the stoppage of the project. The CRC operation was finally halted in 1984 and the Dam project ended a few years later. An important lesson derived from the two projects and the experience of resistance to the projects is the realization of how national minorities, as an alternative label for cultural minorities, were treated. The territories of minorities were viewed only as a resource base for the benefit of the majority. Add to that the absence of serious consultation and consent. These and a shared history of Spanish colonial resistance as well as having a distinct culture combined to convince highlanders to seek autonomy. It was not surprising that activists of the period, later to be led by the Cordillera People’s Alliance (CPA), began the drive for an autonomous Cordillera. This was reinforced by the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army (CPLA), led by Father Balweg, and a breakaway group of the New People’s Army (NPA). Because of the absence of a single administrative unit that would unify the entire region. Another geographical term was adopted to group people of the old Mountain Province and Abra. As a geographic jargon, Cordillera refers to parallel mountains, and for northern Luzon. Cordillera includes Sierra Madre, Malaya range, and Cordillera Central. It is from Cordillera Central that “Cordillera” and “Cordilleran” were derived as a new label for the region and its people. The term competed with Igorot as an identity in the 1980s and the 1990s, and a number of key players for the autonomy named their groups with “Cordillera” in it, such as Cordillera Broad Coalition (CBC), Cordillera People’s Alliance (CPA), Cordillera People’s Liberation Army (CPLA), Cordillera People’s Democratic Front (CPDF), and Cordillera Bodong Administration (CBAd). … decision to name the region “Cordillera” and the title of the advocacy of “Cordillera Autonomy,” as well as naming related offices with Cordillera like Cordillera Executive Board (CEB), and the Cordillera Regional Assembly (CRA) … While “Igorot” and “Cordilleran” are both geographical words, the latter appealed to many because of its unadulterated meaning and history. It is also favored over its ethnic neutrality, making it more inclusive to all residents of the Cordillera Central regardless of their ethnicity. The aspiration for regional autonomy was successfully lobbied with the Constitutional Commission and was included in Section 4 of Article X of the Philippine Constitution. At the same time, the Aquino government entered into a  Module 2 Topic 2 5 peace agreement (sipat) with Conrado Balweg’s CPLA. Thereafter, Executive Order No. 220 was signed on July 15, 1987, (celebrated each year as Cordillera Day – a special holiday for the region) establishing … Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), effectively removing the provinces from regions I and II. While the colonial masters and some of the Filipinos who were misled and miseducated used the term “Igorot” as a tool for non-recognition and misrecognition resulting in discriminatory policies and actions, the post-colonial generations of the Igorots reinvented the term to become a badge of pride symbolizing their ancestors’ successful resistance to foreign domination and the colonizing policies of their national leaders. And for a more inclusive term to embrace migrants, who, by self-ascription consider themselves as members of the region, the term “Cordillera” and “Cordilleran” was promoted and is now generally accepted. Reflection: Branding you want for your ethnolinguistic group and for your country.  Module 2 Topic 3 1 MODULE 2 – COLONIAL IDEOLOGY OF DIVIDE AND RULE Topic 3: Roots of Misrecognition This module begins with the concept of recognition and is illustrated by the ilustrados’ commitment to forming a Filipino national identity. The succeeding concepts of non- recognition and misrecognition are illustrated by our country’s and the Cordillera IPs’ historical experiences of colonial misrecognition. Learning Outcomes 1. describe the concepts of non-recognition, misrecognition, and exploitation 2. use the historical experiences of the Cordillera IPs to illustrate the concepts of non- recognition, misrecognition, and exploitation Key Concepts to Understand Commodification exploitation invisibility Misrecognition non-recognition voicelessness Recognition The following is Verkuyten’s (2014) explanation of the importance of recognition: Awareness of and the search for a place in the social world is always accompanied by the question of whether you are recognized and valued by others. When there is the slightest doubt or when the slightest provocation occurs, this question bursts to the fore. This is a highly sensitive matter. This is reflected in the increasing emphasis on (the right to) respect and the time and energy put into trying to obtain, maintain, or restore the desired recognition and appreciation. Thomas Hobbes observed that ‘men are brought to battle for any sign of under-value, either direct in their persons, or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name’ … Everyone has the need to be socially recognized and valued – not only for who you are as an individual but also for what you are as a member of a group. This is especially the case when that group is very important for how you see yourself, such as is often the case with ethnic and religious groups. Stigmatization on these grounds is therefore threatening to one’s feelings of self-worth. Low social esteem can lead to low self-esteem, and low social respect can lead to low self-respect. For this, people do not necessarily have to experience the stigmatization personally. Due to group identification, negative judgments about your group or fellow group members are felt as a personal matter. … The idea that acceptance and recognition of cultural diversity and cultural identity are crucial for feelings of self-esteem is, …, one of the key multiculturalist assumptions … The public acceptance and recognition of one’s group and culture are considered valuable conditions for a positive group identity that sustains feelings of self- respect and self-esteem. … Due recognition is not just a courtesy we owe people. It is a vital human need’. Recognition can, first of all, relate to having, or being entitled to, equal legal rights and obligations … Equality in the legal domain indicates that minority groups are recognized by others as equal citizens and morally responsible members of society.... But recognition is also important in the sphere of social esteem where the social value of one’s group is at stake. Individuals are judged and often want to be judged in terms of their ethnic origin and cultural beliefs, especially when they identify strongly with their ethnic group. … Blum (1998, as cited in Pilapil, 2015) added that the recognition of a cultural group includes the “recognition of the distinctness of an actual culture,” the granting of “equal value to cultures,” and a “recognition of the identity group’s historical experience punctuated by subordination, colonialism, enslavement, and other forms of historical injustice” (p. 17). Pilapil  Module 2 Topic 3 2 (2015) explained that the minority groups in the Philippines “demand recognition mainly because they have been disadvantaged, exploited, discriminated against, and disenfranchised by the more powerful and dominant majority who possess control over the design of policies and institutions” (p. 17). The Ilustrados: Recognition and National Identity The indigena (native or indigenous) peoples of the Philippines were conveniently classified by the Spanish colonizers into two groups – indios and tribus infieles (infidel tribes). The indios were those who were Christianized and accepted the Spanish policy of reduccion – abandoning their dispersed settlement and residing in a nucleated settlement area that was accessible to the Spanish friars. The tribus infieles, on the other hand, were the non- Christianized Filipinos and who rejected the policy of reduccion (Thomas, 2016) by nurturing their culture in the highlands and remote coastal areas that were hardly accessible to the Spanish friars and administrators. These infieles would later on be labeled as tribal or primitive Filipinos, cultural minorities, and now indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples. The term “indigenous” is given a new and narrower meaning contrasted with the general usage of the word indigena which originally referred to all the natives of the country during the Spanish colonial era. The meaning of the term “Filipino” also evolved. Before the 1880s, “Filipino” was used to refer to those who were born of Spanish parentage in the Philippines. But in the late 1880s and 1890s, some of the ilustrados in their scholarly writings started using the term as a label of collective identity applicable to all the people of the Philippines transcending their linguistic, religious, and physiological differences. (Thomas, 2016) Thomas explained that one of the ilustrado writers, Trinidad Hemenegildo Pardo de Tavera (of Spanish lineage), referred to the people who were first encountered by the Spanish in the country as Filipinos and were of Malayan origin. For Pedro Paterno (Tagalog-Chinese mestizo), aside from extolling his Tagalog civilization and implying that it was the center of a broader Filipino civilization as well as arguing the parity between the Tagalog and Spanish cultures, he postulated that the Aetas were the “racial and cultural ancestors of the Tagalog” - they (Aetas) being the descendants of the first wave of Malayan migrants while the Tagalogs were the descendants of the second wave of Malayan migrants - more advanced, adaptive, and whose language, beliefs, habits, and customs later prevailed over the inferior descendants of the first wave of migrants. Those who did not want to mingle with the new migrants retreated to the harshness of the mountains and were excluded from the benefits of the Filipino-Christian civilization. Their isolation in the mountains preserved their traditions and made them stuck in the past. Compounded by their inbreeding, they became unable to transform themselves unlike their Tagalog counterparts. Paterno also theorized that the lack or slow social transformation among the Aetas who retreated to the mountains could manifest not only their perception that there is nothing in the Christian civilization that is appealing to them but also the perception that European civilization is deceitful - hypothetical teaching of morality, justice, liberty, and well-being if viewed against the reality of slavery, anarchy, and compulsory payments to a ruler that were imposed in the country. (Thomas, 2016) Paterno added: The study of the Ita was valuable for the progress of the advanced peoples of the Philippines because it would help them recognize what they needed to change or leave behind. For the advanced Filipino peoples to fulfill their promise, they had to ‘know to adapt their ancient traditions to progress’ and ‘succeed in harmonizing their ancient habits and customs with new ideas.’ (Thomas, 2016, p.83) If the Aetas were perceived to suffer from a lack of ability to transform themselves, which is implied to be inherent in them, Isabelo de los Reyes argued against such “idea of innate racial ability – or inability” and the idea of promoting cultural change through racial mixture. He contends that cultural change results from civilizational contact. As regards filiation of the  Module 2 Topic 3 3 different ethnic groups in the country, he theorized that there are only two root races (Negrito and Malay) in the country before the arrival of the Spaniards. Of the two, the “Filipino-Malays” constitute the large and multilingual group that is spread out all over the archipelago. It is because of this idea that while he found filiation with the Tagalogs and Bicolanos, among others, he also found filiation with “half-civilized neighbors, the Igorots and Tingguians – kinship of languages, traditions, and other ethnological proofs.” (Thomas, 2016, p. 89). While the Spanish colonial masters were quick in stereotyping the non-Christian indigenes, the ilustrados use of the term, Filipinos, was inclusive of everyone regardless of the diversity in cultures. The ilustrados acknowledged their filiation with the non-Christian Filipinos and explained their cultural differences as consequences of their geographical location and less civilizational contact. The ilustrados’ filiation with their co-Filipinos was also illustrated by Rizal’s resentment of the exhibition of the Igorots in the 1887 Madrid Exposition. Zaide and Zaide (2006) noted that: While Rizal, … was happily touring Europe, an Exposition of the Philippines was held in Madrid, Spain. Upon reaching Geneva (Switzerland), he received sad news from his friends in Madrid of the deplorable conditions, of the primitive Igorots who were exhibited in this exposition, some of whom died, and whose scanty clothing (G-Strings) and crude weapons were objects of mockery and laughter by the Spanish people and press. Being a champion of dignity, Rizal was outraged by this degradation of his fellow countrymen … In a letter to his friend Blumentritt, …, he said: My poor compatriots … who are now being exhibited in Madrid are mocked by Spanish newspapers, except El Liberal which says that it is not consistent with human dignity to be exhibited side by side with animals and plants. I have done everything possible to prevent the display of this degradation of men of my race, but I have not succeeded. Now one woman died of pneumonia. The Igorots were housed in a baraca (rustic house made of bamboo, grass and tree branches – Z) and El Resumen still makes mean jokes about it! (pp. 110-111) What the four aforecited ilustrados similarly aimed to achieve in their acknowledgement of their filiation with fellow Filipinos was the formation of a national identity. Their writings were also aimed to “search for the Filipino past – a product of, and a stimulus to, nationalism” (Schumacher, 1996, p.105). Schumacher commented that de los Reyes did not glorify the pre- Spanish Filipinos because his intent was to look at the Filipino past as a source of national identity, implying the existence of a Filipino nation while being open to cultural change. A nation is defined by Anderson (2016) as: an imagined political community … imagined because the members … will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion … imagined as a community, because regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. (pp. 6-7) This definition of a nation suggests a need to discover and nurture the variables that promote the cohesion of a larger community and this is where Paterno’s suggestion becomes relevant and which suggestion was echoed by Nick Joaquin (2004): There are Filipinos upon whom no alien religion or culture was imposed, and whose hearts must, therefore, possess the aboriginal purity we yearn for – uncorrupted, undistorted, unravished …Our pre-Hispanic culture was not annihilated; it has survived; and there are pre-Hispanic Filipinos among us … verify what we were before the coming  Module 2 Topic 3 4 of Spain and Christianity. The thing to do … see for ourselves what we would have been if we had been left alone, to go and confront the Filipinos whom no foreign religion or culture has depraved, so that, by learning what we might have been, we may know what we are. (p. 78) Non-recognition and Misrecognition In understanding how non-recognition and misrecognition were done during the colonial period, it is best to go over Lalonde’s (2019) description of the terms: There are two main processes of nonrecognition that can be present with cultural appropriation (taking an element of a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture): voicelessness and invisibility. The aphonia or voicelessness that occurs in nonrecognition can be seen as a form of epistemic injustice as cultural members’ epistemic contributions regarding their culture and cultural property is prejudicially denied or ignored..., nonrecognition involves ignoring the claim and appropriating the material without regard to the culture. Cultures reasonably have a concern here as their proposed property claims are being prejudicially discounted. Of particular concern is the background relations of power as it is mainly the property claims of marginalized cultures that are not respected. Akin to the land taken through past and current colonial acts, cultural property is believed to be unowned and available. Deborah Root argues the assumption of availability in cultural appropriation is due to a sense of entitlement – “If we think we already own something, why would we ask anybody’s permission to take it?”... We is relevant here as it is the privileged (dominant group or those who rule) who determine what is available for the taking while other voices are silenced or ignored. Invisibility, in comparison to voicelessness, focuses on how cultural groups are erased in the media and more broadly in society. … The psychology of invisibility developed by Stephanie Fryberg and Sarah Townsend shows how a lack of representation in the media can limit the social identities available to a person... Individuals are formed in part through their engagement with the social environment and the possible ways of being that are presented to them. Lack of media representation can, therefore, constrain the number of ideas or images individuals have to orient themselves in the world... Some groups, like white individuals, have an abundance of contemporary representations in media, so they have multiple references for ways of being (e.g., artist, doctor, teacher, scientist). In comparison, Indigenous Peoples are commonly portrayed as eighteenth-century figures like Pocahontas or a warlike figure.... There is a dual consequence for this lack of recognition that impacts both Indigenous Peoples and other’s understandings of Indigenous Peoples: These historical omissions keep Natives from recognizing that the struggles their group experiences are based on an ongoing process of oppression, rather than their own individual shortcomings; and non-Native individuals may not recognize the ways in which their attitudes and actions may be biased by a sterilized history that romanticizes the relationship between Native Americans and European Americans. … Nonrecognition results in cultural members and their epistemic contributions not being acknowledged. It propagates dispossession as cultural property is seen as available for the taking and it heightens misrecognition as there are not various voices and ways of being available to combat stereotypes. Misrecognition occurs when a culture is essentialized or confined to a set of properties. Often, misrecognition takes the form of stereotypes. When these stereotypes  Module 2 Topic 3 5 are pervasive, they are extremely difficult to contest as they seem natural and, thus, unnoticeable. Daniel Hausman finds that: Stereotyping harms members of some identifying group mainly by affecting the beliefs and hence the actions of non-group members … it operates on a structured group mainly by influencing the attitudes of group members or by changing the material circumstances with which the group must deal. … The possible consequences of stereotyping are threefold: (1) it causes non-group members to view the group stereotypically, (2) it influences group members to view themselves and the group in a stereotypical manner, and (3) it changes the sociopolitical environment within which the group lives and works. Fanon argues that misrecognition has been an intentional weapon of colonizers and oppressors. These groups impose an image of inferiority upon perceived others by misrecognizing others while promoting the superiority of themselves. … Nonrecognition and misrecognition through appropriation create a hostile environment wherein cultural groups are silenced or made invisible, and subject to stereotypes that impact their self-recognition and the recognition of others. Imbalanced access to resources furthers the impacts of appropriation as marginalized (socially excluded) groups often do not have the social, political, and economic resources available to constantly battle nonrecognition and misrecognition. Exploitation is strongly related to recognition as material conditions, like distributive injustice, underlay recognition struggles... Exploitation occurs when cultural property is unfairly taken in a way that harms cultural members while benefitting the appropriator. Exploitation, in this case, is structural since what matters is not only an unfair transaction between two parties, where say one cultural piece is undervalued in a face-to-face transaction, but rather a structural imbalance of power produced by injustice in the political and social environment... Appropriation masks power imbalances as it appears that society is accepting the culture since cultural imagery and names are being sold and shared widely but, in reality, these cultural materials may not reflect the culture accurately and most often do not financially benefit the culture. Exploitation theory is useful in showing how situations, like appropriation, that may appear to be just can indeed be harmful. I will focus on two exploitative harms: loss of economic potential and commodification. Loss of economic potential occurs when cultural property is “wrongfully exploited for financial gain”... The volume of economic potential taken could be very significant and even a driving force behind cultural appropriation, as evidenced in Joane Cardinal-Schubert’s statement: “Money, that is what appropriating is about. Whether the issue is land or art or iconography or ceremonial reliquiae, the focus of the deprivation is money”... Currently, profit is gained through the cultural appropriation of knowledge, medicines, exercises, spiritual practices, names, stories, styles of art, and pieces of tangible property sold or kept in museums. Even if cultures that were appropriated from did try to get into the market at this point, they would likely not be able to compete with large companies in producing and disseminating distinctive goods from their culture... Commodification, on the other hand, has more to do with how cultural property is transformed into a commodity through appropriation.... Sandel notes two objections to commodification: the fairness objection and the corruption objection. The fairness objection captures how some individuals may be forced to sell their cultural property as a result of the dire circumstances they are placed under due to colonialism, imperialism, and other forms of oppression.  Module 2 Topic 3 6 The corruption objection, on the other hand, rejects the commodification of cultural property even if the background bargaining conditions are fair. When cultural property is bought and sold on the market, the property is encoded with market values and seen as a tool for profit. These market values can conflict with how the culture values the property as something meaningful or sacred. For instance, the appropriated Indigenous headdresses and war bonnets that are on mascots and donned by sports fans carry deep spiritual significance to many Indigenous Peoples, so they are not something to be bought and sold for everyday use... When cultural property that is deemed to be uncommodifiable is taken and commodified, cultures have the ability to protect what is deemed to be most sacred to them hindered thus resulting in nonrecognition, misrecognition, and exploitation all at once. … Historical Perspectives on the Correlation between Colonialism and Racism To understand the Western colonial powers’ racist attitude and misrecognition of resistant groups in their colonies, it is important to revisit Giddens’ (1994) explanation of the opposition between white and black as cultural symbols in European culture. Giddens clarified that: White had been associated with purity, black with evil – having dark or deadly purposes, malignant; pertaining to or involving death, deadly; baneful, disastrous, sinister … indicating disgrace, censure, liability to punishment. These symbolic meanings tended to influence the Europeans’ reactions to blacks when they were first encountered on African shores … although the more extreme expressions of such attitudes have disappeared today. The notion of ‘race,’ as referring to a cluster of inherited characteristics, comes from European thought of the 18th and 19th centuries. Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau proposed that three races exist: white, black, and yellow. The white race possesses intelligence, morality, and willpower superior to those of the others, and these inherited qualities underlie the spread of Western influences across the world. He further argued that blacks are the least capable of the three races, marked by an animal nature, lack of morality, and emotional stability. It did not help that English poet Rudyard Kipling popularized in his poem the White man’s burden – a justification of White imperialism. And in 1913, a German scientist, Dr. Eugen Fischer, who later served Hitler, published the results of his 2-month field work in South-West-Africa measuring his mixed-race subjects from head to foot and scrutinizing their physiognomies. He concluded that “the bastards are racially superior to pure Negroes but inferior to pure whites. There might therefore be a useful role for people of mixed race as colonial policemen or lower officials. But any further racial mixing should be avoided.” Such an argument had a strong influence on Hitler’s Mein Kamp where he argued about the superiority of the Aryan Race. The slave trade could not have existed were it not widely held by Europeans that blacks belonged to an inferior, perhaps even subhuman, race. Racism helped justify colonial rule over non-white peoples, and the denial to them of the rights of political participation which were being won by whites in their European homelands. … racism played an important part in the group closure whereby Europeans were the rulers and non-whites the ruled. Colonial Non-recognition and Misrecognition How the indigenous peoples, particularly those in the Cordillera, were victimized by the colonial masters’ non-recognition and misrecognition was already introduced in the narratives in Module 1. In addition to those narratives is the essay of Puno (Isagani Cruz v. Secretary of Environment, 2000):  Module 2 Topic 3 7 When the Spaniards settled permanently in the Philippines in 1565, they found the Filipinos living in barangay settlements scattered along water routes and river banks. One of the first tasks imposed on the missionaries and the encomenderos was to collect all scattered Filipinos together in a reduccion. As early as 1551, the Spanish government assumed an unvarying solicitous attitude towards the natives. The Spaniards regarded it a sacred "duty to conscience and humanity to civilize these less fortunate people living in the obscurity of ignorance" and to accord them the "moral and material advantages" of community life and the "protection and vigilance afforded them by the same laws." The Spanish missionaries were ordered to establish pueblos where the church and convent would be constructed. All the new Christian converts were required to construct their houses around the church and the unbaptized were invited to do the same. With the reduccion, the Spaniards attempted to "tame" the reluctant Filipinos through Christian indoctrination using the convento/casa real/plaza complex as focal point. The reduccion, to the Spaniards, was a "civilizing" device to make the Filipinos law- abiding citizens of the Spanish Crown, and in the long run, to make them ultimately adopt Hispanic culture and civilization. Increasing their foothold in the Philippines, the Spanish colonialists, civil and religious, classified the Filipinos according to their religious practices and beliefs, and divided them into three types. First were the Indios, the Christianized Filipinos, who generally came from the lowland populations. Second, were the Moros or the Muslim communities, and third, were the infieles or the indigenous communities. The Indio was a product of the advent of Spanish culture. This class was favored by the Spaniards and was allowed certain status although below the Spaniards. The Moros and infieles were regarded as the lowest classes. The Moros and infieles resisted Spanish rule and Christianity. The Moros were driven from Manila and the Visayas to Mindanao; while the infieles, to the hinterlands. The Spaniards did not pursue them into the deep interior. The upland societies were naturally outside the immediate concern of Spanish interest, and the cliffs and forests of the hinterlands were difficult and inaccessible, allowing the infieles, in effect, relative security. Thus, the infieles, which were peripheral to colonial administration, were not only able to preserve their own culture but also thwarted the Christianization process, separating themselves from the newly evolved Christian community. Their own political, economic and social systems were kept constantly alive and vibrant. The pro-Christian or pro-Indio attitude of colonialism brought about a generally mutual feeling of suspicion, fear, and hostility between the Christians on the one hand and the non-Christians on the other. Colonialism tended to divide and rule an otherwise culturally and historically related populace through a colonial system that exploited both the virtues and vices of the Filipinos. President McKinley, in his instructions to the Philippine Commission of April 7, 1900, addressed the existence of the infieles: In dealing with the uncivilized tribes of the Islands, the Commission should adopt the same course followed by Congress in permitting the tribes of our North American Indians to maintain their tribal organization and government, and under which many of those tribes are now living in peace and contentment, surrounded by civilization to which they are unable or unwilling to conform. Such tribal government should, however, be subjected to wise and firm regulation; and, without undue or petty interference, constant and active effort should be exercised to prevent barbarous practices and introduce civilized customs.  Module 2 Topic 3 8 Placed in an alternative of either letting the natives alone or guiding them in the path of civilization, the American government chose ‘to adopt the latter measure as one more in accord with humanity and with the national conscience.’ The Americans classified the Filipinos into two: the Christian Filipinos and the non- Christian Filipinos. The term ‘non-Christian’ referred not to religious belief, but to a geographical area, and more directly, ‘to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization, usually living in tribal relationship apart from settled communities.’ Like the Spaniards, the Americans pursued a policy of assimilation. In 1903, they passed Act No. 253 creating the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes (BNCT). Under the Department of the Interior, the BNCT's primary task was to conduct ethnographic research among unhispanized Filipinos, including those in Muslim Mindanao, with a ‘special view to determining the most practicable means for bringing about their advancement in civilization and prosperity.’ The BNCT was modeled after the bureau dealing with American Indians. The agency took a keen anthropological interest in Philippine cultural minorities and produced a wealth of valuable materials about them. Additionally, Lazaro-Javier (Diosdado Sama Y. Hinupas v. People, 2021) posited that Spanish and American colonial rule was characterized by the "need to impart civilization." In People v. Cayat: As early as 1551, the Spanish Government had assumed an unvarying solicitous attitude towards these inhabitants, and in the different laws of the Indies, their concentration in so-called "reducciones" (communities) had been persistently attempted with the end in view of according them the "spiritual and temporal benefits" of civilized life. Throughout the Spanish regime, it had been regarded by the Spanish Government as a sacred “duty to conscience and humanity" to civilize these less fortunate people living "in the obscurity of ignorance" and to accord them the "moral and material advantages" of community life and the "protection and vigilance afforded them by the same laws." (Decree of the Governor-General of the Philippines, Jan. 14, 1887.) This policy had not been deflected from during the American period. … The 1935 Constitution was silent on indigenous peoples. However, it was under the 1935 Constitution that Republic Act No. 1888, creating the Commission on National Integration, was passed. Its title and declaration of policy reveal a predisposed view of "Non-Christian Filipinos" or "National Cultural Minorities" as uncultivated, and whose advancement depended on the extent to which they were integrated into the mainstream: REPUBLIC ACT No. 1888 AN ACT TO EFFECTUATE IN A MORE RAPID AND COMPLETE MANNER THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, MORAL AND POLITICAL AND ADVANCEMENT OF THE NON-CHRISTIAN FILIPINOS OR NATIONAL CULTURAL MINORITIES AND TO RENDER REAL, COMPLETE AND PERMANENT THE INTEGRATION OF ALL SAID NATIONAL CULTURAL MINORITIES INTO THE BODY POLITIC, CREATING THE COMMISSION ON NATIONAL INTEGRATION CHARGED WITH SAID FUNCTIONS SECTION 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to foster, accelerate and accomplish by all adequate means and in a systematic, rapid and complete manner the moral, material, economic, social and political advancement of the Non-Christian Filipinos, hereinafter called National Cultural Minorities, and to render real, complete and permanent  Module 2 Topic 3 9 the integration of all the said National Cultural Minorities into the body politic. Bacdayan (2001) also concluded that: Colonialism created a cultural chasm between the lowlanders and the highlanders and set the conditions for the destructive stereotyping experienced even today. It seems clear that the origin and persistence of the stereotypical lowlander view of the Igorot grew out of the resistance of the Igorots to the pressures of the Spaniards and the Hispanized Filipinos. It has endured in part because of the durability of stereotypes and in part because of the close attention the Igorots received from the American successors of the Spaniards. One wonders what the highland-lowland social geography would be like had it not been for colonial rule. … … the cultural and social realities of the Igorot past which helped to engender the negative stereotype have changed: there is no more headhunting (the current so- called tribal war notwithstanding); the people are now Christians for the most part; the ordinary daily wear is now shirts, pants, skirts and blouses; Igorots know how to use soap and groom themselves; they have proven their industriousness and intelligence by their educational competitiveness and achievements. And, for the most part, Igorots are circumspect and honourable in their interactions with lowlanders, at the least not reinforcing the stereotype and at best belying it. About the only thing that has not changed about the Igorots is their pride in being people of the mountains whether this is expressed by answering to the generic name Igorot or to the specific ethno-linguistic labels as Ifugao, Kalinga, and Bontoc. But the ambivalence of the lowlanders toward the Igorots and the negative stereotyping persists. In a curious way, they may have endured also because of the increased contacts between the two groups arising from acculturative forces laid out by the work of the Americans in the Cordillera highlands. It may be that rather than making for closer understanding, these contacts between the sides of the social divide have provided the self-proclaimed superior group an opportunity to assert its superiority over the presumed inferior group, through contempt. Or the contact situation may have raised the need to maintain social distance from a group regarded as inferior lest the false veil of superiority be lifted and exposed for what it is. This is given credence since the negative stereotype persists in spite of the narrowing of the cultural gaps between the Igorots and the lowlanders and the myriad avenues of contact – political, educational, social, and economic – between the two groups. … Reflection The Importance of Recognition How You Can Earn Your Society’s Recognition Factors of Non-recognition and Misrecognition Redirecting a Daily Life that is Free from Misrecognition Ways by which the Colonial Misrecognition of an Indigenous Community is Perpetuated  Module 2 Topic 4 1 MODULE 2 – Topic 4: Re-examining Igorot Representation Lalonde (2019) defined cultural appropriation as: the ‘taking – from a culture that is not one’s own – of intellectual property, cultural expressions and artifacts, history and ways of knowledge’... There are at least three forms of cultural appropriation …: subject appropriation, content appropriation, and tangible object appropriation... Subject appropriation consists of a representation of culture by an outsider, for instance a cultural outsider writing a book about the culture. Content appropriation involves an outsider presenting cultural property as their own or utilizing pieces of cultural property for their work. Appropriation of Indigenous imagery and names for team names and mascots is an example of content appropriation. Finally, tangible object appropriation occurs when an outsider takes physical items from the culture. Tangible object appropriation is one of the most well-known forms of cultural appropriation. Its history stems from the taking of land, artifacts, and human remains; many of which are now in museums. There is a power imbalance in cultural appropriation since the one taking something comes from the dominant group who lacks understanding of the historical context that influenced the thing that was taken from the marginalized group whose history has been marked by exploitation or oppression. Consequently, the taker from the dominant group will not give credit to his source, not respect the cultural meaning attached to the thing that was taken, and not use the thing according to how it should be but in any way he wants that may just reinforce stereotype against the marginalized group from whom the thing was taken. Guided by your understanding of cultural appropriation, non-recognition, misrecognition, and exploitation (covered in the preceding module, let us join the author’s re- examination of Igorot representation through the years. Learning Outcomes 1. examine the pros and cons of cultural appropriation vis-a-vis the Cordillera IPs’ reclamation of their identity 2. cite lessons learned on how to represent Indigenous peoples Key Concepts to Understand Batok commodification cultural appropriation cultural protection reverse appropriation 1904 St. Louis Exposition Analyn Salvador-Amores (2020): Re-examining Igorot representation: Issues of commodification and cultural appropriation. South East Asia Research, DOI: 10.1080/0967828X.2020.1843369 In this article, I address several interrelated questions: How were the Igorots represented in the past? How does this impact their representation today? How do we represent the Igorots in the contemporary period? How and in what contexts are Igorot cultures commodified and appropriated, and what are the consequences of this? Instead of asking ‘who owns culture’, when traditional practices are performed in diaspora, we ask: how can we promote respectful treatment of native culture and indigenous forms of self-expression within mass societies? What are the challenges we face, and how do we negotiate these to be able to represent the Igorots in the best possible way? What role do museums play in representing the Igorots? Drawing on my own research in Northern Luzon, Philippines, I will first re-examine how the Igorots were represented in the past, based on archival research and historical documents from different repositories. I will then elaborate on how we represent the Igorots in the  Module 2 Topic 4 2 contemporary period and identify consequences, challenges and negotiations in representing cultures. I argue the following: 1. Past representations of the Igorots allow us to read them back as we take back the images and provide a glimpse of the figurations of Igorot identity prior to contemporary distortions, such as those engendered by increased encounters with tourists who wish to pose with authentic ‘natives’. 2. These representations provide a venue for critical examination to allow for a deeper appreciation and awareness that contributes to the self-determination of the Igorots in the contemporary period, i.e. enabling the reclamation of the Igorots as symbols in contemporary discourse and debates on ancestral land claim and ethnic identity. 3. The Igorots as the Other in colonial representation can be positively valued in contemporary research. Colonial records have been vital in re-examining how Igorots were represented in the past, and how these materials are used in popular modes of representation and recuperation of Igorot identity in the present. 4. The way these representations contest each other provides an entry into the examination of disjunctions of local and global processes, as well as further interrogation of authoritative ethnographic representation and anthropological knowledge of the Igorots. Through a case-study approach, I examine how presentations of the Igorots are perceived in order to evaluate representational practices. Given the colonial past of appropriation, commoditization and stereotyping that persists to the present, I argue that while cultural appropriation once served the interest of colonial administrators, its products can also become resources – contested as they may be – for cultural knowledge in the post- colonial era. Moreover, representations of Igorot culture are highly contestable and undergoing change: these representations provide a venue for critical examination that allows deeper awareness of Igorot culture. It is sometimes the case that the native people themselves have selectively appropriated symbols from other cultures. My interest in Igorot representation, commodification and appropriation of culture grew out of a range of research in the Cordillera region in general, and in Kalinga, Bontoc, and Ifugao specifically. Igorot representation, issues of commodification, and cultural appropriation have been, in recent years, one of the most widely discussed ethical problems. This is also an ongoing debate in studies of the Cordillera. The prevalence of these issues is indicative of the continuing challenges we face in representing Igorot culture. Albert Bacdayan …, a Kankana-ey and an anthropologist, concurs that ‘the Igorots themselves are one of these hundreds of millions of so-called indigenous scattered all over the world and thus are familiar in personal experience with the demeaning consequences emanating from “otherness”’. For this article, I examine the representation of the Igorots, a popular collective term for the different ethno-linguistic groups inhabiting the Cordillera mountain ranges of highland Northern Luzon. Recently, they have also been referred to as BIBAK (an acronym for Bontoc, Ifugao, Benguet, Apayao and Kalinga provinces in the Cordillera, which are the domain of these indigenous groups), or Cordillerans, which is considered the politically appropriate term in light of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), and preferred by many. While the term Igorot was in the past considered to be derogatory, it is now invoked as a declaration of pride in one’s roots, and as a means to access resources under the Philippine nation-state. Representing culture, commodification and appropriation The findings presented in this article indicate that there is a need to address the question of how to represent the Cordillera by critically analysing past and current practices. According to Stuart Hall …, the representational system – whether sounds, written words, photographs,  Module 2 Topic 4 3 film, electronically produced images, musical notes, even objects – is a means to stand for or signify other people’s concepts, ideas and feelings that exist in a culture. In addition, there are various media in which these representations take place – in writing, photographs, commodities, and museum exhibitions – which are all part of the process of representing culture and what Appadurai and Breckinridge … have described as the global culture ecumene of the contemporary world. The task is to understand how these have come to represent Igorot culture or have brought ‘Igorotness’ as a hybrid process of cultural reproduction to the world through a variety of practices and discourses, in particular when knowledge is rooted in local constructions and exposed to the world as an empowering representation or an oppressive misrepresentation. The former is brought about by thorough collaboration with cultural bearers, while the latter is generally brought about by commodification and cultural appropriation with the advent of tourism and modernity among other factors. The Oxford English Dictionary provides the most basic definition of appropriation as ‘the making of a thing a private property … taking as one’s own or to one’s own use’. Although what is appropriated will vary according to contexts and situations, what is true in all instances is that something is allegedly taken and some use is made out of it … In the case of cultural appropriation, the ‘taking – from a culture that is not one’s own – of intellectual property, cultural expressions or artifacts, history, and ways of knowledge’ …, members of one culture take something from another cultural context and put it to some use within the context of their own culture. Members of the public copy and transform cultural products to suit their own tastes, express their own creative individuality, or simply make a profit. Some cultural products can be freely shared with the public; others are devalued when appropriated by the majority culture. … In these inst