Malansang Isda by Rosalinda Olsen Essay Example for Free

Malansang Isda by Rosalinda Olsen Essay †Ang hindi nagmamahal sa sariling wika ay masahol pa sa malansang isda† is one of the most often quoted of Rizal’s writings. Why, then, did he write his two novels, Noli me tangere and El Filibusterismo in Spanish? In his dedication of theNoli me Tangere, Rizal wrote, â€Å"I will strive to reproduce thy condition faithfully, without discriminations. † Surely, the national hero of the Philippines was not somebody who said one thing and did the opposite. Both novels portrayed the social and political conditions of the time through characters that represented a cross section of Philippine society—the natives who were called the Indios, the Peninsuslares or the Spanish who were born in Spain, and the Filipino or the Spanish who were born in the Philippine Islands—immortalized in the characters of Crisostomo Ibarra and his beloved Maria Clara, Elizas, Padre Damaso, Dona Victorina, and the sinister Padre Salvi. These characters represented the ideal and the despicable, the funny and the tragic, the truly comic and the merely ridiculous. There was enough in the novel to satisfy the Filipinos’ appetite for a good laugh and a love storythe more sentimental, the better—serving as a thin layer to hide the bitter satire. It can be said that Rizal’s two novels awoke the slumbering political passion of his countrymen so successfully that it quickened the birth of the Philippine Revolution. If this were Rizal’s aim, which most decidedly was not, he would have written the novels in Tagalog. Not only would this have been understandable to most people in Luzon, it would have hidden the revolutionary intent from the Spanish. As it was, the novels had to be distributed in secret among the Indios because the Spanish authorities banned those books. Which leads to the question of whom his target audience was in, order to answer the first question of why he wrote the Noli me tangere and theEl Filibusterismo in the language of the Spanish colonizers. So much has been written about Rizal’s extreme reluctance for revolution as the solution to the social cancer that was destroying his country, in contrast to his passionate advocacy of education and political reform. Evidently, the Spanish colonizers were Rizal’s primary target audience, hence, he wrote in their language. The Indio could have been a secondary target audience, perhaps in the hope that the ilustrados would fight for the socio-political reforms that were clearly indicated in the novels. There was no need to reproduce the social conditions of the time to the Indio who knew it only too well and constantly suffered from it. Rizal wrote the novels in Spanish because that was the appropriate language for his intent. Language is basically a tool, a means to express ideas and to communicate these, but before being a tool, language is first a reflection of one’s objective reality. Language is a symbol that represents the material objects in one’s environment. If an object does not exist in one’s material universe, one would have no word for it. For example, a person in search of gold in a certain area might show the natives a gold piece and ask what the natives call that metal and where he could find it. If there is no word for gold among the natives, it either means there is no gold in the area or the natives have not seen or heard of that metal before. When Rizal wrote the famous lines â€Å"Ang hindi nagmamahal sa sariling wika ay masahol pa sa malansang isda†, he was not referring to language merely as a communication tool but as an expression of one’s identity, of one’s individual and social consciousness. In the novels, Dona Victorina represents the type of Filipino who rejects her identity as Indio and who would do everything to deny it in every form, particularly in mannerism and language. More than a hundred years have passed since Rizal wrote his two novels but the social and eco-political structures remain basically the same. Only the ruling class has been changed, Filipinos have replaced the colonial masters. At the tip of an inverted pyramid is the very small minority of the power class that consists of the affluent and the Catholic hierarchy. At the top of this pyramid is about 80% of the population that have been assessed by the World Bank-IMF as living below poverty level. Between these two main groups is the middle class that shows no sign of increasing in number. Only a miracle would keep this unnatural pyramid from toppling over, but that belongs to another article. Undoubtedly, Pilipino (supposedly the expanded and enriched form of Tagalog) is not the language of the power class. Most of them speak English and some prefer to speak Spanish. The masses can read and speak Pilipino, as it is a required subject in school, but chances are, they speak their cradle tongue among themselves and most of the time, which would be any of the major languages and the numerous dialects. The language of the middle class is an odd mix of English, Pilipino, and their radle tongue. Since language is a reflection of one’s identity, could we then say that the Filipinos have one national identity? Without a common identity, there could be no real sense of nationhood. This is what Rizal meant by that famous quotation that is often quoted but only the surface level. Pilipino is the national language but the preferred working language of government, business, and education as well as the mass media remains English. There would be nothing amiss with this if it were not for the great majority of the population whose knowledge of English is not functional. It is not surprising that government can get away shamelessly with graft and corruption because the masses have little understanding of what is going on. Clearly, language in Philippine contemporary society is the one big wall that divides the powerful from the masses of poor people, notwithstanding all the calls for people empowerment. One would think that the entertainment industry, specifically the movies and the television, might be a vehicle for uniting the people because the movies are still affordable and one could always go to the neighbor’s to watch television. Just take a quick look at the commercials; most of them are in English. Noontime and evening variety shows are probably the worst because the language used by the hosts and participants reflects the jargon of the â€Å"lost tribe† aka Manila people, which is a horrible porridge of English and Pilipino with an even more horrendous lack of grammar or logical syntax. So much for the local role models, let’s take a look at the school system. According to a DECS ruling, Pilipino should be the mode of classroom instruction. So far, this has worked, in some fashion, in the elementary grades and to a lesser extent, in the secondary and the tertiary levels. Textbooks in Pilipino have been published and used in the schools, but all the references remain English. In fact, teachers find it impossible to use Pilipino in teaching mathematics, algebra, chemistry, or physics, philosophy, etc. Not surprisingly, the pupil is subjected to a kind of mental lobotomy and eventually their soul is truncated, amputated, or dichotomised. Brave souls who perhaps wanted to â€Å"make a difference â€Å" in the academe, have attempted to write their undergraduate or graduate thesis in Pilipino. Some succeeded, but one can’t help wondering if their theses would ever be taken down from the library shelves to be read and enjoyed. Few would have the courage to admit that they would rather read Rizal’s novels in English, not just because it would be easier for them but because the Pilipino translations are so antiquated that one would read it only under duress, which is to say, only because the school requires it. The Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia got their independence from their colonial masters at about the same time. All three countries created a national language that would be the expression of the national soul and, thus, be a unifying element. Sadly, Pilipino has not succeeded in being the language of the government and the governed, in contrast to how Indonesia and Malaysia has used their respective national languages. Indonesia does not use Dutch as the language of government, education and commerce. Neither do the Malaysians use English as their working language. An anecdote would illustrate this. A friend was on holiday in Kuala Lumpur. One day, she took a cab and, naturally, spoke to the taxi driver in English. In polite but cold tones, the driver asked her, â€Å"Madam, why do you talk in English? We are all Malaysians. † Nonplussed, she said she was Filipino and the taxi driver apologized and explained that she looked Malaysian. It might be an excellent thing for Philippine politicians to have experienced this, but then again, they would be more likely to hire a limousine (at Filipino taxpayer’s expense, of course) and lose the chance of being told to speak the national language by a lowly taxi driver. Is the Filipino then a â€Å"malansang isda†? Using the â€Å"isda† analogy, the Filipino might well be like a fish out of water, in the sense that Filipinos are supposed to be living in one country—the big sea—that has become an alien territory to citizens whose ties have remained regional or tribal rather than national. A fish out of its natural habitat would quickly die and stink. Rizal did not have all the answers to Philippine problems, but he has practically said it all. For the young, he collected folk stories and legends. For the more mature, he wrote the novels, Noli me tangereand El Filibusterismo, the two long essays â€Å"The Indolence of the Filipino† and â€Å"The Philippines a Century Hence† as well as poetry and countless articles. Jose Rizal is the national hero and his portrait is in the lowest denomination of Philippine paper money. Every Filipino knows Rizal, but do they understand him? Those who have read his novels remember only the love story of Ibarra and Maria Clara, the antics of Dona Victorina, and the pathetic Sisa. High School and college graduates are obliged to take the Rizal course as a requirement for graduation, but how many of them understand the two long essays relative to what is happening in the Philippines today, if they read it at all? Rizal has been iconized and even idolized by a sect that calls themselves â€Å"Rizalistas†, but the Filipino has yet to realize and actualise his relevance.

Reasons to Act Morally Essay -- Ethics Morals Philosophy

Why be moral: A Purpose to Life In our culture, many people are asking the same questions. What makes me better than you? Who says I have to treat you that way? Why does America think it is better than any other country? All of these questions arise from the same question: what are morals? This questions leads to another relevant question: why be moral? What, if anything, makes man (in this paper, I will use the word man in a generic sense meaning the entire human race) a moral creature and thus makes him responsible? However, is there any way we can really know that there are certain inherent laws which govern man, and behind these laws is there a Lawgiver that holds men accountable to these laws? I believe that all these questions can be answered through careful observation and logical thinking. Let us first look at the one thing we know for sure and that is man. We can know this for sure because we are men so we would know how we act. When we associate with others, we do so with some rules of fairness in mind. We treat others in a certain way and expect them to treat us in the same way or we say it is â€Å"unfair† or â€Å"selfish.† We just expect the other person to know that such an act is wrong and that they must play by the same rules that we are. Why do we expect this though? They did not grow up the same way you did. They were not raised by the same parents or even in the same household. So why should one expect them to know the same rules of fairness that you know. If the only basis for your assumption that they should know the rules is because you think the rules are right, then you have no reason to expect them to act that way. However, the other person does indeed know these rule... ...belong to us, we might as well be able to steal because there would be no reason not to. If there was no lawgiver there would be no law, but there obviously is this governing law in men that compels them to do certain things and not do others. If there were not consequences for these actions, anything would basically be moral right. If there was not a being behind the law to enforce it, there would be absolutely no real right or wrong. Everything would be relative, but it is not. There are things that everyone agrees are absolutely good, and absolutely bad. There is no other way around it. The lawgiver has given man a purpose and a reason for life, and it is man’s moral obligation to fulfill that purpose by upholding the law given him. Works Cited / Consulted Lewis C.S. Mere Christianity. New York, New York. Macmillan Publishing Company. 1943. pp 17-39.

Happiness and peacefulness Essay

Bhutan is a highly simplistic country that lived for centuries in the old ways that reflect their culture and traditional way of life. It is because of their lack of exposure to the outside world that they have been able to maintain their happiness and peacefulness as a people. Without the outside influence to compare their lives to, the people of Bhutan are able to live a satisfied life free from jealousy and trivial wants. I said wants and not needs because it is a proven fact that television is driven by consumerism and along with it, a building desire within people to own something not because they need it but because they are conditioned to want something whether necessary or not in their lives. Due to Bhutan’s centuries old non exposure to the modern world through television, viewing, I fear that its emergence as a national pastime will change the everything that has made the people of this small nation a special and happy lot. TV is known as an idiot box because it does not require people to think nor analyze any information presented to them. As evidenced by the reaction of the youth of Bhutan to television, their culture is already undergoing a drastic change. Without their knowledge violence, as presented in the wrestling programs are fast becoming a part of their lives and it will only tend to get worse from there. Television is a new toy for the people of this innocent country. They do not really understand the repercussions of what they view and emulate on television because they still view it as something magical and fictional. But that will soon change as their markets get flooded by consumer goods first from America and then the rest of the world. They will begin to fall prey to the consumerism that drives the world. All because seeing the items being advertised on television face to face in a store will allow them to hold the product and make them want to be like the thing or person they see on television. It is not hard for consumerism to invade a small nation and change its landscape because television is also considered a teacher of sorts. They will emulate what they see because they think that what is shown on television is the proper way to live in a modern society. But, being isolated for so long from the modern world will undoubtedly divide the nations citizens as well. As the elders of the nation will choose to fear television and its effects because they do not understand what television and its advertisements represent so they will struggle to remain in their simplistic way of life, the youth of the nation will embrace the change and want to effect the same changes in their lives. To put it bluntly, Bhutan will never be the same again. The invasion of television will make the people want to see change and bring their lifestyle and country into the 21st century. All without really understanding that they were better off before television helped them â€Å"progress as a nation. † Work Cited Bloom, Alexis & Dendup, Tshewang. (2002). Bhutan — the last place. Frontline World. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from http://www. pbs. org/frontlineworld/stories/bhutan/thestory. html

Was Julius Caesar the Biological Father of His Frenemy Brutus

Caesar went out of his way for Marcus Junius Brutus (also known as Quintus Servilius Caepio Brutus), sparing Brutus after he had stood against Caesar and with his rival Pompey at Pharsalus, and then choosing him as praetor for 44. In Shakespeares Julius Caesar, Caesar resolves to die only when he sees that even Brutus is against him. One explanation for this preferential behavior is that Caesar might have been Brutuss father. Caesar had a passionate and long-term affair with the mother of Brutus, Servilia, the maternal half-sister of Cato, conservative senator and bitter personal enemy of Caesar. Cicero calls her the warm friend and perhaps mistress of Caesar in one of his letters to his pal Atticus.  Brutus was proud of his anti-monarchic family heritage, a descendant of the famous Junius Brutus, who helped kick out the kings of Rome. But Servilia bore such ancestry, too; as Plutarch recounts in his  Life of Brutus, Servilia, the mother of Brutus, traced her lineage back to Servilius Ahala, who killed Spurius Maelius who was seditiously plotting to usurp absolute power. ​Once, when Caesar and  Cato were in a knock-down, drag-out fight in  the Senate, a little note was brought in from outside to Caesar, according to Plutarchs  Life of Cato the Younger.  Ã¢â‚¬â€¹Cato figured that Caesar was  involved in some conspiracy and demanded that the note be read aloud; making things really  awkward, the piece of paper turned out to contain a love letter to Caesar from Servilia! Cato threw the letter at Caesar and just kept on talking. Was Brutus the Son of Caesar? Could Caesar have sired a son during his affair with Servilia? Possibly. It is objected that Caesar would have only been fifteen at the time Brutus was born, although this hardly precludes the possibility. If Caesar  was  his dad, that would make Brutus an even worse criminal than he already was, since hed have committed patricide, one of the most awful deeds possible.  Still, most scholars discount the idea that Caesar was Brutuss father. Writing around 110 A.D., Plutarch does not clearly resolve the issue, but he does explain why Caesar may have considered Brutus his son. The fifth paragraph from Plutarchs Life of Brutus, on the paternity issue, contains a related, famous anecdote simultaneously showing Caesar besting Brutus uncle Cato and also how enduring Caesars relationship with Brutuss mother was. And this he is believed to have done out of a tenderness to Servilia, the mother of Brutus; for Caesar had, it seems, in his youth been very intimate with her, and she passionately in love with him; and, considering that Brutus was born about that time in which their loves were at the highest, Caesar had a belief that he was his own child. The story is told, that when the great question of the conspiracy of Catiline, which had like to have been the destruction of the commonwealth, was debated in the senate, Cato and Caesar were both standing up, contending together on the decision to be come to; at which time a little note was delivered to Caesar from without, which he took and read silently to himself. Upon this, Cato cried out aloud, and accused Caesar of holding correspondence with and receiving letters from the enemies of the commonwealth; and when many other senators exclaimed against it, Caesar delivered the note as he had received it to Cato, who reading it found it to be a lo ve-letter from his own sister Servilia, and threw it back again to Caesar with the words, Keep it, you drunkard, and returned to the subject of the debate. So public and notorious was Servilias love to Caesar. -Edited by Carly Silver