why brainiac? because i have decided to make this blog my intelligent blog.
i mean, i must write all intelligent things in here.
but i think not now. because i dont have time.
help me pray that i can have all the time in the world. *sighs*
its so hard to maintain three blogs all at the same time, you know.
God bless.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
reaksiyon sa SONA
"We were able to strengthen our economy because of the fiscal reforms that we adopted at such great cost to me in public disapproval. But I would rather be RIGHT than POPULAR.
- Her Excellency, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
Sa tuwing nababasa ko, o naririnig ang tungkol sa SONA, napapaisip tuloy ako na walang kuwenta ang bumabatikos sa pangulo. Hindi naman lahat ay ganoon. Kasi, sa totoo lang, wala akong pinapanigan sa pagitan ng nambabatikos at ng pangulo. Ang sa akin lang, hindi naman pala ganoon kasama ang pangulo, hindi siya ganoon ka iresponsable. Kasi kung totoo nga na ganun, ay siguro nakatunganga lang siya tuwing magso-SONA siya, o di kaya'y di na lang siya mag so-SONA dahil wala naman siyang masasabi, hindi ba?
Marami siyang nabanggit na mga 'achievements', kumbaga, sa SONA niya ngayon. Nakapagpatayo siya ng mga patubig sa isang milyong ektarya sa loob ng anim na taon, naitaguyod niya ang Agribusiness sa Mindanao na siyang dahilan kaya bumaba ang hunger rate doon, nakapagawa siya ng iba't-ibang imprastruktura tulad na lamang ng tulay sa Butuan, at mga paliparan,kasama din ang ang mga daan,na mas kilala sa tawag na farm to market roads na kung saan natapos na nila ang 300.
Nabanggit din niya ang tungkol sa edukasyon. Ang 15, 000 na silid-aralan, na noon ay 6,000 lamang ang nagagawa sa isang taon, pagbibigay ng isang libro bawat mag-aaral sa elementarya, ang pagsusuporta ng 600,000 na iskolar, ang pagpapa-angat sa kalidad ng pagtuturo, ay ilan lamang sa mga nagawa niya sa edukasyon.
Kung tungkol naman sa medisina, nagawa nilang hatiin ang presyo ng mga gamot na karaniwang binibili ng madla. Nabanggit tio ng pangulo noong taong 2001, at ngayon ay napatupad niya.
Kung mapapansin natin, mas nakatuon ang pansin ng administrasyon sa Mindanao. Dahil taga-doon ako, naiintindihan ko ang dahilan bakit ganoon. Kasi, kung ang ipinagmamalaki ng Maynila ay iyong mga industriya at iba't-ibang negosyo, ang sa Mindanao naman ay iyong mga produktong agrikultural na siyang bumubuhay sa ating lahat. Ika nga ng pangulo, Last year, I unveiled the Super Regions, such as Mindanao,to spread development away from an inequitable concentration in Metro Manila. HINDI LAMANG MAYNILA ANG PILIPINAS.
Sinabi ng pangulo sa simula ng SONA niya na hangarin niyang mapabilang ang ating bansa sa hanay ng mayayamang bansa pagkatapos ng 20 taon. At kapag nagbitiw ng ganitong pahayag ang isang tao, nagbabatay ito sa numero. Ibig sabihin, may pagsasaliksik ang ginawa. Ngunit kahit anong gawin natin, hindi natin nararamdaman ang sinasabi niyang pag-unlad. Ito ay marahil sa kadahilanang ang umuunlad lamang ay ang iyong mga taong napapabilang sa mataas na uri ng pamumuhay o ang iyong mga mayayaman. Alam natin na ang pera ay umiikot lamang. Kaya kung umuunlad ang mga mayayaman, o yumayaman ang mg mayayaman, e di mas lalong naghihirap ang mga mahihirap. Hindi ba? Kaya hindi natin nararamdaman ang pag-unlad dahil ang nakikita natin ay iyong mga mamamayan na naghihirap, na lalong naghihirap.
Hindi naman talaga kaya ng ating pangulo na tugunan ang LAHAT ng pangangailangan ng mamamayan, hindi ba? Kumbaga binibigyan niya ng prayoridad ang mga pangangailangan na kailangang unahin. Hindi ko naman sinasabi na wala sa prayoridad niya and edukasyon, kasi karamihan sa nag-aalsa ay edukasyon ang isinisigaw. Ang sa akin lang, kung ititgil natin iyong mga pagbabatikos at simulan nating magsakripisyo, siguradong mabibigyan ng daan ang mga plano ng ating pangulo para sa ikauunlad ng ating bansa., Kailangan lang nating buksan ang ating isipan, at magtiwala sa kanya.
- Her Excellency, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
Sa tuwing nababasa ko, o naririnig ang tungkol sa SONA, napapaisip tuloy ako na walang kuwenta ang bumabatikos sa pangulo. Hindi naman lahat ay ganoon. Kasi, sa totoo lang, wala akong pinapanigan sa pagitan ng nambabatikos at ng pangulo. Ang sa akin lang, hindi naman pala ganoon kasama ang pangulo, hindi siya ganoon ka iresponsable. Kasi kung totoo nga na ganun, ay siguro nakatunganga lang siya tuwing magso-SONA siya, o di kaya'y di na lang siya mag so-SONA dahil wala naman siyang masasabi, hindi ba?
Marami siyang nabanggit na mga 'achievements', kumbaga, sa SONA niya ngayon. Nakapagpatayo siya ng mga patubig sa isang milyong ektarya sa loob ng anim na taon, naitaguyod niya ang Agribusiness sa Mindanao na siyang dahilan kaya bumaba ang hunger rate doon, nakapagawa siya ng iba't-ibang imprastruktura tulad na lamang ng tulay sa Butuan, at mga paliparan,kasama din ang ang mga daan,na mas kilala sa tawag na farm to market roads na kung saan natapos na nila ang 300.
Nabanggit din niya ang tungkol sa edukasyon. Ang 15, 000 na silid-aralan, na noon ay 6,000 lamang ang nagagawa sa isang taon, pagbibigay ng isang libro bawat mag-aaral sa elementarya, ang pagsusuporta ng 600,000 na iskolar, ang pagpapa-angat sa kalidad ng pagtuturo, ay ilan lamang sa mga nagawa niya sa edukasyon.
Kung tungkol naman sa medisina, nagawa nilang hatiin ang presyo ng mga gamot na karaniwang binibili ng madla. Nabanggit tio ng pangulo noong taong 2001, at ngayon ay napatupad niya.
Kung mapapansin natin, mas nakatuon ang pansin ng administrasyon sa Mindanao. Dahil taga-doon ako, naiintindihan ko ang dahilan bakit ganoon. Kasi, kung ang ipinagmamalaki ng Maynila ay iyong mga industriya at iba't-ibang negosyo, ang sa Mindanao naman ay iyong mga produktong agrikultural na siyang bumubuhay sa ating lahat. Ika nga ng pangulo, Last year, I unveiled the Super Regions, such as Mindanao,to spread development away from an inequitable concentration in Metro Manila. HINDI LAMANG MAYNILA ANG PILIPINAS.
Sinabi ng pangulo sa simula ng SONA niya na hangarin niyang mapabilang ang ating bansa sa hanay ng mayayamang bansa pagkatapos ng 20 taon. At kapag nagbitiw ng ganitong pahayag ang isang tao, nagbabatay ito sa numero. Ibig sabihin, may pagsasaliksik ang ginawa. Ngunit kahit anong gawin natin, hindi natin nararamdaman ang sinasabi niyang pag-unlad. Ito ay marahil sa kadahilanang ang umuunlad lamang ay ang iyong mga taong napapabilang sa mataas na uri ng pamumuhay o ang iyong mga mayayaman. Alam natin na ang pera ay umiikot lamang. Kaya kung umuunlad ang mga mayayaman, o yumayaman ang mg mayayaman, e di mas lalong naghihirap ang mga mahihirap. Hindi ba? Kaya hindi natin nararamdaman ang pag-unlad dahil ang nakikita natin ay iyong mga mamamayan na naghihirap, na lalong naghihirap.
Hindi naman talaga kaya ng ating pangulo na tugunan ang LAHAT ng pangangailangan ng mamamayan, hindi ba? Kumbaga binibigyan niya ng prayoridad ang mga pangangailangan na kailangang unahin. Hindi ko naman sinasabi na wala sa prayoridad niya and edukasyon, kasi karamihan sa nag-aalsa ay edukasyon ang isinisigaw. Ang sa akin lang, kung ititgil natin iyong mga pagbabatikos at simulan nating magsakripisyo, siguradong mabibigyan ng daan ang mga plano ng ating pangulo para sa ikauunlad ng ating bansa., Kailangan lang nating buksan ang ating isipan, at magtiwala sa kanya.
teorya ni leiberman
"In the five-million-year-long lineage that connects us to the common ancestors of apes and human beings, there have been many Adams and many Eves. In the beginning was the word, but the vocal communications of our most distant hominid ancestors five million years or so ago probably didn’t really differ from those of the ape-hominid ancestor." This is what Philip Lieberman, a linguist at Brown University, commented in a chapter he entitled ‘What, When, and Where did Eve Speak to Adam and He to Her?. Using biblical terminology, Lieberman had written a year earlier: ‘For with speech came a capacity for thought that had never existed before, and that has transformed the world. In the beginning was the word’.
When God created the first human beings—Adam and Eve—He created them in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27). This likeness unquestionably included the ability to engage in intelligible speech via human language. In fact, God spoke to them from the very beginning of their existence as humans (Genesis 1:28-30). Hence, they possessed the ability to understand verbal communication—and to speak themselves! God gave very specific instructions to the man before the woman was even created (Genesis 2:15-17). Adam gave names to the animals before the creation of Eve (Genesis 2:19-20). Since both the man and the woman were created on the sixth day, the creation of the man preceded the creation of the woman by only hours. So, Adam had the ability to speak on the very day that he was brought into existence! That same day, God put Adam to sleep and performed history’s first human surgery. He fashioned the female of the species from a portion of the male’s body. God then presented the woman to the man (no doubt in what we would refer to as the first marriage ceremony). Observe Adam’s response: ‘And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man"’ (Genesis 2:23). Here is Adam—less than twenty-four hours old—articulating intelligible speech with a well-developed vocabulary and advanced powers of expression. Note also that Eve engaged in intelligent conversation with Satan (Genesis 3:1-5). An unbiased observer is forced to conclude that Adam and Eve were created with oral communication capability. Little wonder, then, that God said to Moses: ‘Who had made man’s mouth? ... Have not I, the Lord? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say’ (Exodus 4:11-12).
Pinatotohanan sa bibliya ang teoryang ito, kaya ako naniniwala dito. Kung iisipin nga natin, ang paglikha sa mundo ang siyang hudyat ng simula ng paglikha ng lahat ng bagay. At, kasali na doon ang wika. Sinabi ni Lieberman na kalakip ng pagsasalita o pagwiwika ang pag-iisip. Kaya kung wala pang wika sa pinakasimula, paano maililikha ng Panginoon ang mundo? Ang paniniwala ni Lieberman ay pinatunayan sa bibliya, Genesis 1:3, sa bersong ito : "Then GOD SAID, 'Let there be light,' AND THERE WAS LIGHT." Nangangahulugan itong totoo nga ang sinasabi ni Lieberman. Paano nagkaroon ng wika ang mga tao? Sinaad din sa bibliya ang tungkol dito sa Genesis 1:26-27, "Then God said: Let us make man in my image, after my likeness. God created man in his image." Ibig sabihin nito, nang nilikha Niya ang tao, nilikha niya ito na kahawig sa kanya. At ang pagkakahawig na ito ay hindi lang nagsasaad ng mukha, kundi pati na rin ng ibang kakayahan, kasama na ang kakayahang magsalita. Mapapansin natin na tumutugma ang teorya ni Lieberman sa mga sinaad sa bibliya. Napili ko ito hindi lamang sa Kristiyano ako, kundi dahil na rin sa matatag na basehan na ipinakita niya – ang bibliya. Ang tanging problema lang nito ay ang bibliya at ang siyensa ay di magkatugma.
When God created the first human beings—Adam and Eve—He created them in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27). This likeness unquestionably included the ability to engage in intelligible speech via human language. In fact, God spoke to them from the very beginning of their existence as humans (Genesis 1:28-30). Hence, they possessed the ability to understand verbal communication—and to speak themselves! God gave very specific instructions to the man before the woman was even created (Genesis 2:15-17). Adam gave names to the animals before the creation of Eve (Genesis 2:19-20). Since both the man and the woman were created on the sixth day, the creation of the man preceded the creation of the woman by only hours. So, Adam had the ability to speak on the very day that he was brought into existence! That same day, God put Adam to sleep and performed history’s first human surgery. He fashioned the female of the species from a portion of the male’s body. God then presented the woman to the man (no doubt in what we would refer to as the first marriage ceremony). Observe Adam’s response: ‘And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man"’ (Genesis 2:23). Here is Adam—less than twenty-four hours old—articulating intelligible speech with a well-developed vocabulary and advanced powers of expression. Note also that Eve engaged in intelligent conversation with Satan (Genesis 3:1-5). An unbiased observer is forced to conclude that Adam and Eve were created with oral communication capability. Little wonder, then, that God said to Moses: ‘Who had made man’s mouth? ... Have not I, the Lord? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say’ (Exodus 4:11-12).
Pinatotohanan sa bibliya ang teoryang ito, kaya ako naniniwala dito. Kung iisipin nga natin, ang paglikha sa mundo ang siyang hudyat ng simula ng paglikha ng lahat ng bagay. At, kasali na doon ang wika. Sinabi ni Lieberman na kalakip ng pagsasalita o pagwiwika ang pag-iisip. Kaya kung wala pang wika sa pinakasimula, paano maililikha ng Panginoon ang mundo? Ang paniniwala ni Lieberman ay pinatunayan sa bibliya, Genesis 1:3, sa bersong ito : "Then GOD SAID, 'Let there be light,' AND THERE WAS LIGHT." Nangangahulugan itong totoo nga ang sinasabi ni Lieberman. Paano nagkaroon ng wika ang mga tao? Sinaad din sa bibliya ang tungkol dito sa Genesis 1:26-27, "Then God said: Let us make man in my image, after my likeness. God created man in his image." Ibig sabihin nito, nang nilikha Niya ang tao, nilikha niya ito na kahawig sa kanya. At ang pagkakahawig na ito ay hindi lang nagsasaad ng mukha, kundi pati na rin ng ibang kakayahan, kasama na ang kakayahang magsalita. Mapapansin natin na tumutugma ang teorya ni Lieberman sa mga sinaad sa bibliya. Napili ko ito hindi lamang sa Kristiyano ako, kundi dahil na rin sa matatag na basehan na ipinakita niya – ang bibliya. Ang tanging problema lang nito ay ang bibliya at ang siyensa ay di magkatugma.
miseducation of filipinos
A Few General Comments
The first thing that I would really like to comment about is the choice of vocabulary of the author. The author blatantly has a wide command of the English language. And it’s such a good thing for him. But sometimes not good for me, cause I really have to prepare our mini dictionary on my side in case I’ll encounter an alien word.
On the content, it’s really not a waste of time reading the article. Not only will you learn new vocabulary but also your eyes will be opened to a fact that has long existed in which our eyes are just so blinded to see, because we are just so pre-occupied with the idea that the Americans are totally of help. But then again, we must remember that the world is created with symmetry, that in every evil, there’s goodness, and that in the presence of advantage, there’s a disadvantage.
Education is indeed a very vital factor for one’s development. And as we all know, through education, one’s mind is molded because of the teachings, ideas, and values taught to him. Due to this fact, it’s only either of the two that will happen: the person will become productive provided that he was taught with the right things, or, the person will become otherwise since he acquired negative things. So here comes Renato Constantino, educating us the right way.
I wrote some learning and comments from selected parts of the article. And these are as follows:
Compared to US, our country is still in the process of improvisation or still underdeveloped. Culturally speaking, US has firm tradition or has it’s own culture which was not influenced by other cultures. It has developed freely which sprang from its indigenous people. Indeed, US is the master of it’s own house. And provided that we are a corollary of the certain country’s intense desire to spread their seed, we couldn’t deny the fact that we have already adopted some of their cultures and traditions, including their language. American education stresses the importance of internationalism and we simply follow the lead without knowing that our very own foundation of nationalism is weak, making this move disadvantageous. To site is our national virtue of hospitality which, according to the article, has transformed into a stupid vice. (Adoption of Western Values)
Due to the failure of Philippine education, we became so ignorant to the fact that we allowed aliens to strip us of our possessions and wealth. We even praise them for their success, not knowing that some of it is mainly caused by us. They even labeled our country as paradise, but as a matter of fact, Philippines is a heaven just for them but not for some of our countrymen. Because we are still an indirect colony of other countries, many Filipinos fought for complete or total independence and freedom, getting nothing in return but negative thoughts and opposition. Due to colonial education, Filipinos find it hard to grasp the nationalistic principles that must be learned. (Un-Filipino Filipinos)
For a child to master a foreign language, he must first master his own. Because no one is brave enough to advocate the use of our native language as the medium of instruction, the use of English has become dominant. Because a lot are illiterate on this, the use of English as a medium of teaching is an ineffective step, thus producing citizens who do not have mastery of English as well as their native language due to the deliberate neglection to it. Simply put, the masses are becoming more and more illiterate even to their own language. Since many find it hard to use English, many also find it hard to express and lack of expression prevents learning or development of thought, leading to cultural stagnation. (Impediments to Thought)
It is true that we are being dumped with American forms of media. And we can’t deny the fact that mass media is a great factor in molding our character and ideals. It greatly affects our system. Due to this fact, we can’t help but get affected and infected with the whole Americanization thing. And the only way to cure this? Philippine Education. I agree with what is stated that Philippine Education should produce men and women who are not only educated or who do not only know how to read and write and add and subtract, but also men and women who know and who are aware of the present situation of the country and should do something about it for it’s betterment. Philippine education should not only teach the students the basic knowledge and skill but also inculcate within their hearts and minds the values and teachings of our fellow noble countrymen such as Bonifacio and Rizal. Filipino should not only go to school to get a degree or diploma, but should also embed within themselves the values and characteristics that this drowning nation needs. As a saying goes, "Application should always go with education, because the latter is nil in the absence of the former." (Needed: Filipinos)
Two Parts I Like Most To React
a) The Language Problem
Until now, the issue on what medium of teaching should be used is still unresolved. It has been long debated, but still majority is in favor of the English language. Even this fact suggests and strongly proves that we are still an indirect colony of United States and are still dependent on them.
But based on my personal point of view, I am in favor of the use of English as the medium of instruction because first of all, English is the international language. We cannot communicate with other nationalities without it. But this doesn’t really mean that my mind is polluted with the Americanization thing. Or maybe is it? I don’t know. What I’m trying to depict is that the use of English is a practical way for us, Filipinos to be globally competitive. Though I am in favor of the English medium, it does not mean that I look down our native tongue or I completely reject it.
b) Barrier to Democracy
English is considered to be a barrier to democracy. This is very visible during campaigns and public addresses. We knew that most politicians communicate to the masses with the use of such language. I don’t know if they do so just because they don’t want to inform the masses of their hidden agenda or they just want to impress the masses that they are English-literate? Or they just consider the native language as the language of the uneducated because of their belief that English-literates belong to an elite group? Either of those, one thing is for sure: they don’t consider the fact that only a few could articulate thoughts in English. Only a few could even read and write with the use of that language. Due to the lack of command of English language, the masses who only half-understand what is said to them are already contented to leave everything to the leaders. As what is said in the article, "people don’t even think it is their duty to know, or that they are capable of understanding national problems." It’s such a sad fact.
Is The Article Still Relevant, Or Not?
The article has presented enough hard and believable facts. So I really think the article is still relevant and should be disseminated. The author has convinced me with his ideas and opinion. So, I’m sure he could also convince others the same way that he did to me. He bombarded me with hard facts and great ideas. His write-up is great. It’s indeed worth reading.
Considering the present situation that our country is facing right now, I think this article could help a lot. Filipinos nowadays have already that colonial mentality. And maybe they’ll change if they’ll read this. Our country needs people who are willing to change our country for the better which will benefit the many, not only himself. Because we are so dependent on America, I think it’s time to wake our fellow countrymen to this fact.
The first thing that I would really like to comment about is the choice of vocabulary of the author. The author blatantly has a wide command of the English language. And it’s such a good thing for him. But sometimes not good for me, cause I really have to prepare our mini dictionary on my side in case I’ll encounter an alien word.
On the content, it’s really not a waste of time reading the article. Not only will you learn new vocabulary but also your eyes will be opened to a fact that has long existed in which our eyes are just so blinded to see, because we are just so pre-occupied with the idea that the Americans are totally of help. But then again, we must remember that the world is created with symmetry, that in every evil, there’s goodness, and that in the presence of advantage, there’s a disadvantage.
Education is indeed a very vital factor for one’s development. And as we all know, through education, one’s mind is molded because of the teachings, ideas, and values taught to him. Due to this fact, it’s only either of the two that will happen: the person will become productive provided that he was taught with the right things, or, the person will become otherwise since he acquired negative things. So here comes Renato Constantino, educating us the right way.
I wrote some learning and comments from selected parts of the article. And these are as follows:
Compared to US, our country is still in the process of improvisation or still underdeveloped. Culturally speaking, US has firm tradition or has it’s own culture which was not influenced by other cultures. It has developed freely which sprang from its indigenous people. Indeed, US is the master of it’s own house. And provided that we are a corollary of the certain country’s intense desire to spread their seed, we couldn’t deny the fact that we have already adopted some of their cultures and traditions, including their language. American education stresses the importance of internationalism and we simply follow the lead without knowing that our very own foundation of nationalism is weak, making this move disadvantageous. To site is our national virtue of hospitality which, according to the article, has transformed into a stupid vice. (Adoption of Western Values)
Due to the failure of Philippine education, we became so ignorant to the fact that we allowed aliens to strip us of our possessions and wealth. We even praise them for their success, not knowing that some of it is mainly caused by us. They even labeled our country as paradise, but as a matter of fact, Philippines is a heaven just for them but not for some of our countrymen. Because we are still an indirect colony of other countries, many Filipinos fought for complete or total independence and freedom, getting nothing in return but negative thoughts and opposition. Due to colonial education, Filipinos find it hard to grasp the nationalistic principles that must be learned. (Un-Filipino Filipinos)
For a child to master a foreign language, he must first master his own. Because no one is brave enough to advocate the use of our native language as the medium of instruction, the use of English has become dominant. Because a lot are illiterate on this, the use of English as a medium of teaching is an ineffective step, thus producing citizens who do not have mastery of English as well as their native language due to the deliberate neglection to it. Simply put, the masses are becoming more and more illiterate even to their own language. Since many find it hard to use English, many also find it hard to express and lack of expression prevents learning or development of thought, leading to cultural stagnation. (Impediments to Thought)
It is true that we are being dumped with American forms of media. And we can’t deny the fact that mass media is a great factor in molding our character and ideals. It greatly affects our system. Due to this fact, we can’t help but get affected and infected with the whole Americanization thing. And the only way to cure this? Philippine Education. I agree with what is stated that Philippine Education should produce men and women who are not only educated or who do not only know how to read and write and add and subtract, but also men and women who know and who are aware of the present situation of the country and should do something about it for it’s betterment. Philippine education should not only teach the students the basic knowledge and skill but also inculcate within their hearts and minds the values and teachings of our fellow noble countrymen such as Bonifacio and Rizal. Filipino should not only go to school to get a degree or diploma, but should also embed within themselves the values and characteristics that this drowning nation needs. As a saying goes, "Application should always go with education, because the latter is nil in the absence of the former." (Needed: Filipinos)
Two Parts I Like Most To React
a) The Language Problem
Until now, the issue on what medium of teaching should be used is still unresolved. It has been long debated, but still majority is in favor of the English language. Even this fact suggests and strongly proves that we are still an indirect colony of United States and are still dependent on them.
But based on my personal point of view, I am in favor of the use of English as the medium of instruction because first of all, English is the international language. We cannot communicate with other nationalities without it. But this doesn’t really mean that my mind is polluted with the Americanization thing. Or maybe is it? I don’t know. What I’m trying to depict is that the use of English is a practical way for us, Filipinos to be globally competitive. Though I am in favor of the English medium, it does not mean that I look down our native tongue or I completely reject it.
b) Barrier to Democracy
English is considered to be a barrier to democracy. This is very visible during campaigns and public addresses. We knew that most politicians communicate to the masses with the use of such language. I don’t know if they do so just because they don’t want to inform the masses of their hidden agenda or they just want to impress the masses that they are English-literate? Or they just consider the native language as the language of the uneducated because of their belief that English-literates belong to an elite group? Either of those, one thing is for sure: they don’t consider the fact that only a few could articulate thoughts in English. Only a few could even read and write with the use of that language. Due to the lack of command of English language, the masses who only half-understand what is said to them are already contented to leave everything to the leaders. As what is said in the article, "people don’t even think it is their duty to know, or that they are capable of understanding national problems." It’s such a sad fact.
Is The Article Still Relevant, Or Not?
The article has presented enough hard and believable facts. So I really think the article is still relevant and should be disseminated. The author has convinced me with his ideas and opinion. So, I’m sure he could also convince others the same way that he did to me. He bombarded me with hard facts and great ideas. His write-up is great. It’s indeed worth reading.
Considering the present situation that our country is facing right now, I think this article could help a lot. Filipinos nowadays have already that colonial mentality. And maybe they’ll change if they’ll read this. Our country needs people who are willing to change our country for the better which will benefit the many, not only himself. Because we are so dependent on America, I think it’s time to wake our fellow countrymen to this fact.
reaksiyon sa romulus d grayt
Konting Pangkalahatang Reaksiyon. Nang matapos kong panoorin ang palabas ay tumayo ang aking balahibo, hindi dahil sa takot kundi sa sobrang pagkamangha sa napanood ko. Napakahusay ang pagganap ng mga artista sa papel nila. Maganda ang pagkakasunod-sunod, gayundin ang pagkagawa ng buong istorya. Binabati ko ang mga tao sa likod ng produksiyon na ito sapagkat matatalino sila at naisip nilang magpalabas ng ganoon kaganda at katalinong palabas. Nasasabi kong matalino sila sapagkat nabatid ko na hindi lamang puro komedya at katatawanan ang pinapalabas nila dito kundi alam kong mayroong natatagong kahulugan ang palabas na iyon. Binabati ko din ang mga nagsipagganap sapagkat, ayon nga sa nasulat ko, nagampanan nila nang mahusay ang mga papel nila. Nagpapasalamat ako kay Prof. del Mundo sapagkat binigyan niya kami ng pagkakataong makapanood ng isang mahusay at matalinong palabas. Binabati ko din ang PETA, dahil nagpalabas sila ng ganito kagandang play.
Buod ng Palabas.
Act 1.. Dumating si Spurius Titan Mamma sa kaharian ni Romulus na duguan at sugatan. Nais niyang ipagbigay alam kay Romulus na nasakop na ng kalaban ang Pavia, ngunit si Romulus ay ayaw tanggapin o pakinggan ang balitang dala niya. Mas ninais niyang kumain ng agahan at makipag-usap sa isang taong nais bumili ng mga busto ng palasyo. Sinabihan pa niya si Spurius na matulog at magpahinga kaysa pakinggan ang balita. Maya-maya ay dumating ang hari na si Zeno at pinaalam sa kanila na nasakop na ang kaharian niya. Nais niyang makipagsanib puwersa kay Romulus upang labanan ang mga German subalit ayaw naman ni Romulus na makipaglaban. Ayaw niyang sumabak sa giyera. Dumating si Caesar Rupf at inalok niya ang hari na babayaran niya ang mga kalaban ng 10 milyon sa isang kondisyon- nais niyang mapangasawa ang anak niya na si Rea. Ayaw pumayag ni Romulus. Sabi niya, mas gugustuhin pa niyang ibenta ang buong imperyo ng mura kaysa ipakasal ang anak niya.
Act II.. Ang mga natitirang tauhan ni Romulus ay biglaang nagtipon sa hardin at nag-usap tungkol sa nalalapit na pagbagsak ng imperyo nang biglang dumating si Emilian, ang mapapangasawa ni Rea. Nandidiri pa siya sa kaharian ni Romulus sapagkat marumi ito dala ng mga manok na naglipana sa buong kaharian. Lumabas si Rea mula sa palasyo. Sa kasamaang palad ay hindi siya nakilala nito dahil sa duguan at sugatan siya. Pinakilala ni Emilian ang sarili niya at nagulat si Rea dahil tatlong taon silang nagkawalay ni Emilian, at ngayon ay biglaan silang nagkita. Nais ni Emilian na kumuha ng sandata si Rea upang sumama sa kanya at makipaglaban, ngunit ayaw naman ng dalaga na gawin iyon. Nang marinig ng binata ang alok ni Rupf ay sinabihan nito si Rea na tanggapin ang alok alang-alang sa kapakanan ng kaharian. Sapilitan ang pagpayag ni Rea, ngunit nang lumabas si Romulus ay nagalit ito at hindi pinahintulutan ang dalaga na gawin ang nais ni Emilian.
Act III.. Binisita si Romulus ng kanyang asawang si Empress Julia na nagpaalam sa kanya. Aalis ng Roma ang reyna papuntang Sicily at doon na maninirahan. Ayaw sumama ni Romulus. Dito nagkaalaman na hindi kailanman minahal ng dalawa ang isa’t-isa, na naggamitan lang sila para sa pansariling kagustuhan. Nais ni Julia na maging Empress kaya niya pinakasalan si Romulus, at si Romulus naman ay nais maging hari na naglalayong pabagsakin ang isang bayan dahil sa madugong kasaysayan nito bago maabot ang kapangyarihang tinatamasa nito. Pagkaalis ni Julia ay binisita si Romulus ni Rea. Kinumbinse ni Romulus si Rea na pakasalan si Emilian at hindi si Rupf dahil aniya, "mas mahirap maging tapat sa kapwa kaysa sa estado." Nakita niya na may taong nagmamasid sa kanila kaya nang umalis si Rea ay bigla niyang pinalabas ang taong ito na nakilala niyang si Emilian. Mula dito ay biglang nagsulputan ang mga taong nagtatago sa silid ng hari. Ito ay sina Zeno, Spurius at ang sekretarya niya na nakasuot ng itim na damit at may dalang maliit na sandata. Plano nilang patayin ang hari ngunit hindi man lang natinag si Romulus. Hindi takot ang nababanaag sa mukha niya kundi pagkagulat dahil sa planong ito ng mga kampon niyang nagtraydor sa kanya. Ngunit bigla silang lumisan nang may sumigaw na dumating na ang mga kalaban. Mas ninais na lang nilang mamatay si Romulus sa kamay ng mga kalaban.
Act IV. Pagkagising ni Romulus ay sinalubong siya ng mga balita na ang dalawa niyang katulong ay inalukan ng trabaho ni Rupf at ang sinasakyan ng mag-ina niya papuntang Sicily ay nalunod. Tanging si Zeno lamang ang nakaligtas dito. Hindi nagpakita ng kahit na anumang pagkalungkot si Romulus, sapagkat alam niyang mamatay din siya sa araw na iyon. Nang dumating na ang puwersa ng mga kalaban na pinamumunuan ni Odoacer at ng pamangkin niyang si Theoderic, ay buong puso niyang sinalubong ang mga ito, pati na ang kamatayan niya. Subalit, hindi nais ni Odoacer na patayin ang hari kundi plano niyang humingi ng tulong dito. Magkapareho sila ng plano ni Odoacer na kailangan nang matigil ang pagkasakim ng mga tao sa kapangyarihan. Alam ni Odoacer na kapag naghari siya ay papatayin din siya ng pamangkin niya balang-araw. Kaya nagkasundo ang dalawa na gawing hari ng Italya si Odoacer at magretiro si Romulus na may taunang pension. Doon nagtatapos ang palabas.
Mga Natutunan. Sinabi ni Romulus na hindi digmaan ang sagot sa lahat ng bagay. Dahil alam naman natin na laganap ang giyera ngayon sa pagitan ng gobyerno at rebelde. Dahil sa kagustuhan ng taong makamit ang kapangyarihan ay ginagawa na niya ang lahat upang maisakatuparan ito. Ito ang naging dahilan na gustong ibagsak ni Romulus ang imperyong Romano dahil sa madugo nitong nakaraan. Nakamtan ng Roma ang kapangyarihan sa pamamagitan ng pagpatay ng mga tao. Laging iniisip ng tao na para sa bayan o estado ang ginagawa nito. Nabubulagan sila sa ideyang ito kaya hindi nila nakikita ang mga taong naapakan nila. Nais ni Romulus isaalang-alang ang kapakanan ng tao kaysa sa bayan.
Mapapansin din natin na sa kalagitnaan ng gulo at digmaan ay walang ginawa si Romulus kundi hayaan na bumagsak ang imperyo. Planado niya ang lahat ng iyon. Naniniwala kasi siya na ang imperyalismo at ang globalisasyon ang siyang sisira sa ating lahat. Ito na siguro ang nangyayari sa atin sa kasalukuyan.
Siguro iyon ang nais iparating ng PETA sa atin. Nais siguro nilang ipahiwatig ang mensaheng iyon sa pamamagitan ng palabas na iyon.
Buod ng Palabas.
Act 1.. Dumating si Spurius Titan Mamma sa kaharian ni Romulus na duguan at sugatan. Nais niyang ipagbigay alam kay Romulus na nasakop na ng kalaban ang Pavia, ngunit si Romulus ay ayaw tanggapin o pakinggan ang balitang dala niya. Mas ninais niyang kumain ng agahan at makipag-usap sa isang taong nais bumili ng mga busto ng palasyo. Sinabihan pa niya si Spurius na matulog at magpahinga kaysa pakinggan ang balita. Maya-maya ay dumating ang hari na si Zeno at pinaalam sa kanila na nasakop na ang kaharian niya. Nais niyang makipagsanib puwersa kay Romulus upang labanan ang mga German subalit ayaw naman ni Romulus na makipaglaban. Ayaw niyang sumabak sa giyera. Dumating si Caesar Rupf at inalok niya ang hari na babayaran niya ang mga kalaban ng 10 milyon sa isang kondisyon- nais niyang mapangasawa ang anak niya na si Rea. Ayaw pumayag ni Romulus. Sabi niya, mas gugustuhin pa niyang ibenta ang buong imperyo ng mura kaysa ipakasal ang anak niya.
Act II.. Ang mga natitirang tauhan ni Romulus ay biglaang nagtipon sa hardin at nag-usap tungkol sa nalalapit na pagbagsak ng imperyo nang biglang dumating si Emilian, ang mapapangasawa ni Rea. Nandidiri pa siya sa kaharian ni Romulus sapagkat marumi ito dala ng mga manok na naglipana sa buong kaharian. Lumabas si Rea mula sa palasyo. Sa kasamaang palad ay hindi siya nakilala nito dahil sa duguan at sugatan siya. Pinakilala ni Emilian ang sarili niya at nagulat si Rea dahil tatlong taon silang nagkawalay ni Emilian, at ngayon ay biglaan silang nagkita. Nais ni Emilian na kumuha ng sandata si Rea upang sumama sa kanya at makipaglaban, ngunit ayaw naman ng dalaga na gawin iyon. Nang marinig ng binata ang alok ni Rupf ay sinabihan nito si Rea na tanggapin ang alok alang-alang sa kapakanan ng kaharian. Sapilitan ang pagpayag ni Rea, ngunit nang lumabas si Romulus ay nagalit ito at hindi pinahintulutan ang dalaga na gawin ang nais ni Emilian.
Act III.. Binisita si Romulus ng kanyang asawang si Empress Julia na nagpaalam sa kanya. Aalis ng Roma ang reyna papuntang Sicily at doon na maninirahan. Ayaw sumama ni Romulus. Dito nagkaalaman na hindi kailanman minahal ng dalawa ang isa’t-isa, na naggamitan lang sila para sa pansariling kagustuhan. Nais ni Julia na maging Empress kaya niya pinakasalan si Romulus, at si Romulus naman ay nais maging hari na naglalayong pabagsakin ang isang bayan dahil sa madugong kasaysayan nito bago maabot ang kapangyarihang tinatamasa nito. Pagkaalis ni Julia ay binisita si Romulus ni Rea. Kinumbinse ni Romulus si Rea na pakasalan si Emilian at hindi si Rupf dahil aniya, "mas mahirap maging tapat sa kapwa kaysa sa estado." Nakita niya na may taong nagmamasid sa kanila kaya nang umalis si Rea ay bigla niyang pinalabas ang taong ito na nakilala niyang si Emilian. Mula dito ay biglang nagsulputan ang mga taong nagtatago sa silid ng hari. Ito ay sina Zeno, Spurius at ang sekretarya niya na nakasuot ng itim na damit at may dalang maliit na sandata. Plano nilang patayin ang hari ngunit hindi man lang natinag si Romulus. Hindi takot ang nababanaag sa mukha niya kundi pagkagulat dahil sa planong ito ng mga kampon niyang nagtraydor sa kanya. Ngunit bigla silang lumisan nang may sumigaw na dumating na ang mga kalaban. Mas ninais na lang nilang mamatay si Romulus sa kamay ng mga kalaban.
Act IV. Pagkagising ni Romulus ay sinalubong siya ng mga balita na ang dalawa niyang katulong ay inalukan ng trabaho ni Rupf at ang sinasakyan ng mag-ina niya papuntang Sicily ay nalunod. Tanging si Zeno lamang ang nakaligtas dito. Hindi nagpakita ng kahit na anumang pagkalungkot si Romulus, sapagkat alam niyang mamatay din siya sa araw na iyon. Nang dumating na ang puwersa ng mga kalaban na pinamumunuan ni Odoacer at ng pamangkin niyang si Theoderic, ay buong puso niyang sinalubong ang mga ito, pati na ang kamatayan niya. Subalit, hindi nais ni Odoacer na patayin ang hari kundi plano niyang humingi ng tulong dito. Magkapareho sila ng plano ni Odoacer na kailangan nang matigil ang pagkasakim ng mga tao sa kapangyarihan. Alam ni Odoacer na kapag naghari siya ay papatayin din siya ng pamangkin niya balang-araw. Kaya nagkasundo ang dalawa na gawing hari ng Italya si Odoacer at magretiro si Romulus na may taunang pension. Doon nagtatapos ang palabas.
Mga Natutunan. Sinabi ni Romulus na hindi digmaan ang sagot sa lahat ng bagay. Dahil alam naman natin na laganap ang giyera ngayon sa pagitan ng gobyerno at rebelde. Dahil sa kagustuhan ng taong makamit ang kapangyarihan ay ginagawa na niya ang lahat upang maisakatuparan ito. Ito ang naging dahilan na gustong ibagsak ni Romulus ang imperyong Romano dahil sa madugo nitong nakaraan. Nakamtan ng Roma ang kapangyarihan sa pamamagitan ng pagpatay ng mga tao. Laging iniisip ng tao na para sa bayan o estado ang ginagawa nito. Nabubulagan sila sa ideyang ito kaya hindi nila nakikita ang mga taong naapakan nila. Nais ni Romulus isaalang-alang ang kapakanan ng tao kaysa sa bayan.
Mapapansin din natin na sa kalagitnaan ng gulo at digmaan ay walang ginawa si Romulus kundi hayaan na bumagsak ang imperyo. Planado niya ang lahat ng iyon. Naniniwala kasi siya na ang imperyalismo at ang globalisasyon ang siyang sisira sa ating lahat. Ito na siguro ang nangyayari sa atin sa kasalukuyan.
Siguro iyon ang nais iparating ng PETA sa atin. Nais siguro nilang ipahiwatig ang mensaheng iyon sa pamamagitan ng palabas na iyon.
health in 1980's
Primary Health Care and the Drug Policy
During the last years of the Marcos administration, the Ministry of Healths emphasis was on primary health care, which was adopted as a national strategy in 1981.
State of Nation's Health
In the early 1980s, there was an obvious shift in the top causes of mortality. Although pneumonia and tuberculosis still ranked number one and three respectively, lifestyle diseases slowly climbed the list. Diseases of the heart (second), diseases of the vascular system (fourth), and cancers (fifth) now dominated as major health problems.
However, the top ten causes of morbidity were still mostly infectious in nature: influenza, gastroenteritis, bronchitis, accidents, diseases of the heart, tuberculosis, pneumonia, diseases of the vascular system, mental disorders, avitaminosis and other nutritional state.
Primary Health Care
The Primary Health Care movement began with the Community Based Health Projects (CBHPs) of the mid-seventies. These CBHPs were implemented at the grassroots level and sought to find solutions to the peoples health and socio-economic problems. With the WHO/UNICEF Alma Ata Declaration in 1978, Primary Health Care became a preferred strategy with the battle cry of "Health for All."
Primary Health Care had five concepts: equity in health care, socially acceptable strategies, self-reliance, a multi-sectoral approach and emphasis on preventive medicine. People in the community were tapped, taught and trained in basic health concepts.
On December 2, 1982, an Integrated Health Care Delivery System (E.O. 851) was set up, and the following year, breastfeeding and proper complementary feeding were promoted. Also, an Interorganization Committee on Nutrition (ICON) was organized in 1983.
However, due to the inadequate health budget, the countrys infant immunization coverage declined to an all-time low of 25%. With the unsteady political climate, health also suffered.
Edsa 1 Revolution
After the Marcos administration was overthrown by the People Power Revolution, President Corazon Aquino quickly restored the ways of democracy. Clearly prioritizing health, Aquino increased the health budget from four billion pesos to 11 billion pesos. This translated to a rise in GNP for health from average of 2.8% during the Marcos years to an average of 4.2% for the Aquino years.
April 13, 1987 marked the return of the Department of Health from the previous Ministry of Health with Dr. Alfredo R. A. Bengzon as secretary of health for the new government.
The National Drug Policy
Since 30% of the health departments budget was spent on drugs, the governments new emphasis was on quality yet affordable drugs. On April 30, 1987, during the inauguration of the new Bureau of Food and Drugs laboratory in Alabang, President Aquino announced the Philippine National Drug Policy (PNDP), which provided the guidelines for rational use of quality drugs.
In the meantime, the year 1987 also saw the beginning of the Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) and the passing of the Philippine Milk Code.
Health Secretary Dr. Bengzon writes that one important component of the National Drug Policy is the Generics Act of 1988 (R.A. 6675), which required the use of generic names in the labeling, prescribing and dispensing of medicine. This Bill resulted in a heated controversy involving the pharmaceutical companies and medical doctors. But eventually, on September 13, 1988, the Generics Act was signed into law.
Despite this controversy, Dr. Bengzon claims major achievements in health during his term. By the end of the eighties, infant immunization coverage rose from 25% to almost 90%.
In 1989, the Department of Health drafted the National Hospital Service Development Program, which laid out options for the construction and development of hospitals throughout the country. Foremost is the rebuilding of the San Lazaro Hospital compound. The same was done to many other hospitals and rural health units.
As the eighties ended, the increasing burden of both infectious diseases and lifestyle diseases became apparent. The Health Department geared towards addressing these issues in the challenging nineties.
During the last years of the Marcos administration, the Ministry of Healths emphasis was on primary health care, which was adopted as a national strategy in 1981.
State of Nation's Health
In the early 1980s, there was an obvious shift in the top causes of mortality. Although pneumonia and tuberculosis still ranked number one and three respectively, lifestyle diseases slowly climbed the list. Diseases of the heart (second), diseases of the vascular system (fourth), and cancers (fifth) now dominated as major health problems.
However, the top ten causes of morbidity were still mostly infectious in nature: influenza, gastroenteritis, bronchitis, accidents, diseases of the heart, tuberculosis, pneumonia, diseases of the vascular system, mental disorders, avitaminosis and other nutritional state.
Primary Health Care
The Primary Health Care movement began with the Community Based Health Projects (CBHPs) of the mid-seventies. These CBHPs were implemented at the grassroots level and sought to find solutions to the peoples health and socio-economic problems. With the WHO/UNICEF Alma Ata Declaration in 1978, Primary Health Care became a preferred strategy with the battle cry of "Health for All."
Primary Health Care had five concepts: equity in health care, socially acceptable strategies, self-reliance, a multi-sectoral approach and emphasis on preventive medicine. People in the community were tapped, taught and trained in basic health concepts.
On December 2, 1982, an Integrated Health Care Delivery System (E.O. 851) was set up, and the following year, breastfeeding and proper complementary feeding were promoted. Also, an Interorganization Committee on Nutrition (ICON) was organized in 1983.
However, due to the inadequate health budget, the countrys infant immunization coverage declined to an all-time low of 25%. With the unsteady political climate, health also suffered.
Edsa 1 Revolution
After the Marcos administration was overthrown by the People Power Revolution, President Corazon Aquino quickly restored the ways of democracy. Clearly prioritizing health, Aquino increased the health budget from four billion pesos to 11 billion pesos. This translated to a rise in GNP for health from average of 2.8% during the Marcos years to an average of 4.2% for the Aquino years.
April 13, 1987 marked the return of the Department of Health from the previous Ministry of Health with Dr. Alfredo R. A. Bengzon as secretary of health for the new government.
The National Drug Policy
Since 30% of the health departments budget was spent on drugs, the governments new emphasis was on quality yet affordable drugs. On April 30, 1987, during the inauguration of the new Bureau of Food and Drugs laboratory in Alabang, President Aquino announced the Philippine National Drug Policy (PNDP), which provided the guidelines for rational use of quality drugs.
In the meantime, the year 1987 also saw the beginning of the Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) and the passing of the Philippine Milk Code.
Health Secretary Dr. Bengzon writes that one important component of the National Drug Policy is the Generics Act of 1988 (R.A. 6675), which required the use of generic names in the labeling, prescribing and dispensing of medicine. This Bill resulted in a heated controversy involving the pharmaceutical companies and medical doctors. But eventually, on September 13, 1988, the Generics Act was signed into law.
Despite this controversy, Dr. Bengzon claims major achievements in health during his term. By the end of the eighties, infant immunization coverage rose from 25% to almost 90%.
In 1989, the Department of Health drafted the National Hospital Service Development Program, which laid out options for the construction and development of hospitals throughout the country. Foremost is the rebuilding of the San Lazaro Hospital compound. The same was done to many other hospitals and rural health units.
As the eighties ended, the increasing burden of both infectious diseases and lifestyle diseases became apparent. The Health Department geared towards addressing these issues in the challenging nineties.
child labor
ILO Convention No. 182: Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999
The General Conference of the International Labour Organization,
Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its 87th Session on 1 June 1999, and
Considering the need to adopt new instruments for the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, as the main priority for national and international action, including international cooperation and assistance, to complement the Convention and the Recommendation concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment, 1973, which remain fundamental instruments on child labour, and
Considering that the effective elimination of the worst forms of child labour requires immediate and comprehensive action, taking into account the importance of free basic education and the need to remove the children concerned from all such work and to provide for their rehabilitation and social integration while addressing the needs of their families, and
Recalling the resolution concerning the elimination of child labour adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 83rd Session in 1996, and
Recognizing that child labour is to a great extent caused by poverty and that the long-term solution lies in sustained economic growth leading to social progress, in particular poverty alleviation and universal education, and
Recalling the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1989, and
Recalling the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 86th Session in 1998, and
Recalling that some of the worst forms of child labour are covered by other international instruments, in particular the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, and the United Nations Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, 1956, and
Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to child labour, which is the fourth item on the agenda of the session, and
Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of an international Convention;
adopts this seventeenth day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine the following Convention, which may be cited as the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999.
Article 1
Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency.
Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "child" shall apply to all persons under the age of 18.
Article 3
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "the worst forms of child labour" comprises:
(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;
(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.
Article 4
1. The types of work referred to under Article 3(d) shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, taking into consideration relevant international standards, in particular Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, 1999.
2. The competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, shall identify where the types of work so determined exist.
3. The list of the types of work determined under paragraph 1 of this Article shall be periodically examined and revised as necessary, in consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned.
Article 5
Each Member shall, after consultation with employers' and workers' organizations, establish or designate appropriate mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the provisions giving effect to this Convention.
Article 6
1. Each Member shall design and implement programmes of action to eliminate as a priority the worst forms of child labour.
2. Such programmes of action shall be designed and implemented in consultation with relevant government institutions and employers' and workers' organizations, taking into consideration the views of other concerned groups as appropriate.
Article 7
1. Each Member shall take all necessary measures to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the provisions giving effect to this Convention including the provision and application of penal sanctions or, as appropriate, other sanctions.
2. Each Member shall, taking into account the importance of education in eliminating child labour, take effective and time-bound measures to:
(a) prevent the engagement of children in the worst forms of child labour;
(b) provide the necessary and appropriate direct assistance for the removal of children from the worst forms of child labour and for their rehabilitation and social integration;
(c) ensure access to free basic education, and, wherever possible and appropriate, vocational training, for all children removed from the worst forms of child labour;
(d) identify and reach out to children at special risk; and
(e) take account of the special situation of girls.
3. Each Member shall designate the competent authority responsible for the implementation of the provisions giving effect to this Convention.
Article 8
Members shall take appropriate steps to assist one another in giving effect to the provisions of this Convention through enhanced international cooperation and/or assistance including support for social and economic development, poverty eradication programmes and universal education.
Article 9
The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.
Article 10
1. This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organization whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General of the International Labour Office.
2. It shall come into force 12 months after the date on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director General.
3. Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member 12 months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.
Article 11
1. A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the Convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered.
2. Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which does not, within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided for in this Article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, thereafter, may denounce this Convention at the expiration of each period of ten years under the terms provided for in this Article.
Article 12
1. The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall notify all Members of the International Labour Organization of the registration of all ratifications and acts of denunciation communicated by the Members of the Organization.
2. When notifying the Members of the Organization of the registration of the second ratification, the Director-General shall draw the attention of the Members of the Organization to the date upon which the Convention shall come into force.
Article 13
The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for registration in accordance with article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, full particulars of all ratifications and acts of denunciation registered by the Director-General in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Articles.
Article 14
At such times as it may consider necessary, the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.
Article 15
1. Should the Conference adopt a new Convention revising this Convention in whole or in part, then, unless the new Convention otherwise provides --
(a) the ratification by a Member of the new revising Convention shall ipso jure involve the immediate denunciation of this Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 11 above, if and when the new revising Convention shall have come into force;
(b) as from the date when the new revising Convention comes into force, this Convention shall cease to be open to ratification by the Members.
2. This Convention shall in any case remain in force in its actual form and content for those Members which have ratified it but have not ratified the revising Convention.
Article 16
The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.
The General Conference of the International Labour Organization,
Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its 87th Session on 1 June 1999, and
Considering the need to adopt new instruments for the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, as the main priority for national and international action, including international cooperation and assistance, to complement the Convention and the Recommendation concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment, 1973, which remain fundamental instruments on child labour, and
Considering that the effective elimination of the worst forms of child labour requires immediate and comprehensive action, taking into account the importance of free basic education and the need to remove the children concerned from all such work and to provide for their rehabilitation and social integration while addressing the needs of their families, and
Recalling the resolution concerning the elimination of child labour adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 83rd Session in 1996, and
Recognizing that child labour is to a great extent caused by poverty and that the long-term solution lies in sustained economic growth leading to social progress, in particular poverty alleviation and universal education, and
Recalling the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1989, and
Recalling the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 86th Session in 1998, and
Recalling that some of the worst forms of child labour are covered by other international instruments, in particular the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, and the United Nations Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, 1956, and
Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to child labour, which is the fourth item on the agenda of the session, and
Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of an international Convention;
adopts this seventeenth day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine the following Convention, which may be cited as the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999.
Article 1
Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency.
Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "child" shall apply to all persons under the age of 18.
Article 3
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "the worst forms of child labour" comprises:
(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;
(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.
Article 4
1. The types of work referred to under Article 3(d) shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, taking into consideration relevant international standards, in particular Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, 1999.
2. The competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, shall identify where the types of work so determined exist.
3. The list of the types of work determined under paragraph 1 of this Article shall be periodically examined and revised as necessary, in consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned.
Article 5
Each Member shall, after consultation with employers' and workers' organizations, establish or designate appropriate mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the provisions giving effect to this Convention.
Article 6
1. Each Member shall design and implement programmes of action to eliminate as a priority the worst forms of child labour.
2. Such programmes of action shall be designed and implemented in consultation with relevant government institutions and employers' and workers' organizations, taking into consideration the views of other concerned groups as appropriate.
Article 7
1. Each Member shall take all necessary measures to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the provisions giving effect to this Convention including the provision and application of penal sanctions or, as appropriate, other sanctions.
2. Each Member shall, taking into account the importance of education in eliminating child labour, take effective and time-bound measures to:
(a) prevent the engagement of children in the worst forms of child labour;
(b) provide the necessary and appropriate direct assistance for the removal of children from the worst forms of child labour and for their rehabilitation and social integration;
(c) ensure access to free basic education, and, wherever possible and appropriate, vocational training, for all children removed from the worst forms of child labour;
(d) identify and reach out to children at special risk; and
(e) take account of the special situation of girls.
3. Each Member shall designate the competent authority responsible for the implementation of the provisions giving effect to this Convention.
Article 8
Members shall take appropriate steps to assist one another in giving effect to the provisions of this Convention through enhanced international cooperation and/or assistance including support for social and economic development, poverty eradication programmes and universal education.
Article 9
The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.
Article 10
1. This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organization whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General of the International Labour Office.
2. It shall come into force 12 months after the date on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director General.
3. Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member 12 months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.
Article 11
1. A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the Convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered.
2. Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which does not, within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided for in this Article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, thereafter, may denounce this Convention at the expiration of each period of ten years under the terms provided for in this Article.
Article 12
1. The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall notify all Members of the International Labour Organization of the registration of all ratifications and acts of denunciation communicated by the Members of the Organization.
2. When notifying the Members of the Organization of the registration of the second ratification, the Director-General shall draw the attention of the Members of the Organization to the date upon which the Convention shall come into force.
Article 13
The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for registration in accordance with article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, full particulars of all ratifications and acts of denunciation registered by the Director-General in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Articles.
Article 14
At such times as it may consider necessary, the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.
Article 15
1. Should the Conference adopt a new Convention revising this Convention in whole or in part, then, unless the new Convention otherwise provides --
(a) the ratification by a Member of the new revising Convention shall ipso jure involve the immediate denunciation of this Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 11 above, if and when the new revising Convention shall have come into force;
(b) as from the date when the new revising Convention comes into force, this Convention shall cease to be open to ratification by the Members.
2. This Convention shall in any case remain in force in its actual form and content for those Members which have ratified it but have not ratified the revising Convention.
Article 16
The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.
role of youth in health development
One of the issues our country is facing right now concerns about the health situation of the Filipinos. It is so blatant that our countrymen are more prone to illness and diseases due to different factors, which are by-products of our daily activities. Some of the factors include pollution, population explosion, and poverty. The adults did and are still doing their jobs to promote a healthy country. And what are we, the youth, to do? Just stare and wait for developments? Think again.
On my personal point of view, to be able to prevent weeds from growing in our backyard, one must uproot them, not only to cut the stem or the leaf. The point? Same logic must be applied to our country today. To be able to give solutions to the problems, one must locate and identify the root, and then uproot it. Since we know that health issues are also caused by recklessness of our countrymen, we must go back to the basic; that is, education. And since you can’t teach an old dog a new trick, let’s start the massive uprooting with the youth.
Education is indeed a very vital factor for one’s development. When you’re not equipped with the proper knowledge, then you have nothing good to apply. The youth must go to school, must learn, and comprehend for them to be able to practice certain necessary skills. They must educate themselves, and when they do, they could educate others. And because he is already knowledgeable and equipped with the vital skills, then he is ready to face the world, comprehend the issues it is facing, and then think of solutions. Not many could realize the importance and value of education.
It has been said that learning is merely nothing in the absence of application. It is indeed true. The youths must apply their learning with the thought that whatever they do, everybody can enjoy the benefits that their project could give. They could do some research on the common diseases that a community has, then do something about it. If only they have the passion to make a difference, they can do it despite the obstacles.
Judging on what we hear on news, the numbers of youth involved in malicious and indecent acts are growing. They seem to be drawn to drug abuse, early pregnancy, prostitution and etc, which, as we all know, are closely associated with health issues. Logically speaking, all of those problems are results of poverty. And yet the only way to conquer it is education. Nothing beats education paired with positive attitude.
The youths must also consider attitudinal change, because they seem to be stereotyped by the society. They seem to be walking in a directionless way, or else they are in the wrong way. They must consider their priorities and must also inculcate within themselves that they live to help others. So now they know the health issues our country’s facing right now. Why not give it a shot to make something out of it?
The youths are very essential to our community, because the future depends on them. What they do in the present affects the future. Take this never-fading quotation: "The youth is the hope of our motherland" It’s been said a lot to us, causing the depreciation of it’s meaning. As time goes by, it becomes meaningless. And yet, now is the time to relive its true meaning. The youths must act before it’s too late.
On my personal point of view, to be able to prevent weeds from growing in our backyard, one must uproot them, not only to cut the stem or the leaf. The point? Same logic must be applied to our country today. To be able to give solutions to the problems, one must locate and identify the root, and then uproot it. Since we know that health issues are also caused by recklessness of our countrymen, we must go back to the basic; that is, education. And since you can’t teach an old dog a new trick, let’s start the massive uprooting with the youth.
Education is indeed a very vital factor for one’s development. When you’re not equipped with the proper knowledge, then you have nothing good to apply. The youth must go to school, must learn, and comprehend for them to be able to practice certain necessary skills. They must educate themselves, and when they do, they could educate others. And because he is already knowledgeable and equipped with the vital skills, then he is ready to face the world, comprehend the issues it is facing, and then think of solutions. Not many could realize the importance and value of education.
It has been said that learning is merely nothing in the absence of application. It is indeed true. The youths must apply their learning with the thought that whatever they do, everybody can enjoy the benefits that their project could give. They could do some research on the common diseases that a community has, then do something about it. If only they have the passion to make a difference, they can do it despite the obstacles.
Judging on what we hear on news, the numbers of youth involved in malicious and indecent acts are growing. They seem to be drawn to drug abuse, early pregnancy, prostitution and etc, which, as we all know, are closely associated with health issues. Logically speaking, all of those problems are results of poverty. And yet the only way to conquer it is education. Nothing beats education paired with positive attitude.
The youths must also consider attitudinal change, because they seem to be stereotyped by the society. They seem to be walking in a directionless way, or else they are in the wrong way. They must consider their priorities and must also inculcate within themselves that they live to help others. So now they know the health issues our country’s facing right now. Why not give it a shot to make something out of it?
The youths are very essential to our community, because the future depends on them. What they do in the present affects the future. Take this never-fading quotation: "The youth is the hope of our motherland" It’s been said a lot to us, causing the depreciation of it’s meaning. As time goes by, it becomes meaningless. And yet, now is the time to relive its true meaning. The youths must act before it’s too late.
the origin of language
It is an intriguing question, to which we may never have a complete answer: How did we get from animal vocalization (barks, howls, calls...) to human language?
Animals often make use of signs, which point to what they represent, but they don’t use symbols, which are arbitrary and conventional. Examples of signs include sniffles as a sign of an on-coming cold, clouds as a sign of rain, or a scent as a sign of territory. Symbols include things like the words we use. Dog, Hund, chien, cane, perro -- these are symbols that refer to the creature so named, yet each one contains nothing in it that in anyway indicates that creature.
In addition, language is a system of symbols, with several levels of organization, at least phonetics (the sounds), syntax (the grammar), and semantics (the meanings).
So when did language begin? At the very beginnings of the genus Homo, perhaps 4 or 5 million years ago? Or with the advent of modern man, Cro-magnon, some 125,000 years ago? Did the neanderthal speak? He had a brain that was larger than ours, but his voice box seems to be higher in his throat, like that of the apes. We don’t know.
There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names, and I will create a couple more where needed.
1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.
2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a child’s mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar.
3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.
4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.
5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.
6. The yo-heave-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist D. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-heave-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...
7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.
8. The hey you theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (I’m with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.
9. The hocus pocus theory. I think that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.
10. The eureka theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!
Another issue is how often language came into being (or was invented). Perhaps it was invented once, by our earliest ancestors -- perhaps the first who had whatever genetic and physiological properties needed to make complex sounds and organize them into strings. This is called monogenesis. Or perhaps it was invented many times -- polygenesis -- by many people.
We can try to reconstruct earlier forms of language, but we can only go so far before cycles of change obliterate any possibility of reconstruction. Many say we can only go back perhaps 10,000 years before the trail goes cold. So perhaps we will simply never know.
Perhaps the biggest debate among linguists and others interested in the origins of language is whether we can account for language using only the basic mechanisms of learning, or if we need to postulate some special built-in language-readiness. The learning-only people (for example, B. F. Skinner) say that childhood conditioning, or maybe modeling, can account for the complexity of language. The language-acquisition-device (LAD) people (such as Chomsky and Pinker) say that the ease and speed with which children learn language requires something more.
The debate is real only for those people who prefer to take one or the other of these extreme views. It seems very clear to most that neither is the answer. Is there some special neural mechanism for language? Not in the sense of a LAD.
In most mammals, both hemispheres looked very much alike. Somewhere in humanity's early years, a few people possibly inherited a mutation that left one hemisphere with a limited capacity. Instead of neural connections going in every direction, they tended to be organized more linearly. The left hemisphere couldn't related to things in the usual full-blown multidimensional way. But -- surprise! -- that same diminished capacity proved to be very good are ordering things linearly. And that's exactly what language needs: The ability to convert fully dimensional events into linear sequences of sounds, and vice versa.
On the other hand, is language just a matter of conditioning or imitation? Only if you forget to take the insights of people like William James, the Gestalt psychologists, and modern cognitivists into account. Just like we don't really need to learn to perceive colors or depth, we don't really need to learn certain facts about language, because these facts are there in reality for us to see.
As I mentioned, language requires that we translate the full four dimensional world into the (nearly) one dimensional medium of speech. How on earth can we do that? Well, there are actually only a few possibilities open to us. In general perception we have a rule called proximity: We put things that are close to each other together in our minds -- because they are close to each other, obviously. Well, we put words that belong together closer together than words that don't belong together. No inborn LAD required, no special conditioning required.
When it comes to relationships (which are, of course, three- and even four-dimensional), there are only three ways we can make them linear. If a and b represent two things, and f represents the relation between them, then we have a choice between these:
f (a, b) - bites the dog the man(a, b) f - the dog the man bites(a) f (b) - the dog bites the man
If you think of a and b as nouns, and f as a transitive verb (or a preposition), you see something that already looks like the three basic language structures: Verb-Subject-Object (the relatively uncommon VSO, like Irish), Subject-Object-Verb (SOV, like Finnish), and Subject-Verb-Object (SVO, like English), respectively. Oh, and why does the subject usually come before the object? Well, the subject is more salient, more active; the object is more incidental, more passive. What sticks out in our perception or thoughts comes first. Now we have two of the most basic rules of language, and we haven't needed a LAD or conditioning!
What if you are looking at intransitive verbs or adjectives? Now there are only two possibilities: f (c) and (c) f. Green house or house green. The first is naturally most compatible with f (a, b) or VSO, the other is most compatible with (a, b) f or SOV and (a) f (b) or SVO -- just drop the b! Here we have another one of the famous "universals" of language. All you need to add is the principle of consistency: If our sentences are of one of the patterns, our noun, verb, and prepositional phrases will tend to adhere to the same pattern. With tons of exceptions, naturally!
Of course, as in any field, the more dramatic theories get the most attention, so it might be a while before common sense prevails. It's the same in psychology generally: Compared to a straight-forward biosocial theory, Freud is sexier, Skinner is more elegant, Maslow is more uplifiting, Jung is cooler, cognitive psych is more high-tech...
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/langorigins.html
What then is the origin of language? The question may be split into two parts, each of which has evoked in the scientific discourse of recent years a very different kind of response. We may call them the hard originary part and the less hard (but not easy) prehistoric part. The first, hard, part of the question addresses what I myself have always taken for essential: the moment, whether or not drawn out in actual time, of the emergence of language from non-language, which is also to my mind the moment of the emergence of the human from the non-human. The second, easier, part is concerned with reconstructing the intermediate stages between this origin and language as we know it.
2
The second part of the question has generated a vast amount of research over the past two decades. As a result, our understanding of the parameters that define the physical and mental capacity for human language and their possible emergence in the course of primate evolution has become ever more precise. I will share some of these results with you in a moment. But on the hard part of the question that I attempted to address in The Origin of Language, that of the specific motivation and occasion of the origin of language and the human, there is a near-silence that grows in embarrassment in proportion to the anthropological intuition and semiotic sophistication of the writer. This is, in a way, a form of progress. Only the naïve or retrograde still dismiss the importance of this question, as was common a generation ago, by proposing that human language emerged over a long period of time through the gradual improvement of primate communication systems. As our understanding of the underlying neurological means by which language evolves, is learned, and is transmitted becomes more precise, and as, accordingly, its radical difference from all other forms of animal communication is appreciated, the source of what one writer calls the "magic moment" in which language began becomes all the more mysterious. I will speak to you later of a partial exception to this rule: a scholar whose solution to this enigma, as we shall see, strongly resembles that proposed in The Origin of Language, although it stops before reaching the unique scene of origin postulated by the "originary hypothesis" on the basis of the theory of mimetic desire.
There were then and, for the moment at least, still are two views of the time at which language originated; we may call them the "early" and "late" hypotheses. The dominant early hypothesis is that language in some form, what some writers call "symbolic" activity and I prefer to call "representation," appeared at the same time as the genus Homo, whose emergence from Australopithecus around two million years ago coincides with the first evidence of stone tools—the so-called Oldowan technology. In this hypothesis, the increase in brain size from Homo habilis through Homo erectus to the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens was itself the product of language.
The late hypothesis, which still has a few supporters today, was constructed to explain the contrast between what appeared to be extreme technological stagnation over some two million years of tool-making and the "take-off" of about 50,000 years ago that produced more sophisticated technologies, cave art, evidence of ritual burials, and eventually the Neolithic invention of agriculture that in ten or twelve thousand short years made us what we are today. More than tool technology, it is the appearance at this time of the first indubitable signs of "culture"—that is, ritual, religious culture—that gave this hypothesis its plausibility.
With respect to the choice between the early and late hypotheses, I admit to having displayed a mild degree of what psychologists call "dissociation." I was far more concerned to defend the single origin of humanity against the once-popular multiple-origin hypothesis than to decide at what moment this single origin might have taken place. By not choosing between early or late language origin, I was able to retain features of each without really reflecting on their incompatibility.
http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0501/gans.htm
Design implies a Designer; thus, evolutionists have conjured up theories that consider language nothing more than a fortuitous chain of events. Most of these theories involve humans growing bigger brains, which then made it physiologically possible for people to develop speech and language. For instance, in the foreword of her book, The Seeds of Speech, Jean Aitchison hypothesized:
‘Physically, a deprived physical environment led to more meat-eating and, as a result, a bigger brain. The enlarged brain led to the premature birth of humans, and in consequence a protracted childhood, during which mothers cooed and crooned to their offspring. An upright stance altered the shape of the mouth and vocal tract, allowing a range of coherent sounds to be uttered.’
Thus, according to Aitchison, we can thank ‘a deprived physical environment’ for our ability to talk and communicate
Another evolutionist, John McCrone, put it this way:
‘It all started with an ape that learned to speak. Man’s hominid ancestors were doing well enough, even though the world had slipped into the cold grip of the ice ages. They had solved a few key problems that had held back the other branches of the ape family, such as how to find enough food to feed their rather oversized brains. Then man’s ancestors happened on the trick of language. Suddenly, a whole new mental landscape opened up. Man became self-aware and self-possessed.’
Question: How (and why) did that first ape learn to speak? It is easy to assert that ‘it all started with an ape that learned to speak’. But it is much more difficult to describe how this took place, especially in light of our failure to teach apes to speak today. In his book, From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language, Michael Corballis stated:
‘My own view is that language developed much more gradually, starting with the gestures of apes, then gathering momentum as the bipedal hominids evolved. The appearance of the larger-brained genus Homo some 2 million years ago may have signaled the emergence and later development of syntax, with vocalizations providing a mounting refrain. What may have distinguished Homo sapiens was the final switch from a mixture of gestural and vocal communication to an autonomous vocal language, embellished by gesture but not dependent on it.’
The truth however, is that evolutionists can only speculate as to the origin of language. Evolutionist Carl Zimmer summed it up well when he wrote:
‘No one knows the exact chronology of this evolution, because language leaves precious few traces on the human skeleton. The voice box is a flimsy piece of cartilage that rots away. It is suspended from a slender C-shaped bone called a hyoid, but the ravages of time usually destroy the hyoid too.
In a chapter he titled ‘What, When, and Where did Eve Speak to Adam and He to Her?,’ Philip Lieberman commented:
‘In the five-million-year-long lineage that connects us to the common ancestors of apes and human beings, there have been many Adams and many Eves. In the beginning was the word, but the vocal communications of our most distant hominid ancestors five million years or so ago probably didn’t really differ from those of the ape-hominid ancestor.’[13]
Using biblical terminology, Lieberman had written a year earlier: ‘For with speech came a capacity for thought that had never existed before, and that has transformed the world. In the beginning was the word’.[14]
When God created the first human beings—Adam and Eve—He created them in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27). This likeness unquestionably included the ability to engage in intelligible speech via human language. In fact, God spoke to them from the very beginning of their existence as humans (Genesis 1:28-30). Hence, they possessed the ability to understand verbal communication—and to speak themselves!
God gave very specific instructions to the man before the woman was even created (Genesis 2:15-17). Adam gave names to the animals before the creation of Eve (Genesis 2:19-20). Since both the man and the woman were created on the sixth day, the creation of the man preceded the creation of the woman by only hours. So, Adam had the ability to speak on the very day that he was brought into existence!
That same day, God put Adam to sleep and performed history’s first human surgery. He fashioned the female of the species from a portion of the male’s body. God then presented the woman to the man (no doubt in what we would refer to as the first marriage ceremony). Observe Adam’s response: ‘And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man"’ (Genesis 2:23). Here is Adam—less than twenty-four hours old—articulating intelligible speech with a well-developed vocabulary and advanced powers of expression. Note also that Eve engaged in intelligent conversation with Satan (Genesis 3:1-5). An unbiased observer is forced to conclude that Adam and Eve were created with oral communication capability. Little wonder, then, that God said to Moses: ‘Who had made man’s mouth? ... Have not I, the Lord? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say’ (Exodus 4:11-12).
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp
Animals often make use of signs, which point to what they represent, but they don’t use symbols, which are arbitrary and conventional. Examples of signs include sniffles as a sign of an on-coming cold, clouds as a sign of rain, or a scent as a sign of territory. Symbols include things like the words we use. Dog, Hund, chien, cane, perro -- these are symbols that refer to the creature so named, yet each one contains nothing in it that in anyway indicates that creature.
In addition, language is a system of symbols, with several levels of organization, at least phonetics (the sounds), syntax (the grammar), and semantics (the meanings).
So when did language begin? At the very beginnings of the genus Homo, perhaps 4 or 5 million years ago? Or with the advent of modern man, Cro-magnon, some 125,000 years ago? Did the neanderthal speak? He had a brain that was larger than ours, but his voice box seems to be higher in his throat, like that of the apes. We don’t know.
There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names, and I will create a couple more where needed.
1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.
2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a child’s mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar.
3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.
4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.
5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.
6. The yo-heave-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist D. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-heave-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...
7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.
8. The hey you theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (I’m with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.
9. The hocus pocus theory. I think that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.
10. The eureka theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!
Another issue is how often language came into being (or was invented). Perhaps it was invented once, by our earliest ancestors -- perhaps the first who had whatever genetic and physiological properties needed to make complex sounds and organize them into strings. This is called monogenesis. Or perhaps it was invented many times -- polygenesis -- by many people.
We can try to reconstruct earlier forms of language, but we can only go so far before cycles of change obliterate any possibility of reconstruction. Many say we can only go back perhaps 10,000 years before the trail goes cold. So perhaps we will simply never know.
Perhaps the biggest debate among linguists and others interested in the origins of language is whether we can account for language using only the basic mechanisms of learning, or if we need to postulate some special built-in language-readiness. The learning-only people (for example, B. F. Skinner) say that childhood conditioning, or maybe modeling, can account for the complexity of language. The language-acquisition-device (LAD) people (such as Chomsky and Pinker) say that the ease and speed with which children learn language requires something more.
The debate is real only for those people who prefer to take one or the other of these extreme views. It seems very clear to most that neither is the answer. Is there some special neural mechanism for language? Not in the sense of a LAD.
In most mammals, both hemispheres looked very much alike. Somewhere in humanity's early years, a few people possibly inherited a mutation that left one hemisphere with a limited capacity. Instead of neural connections going in every direction, they tended to be organized more linearly. The left hemisphere couldn't related to things in the usual full-blown multidimensional way. But -- surprise! -- that same diminished capacity proved to be very good are ordering things linearly. And that's exactly what language needs: The ability to convert fully dimensional events into linear sequences of sounds, and vice versa.
On the other hand, is language just a matter of conditioning or imitation? Only if you forget to take the insights of people like William James, the Gestalt psychologists, and modern cognitivists into account. Just like we don't really need to learn to perceive colors or depth, we don't really need to learn certain facts about language, because these facts are there in reality for us to see.
As I mentioned, language requires that we translate the full four dimensional world into the (nearly) one dimensional medium of speech. How on earth can we do that? Well, there are actually only a few possibilities open to us. In general perception we have a rule called proximity: We put things that are close to each other together in our minds -- because they are close to each other, obviously. Well, we put words that belong together closer together than words that don't belong together. No inborn LAD required, no special conditioning required.
When it comes to relationships (which are, of course, three- and even four-dimensional), there are only three ways we can make them linear. If a and b represent two things, and f represents the relation between them, then we have a choice between these:
f (a, b) - bites the dog the man(a, b) f - the dog the man bites(a) f (b) - the dog bites the man
If you think of a and b as nouns, and f as a transitive verb (or a preposition), you see something that already looks like the three basic language structures: Verb-Subject-Object (the relatively uncommon VSO, like Irish), Subject-Object-Verb (SOV, like Finnish), and Subject-Verb-Object (SVO, like English), respectively. Oh, and why does the subject usually come before the object? Well, the subject is more salient, more active; the object is more incidental, more passive. What sticks out in our perception or thoughts comes first. Now we have two of the most basic rules of language, and we haven't needed a LAD or conditioning!
What if you are looking at intransitive verbs or adjectives? Now there are only two possibilities: f (c) and (c) f. Green house or house green. The first is naturally most compatible with f (a, b) or VSO, the other is most compatible with (a, b) f or SOV and (a) f (b) or SVO -- just drop the b! Here we have another one of the famous "universals" of language. All you need to add is the principle of consistency: If our sentences are of one of the patterns, our noun, verb, and prepositional phrases will tend to adhere to the same pattern. With tons of exceptions, naturally!
Of course, as in any field, the more dramatic theories get the most attention, so it might be a while before common sense prevails. It's the same in psychology generally: Compared to a straight-forward biosocial theory, Freud is sexier, Skinner is more elegant, Maslow is more uplifiting, Jung is cooler, cognitive psych is more high-tech...
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/langorigins.html
What then is the origin of language? The question may be split into two parts, each of which has evoked in the scientific discourse of recent years a very different kind of response. We may call them the hard originary part and the less hard (but not easy) prehistoric part. The first, hard, part of the question addresses what I myself have always taken for essential: the moment, whether or not drawn out in actual time, of the emergence of language from non-language, which is also to my mind the moment of the emergence of the human from the non-human. The second, easier, part is concerned with reconstructing the intermediate stages between this origin and language as we know it.
2
The second part of the question has generated a vast amount of research over the past two decades. As a result, our understanding of the parameters that define the physical and mental capacity for human language and their possible emergence in the course of primate evolution has become ever more precise. I will share some of these results with you in a moment. But on the hard part of the question that I attempted to address in The Origin of Language, that of the specific motivation and occasion of the origin of language and the human, there is a near-silence that grows in embarrassment in proportion to the anthropological intuition and semiotic sophistication of the writer. This is, in a way, a form of progress. Only the naïve or retrograde still dismiss the importance of this question, as was common a generation ago, by proposing that human language emerged over a long period of time through the gradual improvement of primate communication systems. As our understanding of the underlying neurological means by which language evolves, is learned, and is transmitted becomes more precise, and as, accordingly, its radical difference from all other forms of animal communication is appreciated, the source of what one writer calls the "magic moment" in which language began becomes all the more mysterious. I will speak to you later of a partial exception to this rule: a scholar whose solution to this enigma, as we shall see, strongly resembles that proposed in The Origin of Language, although it stops before reaching the unique scene of origin postulated by the "originary hypothesis" on the basis of the theory of mimetic desire.
There were then and, for the moment at least, still are two views of the time at which language originated; we may call them the "early" and "late" hypotheses. The dominant early hypothesis is that language in some form, what some writers call "symbolic" activity and I prefer to call "representation," appeared at the same time as the genus Homo, whose emergence from Australopithecus around two million years ago coincides with the first evidence of stone tools—the so-called Oldowan technology. In this hypothesis, the increase in brain size from Homo habilis through Homo erectus to the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens was itself the product of language.
The late hypothesis, which still has a few supporters today, was constructed to explain the contrast between what appeared to be extreme technological stagnation over some two million years of tool-making and the "take-off" of about 50,000 years ago that produced more sophisticated technologies, cave art, evidence of ritual burials, and eventually the Neolithic invention of agriculture that in ten or twelve thousand short years made us what we are today. More than tool technology, it is the appearance at this time of the first indubitable signs of "culture"—that is, ritual, religious culture—that gave this hypothesis its plausibility.
With respect to the choice between the early and late hypotheses, I admit to having displayed a mild degree of what psychologists call "dissociation." I was far more concerned to defend the single origin of humanity against the once-popular multiple-origin hypothesis than to decide at what moment this single origin might have taken place. By not choosing between early or late language origin, I was able to retain features of each without really reflecting on their incompatibility.
http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0501/gans.htm
Design implies a Designer; thus, evolutionists have conjured up theories that consider language nothing more than a fortuitous chain of events. Most of these theories involve humans growing bigger brains, which then made it physiologically possible for people to develop speech and language. For instance, in the foreword of her book, The Seeds of Speech, Jean Aitchison hypothesized:
‘Physically, a deprived physical environment led to more meat-eating and, as a result, a bigger brain. The enlarged brain led to the premature birth of humans, and in consequence a protracted childhood, during which mothers cooed and crooned to their offspring. An upright stance altered the shape of the mouth and vocal tract, allowing a range of coherent sounds to be uttered.’
Thus, according to Aitchison, we can thank ‘a deprived physical environment’ for our ability to talk and communicate
Another evolutionist, John McCrone, put it this way:
‘It all started with an ape that learned to speak. Man’s hominid ancestors were doing well enough, even though the world had slipped into the cold grip of the ice ages. They had solved a few key problems that had held back the other branches of the ape family, such as how to find enough food to feed their rather oversized brains. Then man’s ancestors happened on the trick of language. Suddenly, a whole new mental landscape opened up. Man became self-aware and self-possessed.’
Question: How (and why) did that first ape learn to speak? It is easy to assert that ‘it all started with an ape that learned to speak’. But it is much more difficult to describe how this took place, especially in light of our failure to teach apes to speak today. In his book, From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language, Michael Corballis stated:
‘My own view is that language developed much more gradually, starting with the gestures of apes, then gathering momentum as the bipedal hominids evolved. The appearance of the larger-brained genus Homo some 2 million years ago may have signaled the emergence and later development of syntax, with vocalizations providing a mounting refrain. What may have distinguished Homo sapiens was the final switch from a mixture of gestural and vocal communication to an autonomous vocal language, embellished by gesture but not dependent on it.’
The truth however, is that evolutionists can only speculate as to the origin of language. Evolutionist Carl Zimmer summed it up well when he wrote:
‘No one knows the exact chronology of this evolution, because language leaves precious few traces on the human skeleton. The voice box is a flimsy piece of cartilage that rots away. It is suspended from a slender C-shaped bone called a hyoid, but the ravages of time usually destroy the hyoid too.
In a chapter he titled ‘What, When, and Where did Eve Speak to Adam and He to Her?,’ Philip Lieberman commented:
‘In the five-million-year-long lineage that connects us to the common ancestors of apes and human beings, there have been many Adams and many Eves. In the beginning was the word, but the vocal communications of our most distant hominid ancestors five million years or so ago probably didn’t really differ from those of the ape-hominid ancestor.’[13]
Using biblical terminology, Lieberman had written a year earlier: ‘For with speech came a capacity for thought that had never existed before, and that has transformed the world. In the beginning was the word’.[14]
When God created the first human beings—Adam and Eve—He created them in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27). This likeness unquestionably included the ability to engage in intelligible speech via human language. In fact, God spoke to them from the very beginning of their existence as humans (Genesis 1:28-30). Hence, they possessed the ability to understand verbal communication—and to speak themselves!
God gave very specific instructions to the man before the woman was even created (Genesis 2:15-17). Adam gave names to the animals before the creation of Eve (Genesis 2:19-20). Since both the man and the woman were created on the sixth day, the creation of the man preceded the creation of the woman by only hours. So, Adam had the ability to speak on the very day that he was brought into existence!
That same day, God put Adam to sleep and performed history’s first human surgery. He fashioned the female of the species from a portion of the male’s body. God then presented the woman to the man (no doubt in what we would refer to as the first marriage ceremony). Observe Adam’s response: ‘And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man"’ (Genesis 2:23). Here is Adam—less than twenty-four hours old—articulating intelligible speech with a well-developed vocabulary and advanced powers of expression. Note also that Eve engaged in intelligent conversation with Satan (Genesis 3:1-5). An unbiased observer is forced to conclude that Adam and Eve were created with oral communication capability. Little wonder, then, that God said to Moses: ‘Who had made man’s mouth? ... Have not I, the Lord? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say’ (Exodus 4:11-12).
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp
horrible facts
Causes of Morbidity and Mortality
1999 – 2002
Heart diseases
16-12 cases for every 100 deaths
2. Vascular Disease
12-14 cases fpr every 100 deaths
3. Malignant Neoplasm
10 deaths
4. Pneumonia
9 deaths
5. *(deaths?)
6. Tuberculosis
7-8 deaths
2002 (?)
Diarrhea
Bronchitis
Pneumonia
Influenza
Hyperterism
Tuberculosis
Heart disease
Malaria
Chicken pox
Measles
2002
Causes of death deaths %
lower respiratory infections 86 10
Ischaemic heart disease 45 10
Tuberculosis 99 10
Hypertensive heart disease 31 7
Perinatal conditions 25 6
Cerebrovascular disease 24 5
violence 16 9
Diarrhoeal disease 12 3
diabetes mellitus 11 3
caronic obstructive 9 2
pulmonary disease
M F
under 5 mortality 40 28
adult 269 149
1999 – 2002
Heart diseases
16-12 cases for every 100 deaths
2. Vascular Disease
12-14 cases fpr every 100 deaths
3. Malignant Neoplasm
10 deaths
4. Pneumonia
9 deaths
5. *(deaths?)
6. Tuberculosis
7-8 deaths
2002 (?)
Diarrhea
Bronchitis
Pneumonia
Influenza
Hyperterism
Tuberculosis
Heart disease
Malaria
Chicken pox
Measles
2002
Causes of death deaths %
lower respiratory infections 86 10
Ischaemic heart disease 45 10
Tuberculosis 99 10
Hypertensive heart disease 31 7
Perinatal conditions 25 6
Cerebrovascular disease 24 5
violence 16 9
Diarrhoeal disease 12 3
diabetes mellitus 11 3
caronic obstructive 9 2
pulmonary disease
M F
under 5 mortality 40 28
adult 269 149
pagpatay kay andres bonifacio
I. A Few General Comments
Pagkatapos kong basahin ang lektura ni Prop. Danilo Aragon at ang lahat ng mga artikulong isinulat niya doon, para bang nabuksan ang mga mata ko sa katotohanan. Napakahirap ang paggawa nito sapagkat nangangailangan ito ng matinding pagsasaliksik. Sadyang mahirap talaga ito sapagkat para na ring binabago mo ang kasaysayan, o ang history ng ating bansa. Pinupuri ko si Prop. Aragon dahil sa gawa niyang ito. Naiintindihan ko rin ang panig ng mga na-interbyu sapagkat sadyang mahirap magkuwento lalo na kapag natatakot kang pagbantaan ng mga taong mayayaman na makasarili na ayaw ipalabas ang katotohanan. Pinupuri ko ang mga taong ito na nagpa-interbyu sapagkat matapang sila.
Bukod sa pagkamulat ko sa isang makabagong katotohanan, naramdaman ko rin ang pagkabigla. Sapagkat kailanman ay hindi lumabas ang katotohanang ito sa kasaysayan. Hindi namin ito natalakay sa aming paaralan. Siguro marahil ay talagang matinding pagtago ang ginawa ng mga taong responsible sa walang-awang pagpatay sa Supremong si Andres Bonifacio.
Nabigla ako sa katotohanang nabasa ko. Hindi ko akalaing ganito pala ang tunay na nangyari. Parang nakakapanghinayang na ang isang magiting na bayaning si A. Bonifacio na isang Pilipino ay binastos at pinatay nang walang awa ng isang kapwa ding Pilipino dahil lamang sa inggit o pagkasakim sa kapangyarihan. Parang napakawalang-hiya naman ng gumawa nito sa kanya (Bonifacio). Kung iisipin nating mabuti, makatarungan ang pinaninidigan ni Bonifacio. Ang prinsipyo niya ay makatao at maka-demokrasya. Kung isinantabi lamang ng mga tao ang pagkasakim sa kapangyarihan ay siguradong mas mananaig ang isang makatarungang bansa, at siguradong magpahanggang ngayon ay nakaukit sa puso natin ang prinsipyo ni Bonifacio.
II. Two Parts I Like The Most To React
a) Paano pinatay si Bonifacio?
"Bonifacio rushed to them, embracing the soldiers...paid no attention...fired continuously...tried to take Bonifacio's wife..."
Ang pahayag na ito ay galing kay A. Bonifacio at ng kanyang asawa na si Gregoria. Kung susuriin nating mabuti, pagkatapos ng lahat-lahat na ginawa nila (pangkat ni Kor. Bonzon) kay Bonifacio, ang pagbibintang nila na tinangay niya ang pera ng Katipunan, kabutihan pa rin ang sinukli niya. Kahit na nilusob na siya at handa ng patayin ng kapwa Pilipino, ay sadyang niyakap pa rin niya sila. Sa kabila ng pagmamaltrato nila sa kanya ay kabaitan pa rin ang isinukli niya! Ngunit hindi man lang ito naisip ng kampo ni Kor. Bonzon. Bagkus ay pinaputukan pa rin siya. Hindi natamaan si Bonifacio sa unang putok kundi ang isang katipunero. Sinabi pa nga niya na kapwa pilipino ang napatay nila. Ngunit hindi pa rin siya pinakinggan. Napakabastos naman! At para bang hindi nakuntento ay pinaulanan pa siya ng bala. Kahit na bagsak na siya ay sinaksak pa siya sa leeg. Talagang mababanaag natin na grabe ang galit nila sa kanya at ganun na lamang ang kabastusang ginawa nila. Para bang walang puso ang mga gumawa nito. Kapwa Pilipino pa na inosente ang binaboy nila!
b) Bakit Pinatay Si A. Bonifacio?
"Sa pagtalakay sa nakaraang paksa...ang kongklusyon ni Mabini...ang dahilan ay 'personal ambition' ni Aguinaldo...dahil matatalo ni Bonifacio si Aguinaldo."
Ang parteng ito ng lektura ang siyang nagmulat sa akin sa katotohanan. Kaya pala pinatay si magiting na Bonifacio. Ito ay dahil sa personal na mga dahilan, hindi pala para sa kabutihan ng nakararami, kundi personal na dahilan. Inggit. Galit. Pagkasakim sa kapangyarihan. Ang tao nga naman, hindi makuntento sa kanyang estado kaya patuloy na sinasamsam ang kagustuhan. At sa mali pang paraan ito pinapatupad.
Sumasang-ayon ako sa ideyang pinakita at inihayag sa lektura, o sa parteng ito ng sulatin. Tumutugma nga ang dahilang ito sa pagpatay kay Bonifacio. Kasi naman, sa sama ng ugali nila ay hindi na kaduda-duda na mas maraming papanig kay Bonifacio. Dahil si Bonifacio ay isang taong naninidigan para sa katotohanan at pagkakapantay-pantay. Dahil nga alam nilang matatalo sila at masasapawan sila ni Bonifacio ay bigla silang nag-isip nang iba't-ibang dahilan para lamang mawala sa landas nila si Bonifacio. Hindi naman makatarungan iyon. Sigurado naman talagang kaiinggitan siya (Bonifacio) dahil nga maraming papanig sa isang lider na kahit na walang natapos ay makatarungan naman. Bagay na hindi kailanman pinakita ng ibang Pilipino na kumalaban sa kanya.
III. Is The Article Still Relevant?
Naniniwala ako sa mga kasabihang "The truth will set everyone free" at "Walang sikretong hindi nabubunyag". Ito na nga siguro iyon. Kahit itago man natin ito ay lalabas at lalabas pa rin ang katotohanan.
Sa aking pananaw ay talagang importante ang kaalamang ito. Kailangang malutas na ito at madiskubre na ang buong istorya tungkol dito. Dahil parang pahapyaw pa ang pinakita dito. Kailangang may isang taong maglakas loob na ikuwento ang buong katotohanan. Dahil naniniwala ako na kailangang mabigyan ng hustisya ang kamatayan ng isang magiting at huwarang Pilipinong bayani na si Bonifacio.
Kailangan at importante ang mga arikulo dito para nga mabigyan ng "historical justice" si Bonifacio. Kung kailangang baguhin ang nakatala sa kasaysayan ay nararapat lamang na baguhin ito. Huwag nating pagkaitan ng pagkakataong malaman ng lahat ng mamamayan ang katotohanan. Hahayaan na lamang ba natin na tuluyang mabaon sa limot ang katotohanang ito? Ganun na lang ba ang isusukli natin sa lahat ng ginawang kabutihan ni Bonifacio, pagkatapos ng kanyang ipinaglabang pagkakapantay-pantay? Kaya nga pinupuri ko si Prop. Aragon dahil ang ginawa niyang ito ay isang hakbang upang mabigayng linaw ang pagkamatay ni Bonifacio.
Pagkatapos kong basahin ang lektura ni Prop. Danilo Aragon at ang lahat ng mga artikulong isinulat niya doon, para bang nabuksan ang mga mata ko sa katotohanan. Napakahirap ang paggawa nito sapagkat nangangailangan ito ng matinding pagsasaliksik. Sadyang mahirap talaga ito sapagkat para na ring binabago mo ang kasaysayan, o ang history ng ating bansa. Pinupuri ko si Prop. Aragon dahil sa gawa niyang ito. Naiintindihan ko rin ang panig ng mga na-interbyu sapagkat sadyang mahirap magkuwento lalo na kapag natatakot kang pagbantaan ng mga taong mayayaman na makasarili na ayaw ipalabas ang katotohanan. Pinupuri ko ang mga taong ito na nagpa-interbyu sapagkat matapang sila.
Bukod sa pagkamulat ko sa isang makabagong katotohanan, naramdaman ko rin ang pagkabigla. Sapagkat kailanman ay hindi lumabas ang katotohanang ito sa kasaysayan. Hindi namin ito natalakay sa aming paaralan. Siguro marahil ay talagang matinding pagtago ang ginawa ng mga taong responsible sa walang-awang pagpatay sa Supremong si Andres Bonifacio.
Nabigla ako sa katotohanang nabasa ko. Hindi ko akalaing ganito pala ang tunay na nangyari. Parang nakakapanghinayang na ang isang magiting na bayaning si A. Bonifacio na isang Pilipino ay binastos at pinatay nang walang awa ng isang kapwa ding Pilipino dahil lamang sa inggit o pagkasakim sa kapangyarihan. Parang napakawalang-hiya naman ng gumawa nito sa kanya (Bonifacio). Kung iisipin nating mabuti, makatarungan ang pinaninidigan ni Bonifacio. Ang prinsipyo niya ay makatao at maka-demokrasya. Kung isinantabi lamang ng mga tao ang pagkasakim sa kapangyarihan ay siguradong mas mananaig ang isang makatarungang bansa, at siguradong magpahanggang ngayon ay nakaukit sa puso natin ang prinsipyo ni Bonifacio.
II. Two Parts I Like The Most To React
a) Paano pinatay si Bonifacio?
"Bonifacio rushed to them, embracing the soldiers...paid no attention...fired continuously...tried to take Bonifacio's wife..."
Ang pahayag na ito ay galing kay A. Bonifacio at ng kanyang asawa na si Gregoria. Kung susuriin nating mabuti, pagkatapos ng lahat-lahat na ginawa nila (pangkat ni Kor. Bonzon) kay Bonifacio, ang pagbibintang nila na tinangay niya ang pera ng Katipunan, kabutihan pa rin ang sinukli niya. Kahit na nilusob na siya at handa ng patayin ng kapwa Pilipino, ay sadyang niyakap pa rin niya sila. Sa kabila ng pagmamaltrato nila sa kanya ay kabaitan pa rin ang isinukli niya! Ngunit hindi man lang ito naisip ng kampo ni Kor. Bonzon. Bagkus ay pinaputukan pa rin siya. Hindi natamaan si Bonifacio sa unang putok kundi ang isang katipunero. Sinabi pa nga niya na kapwa pilipino ang napatay nila. Ngunit hindi pa rin siya pinakinggan. Napakabastos naman! At para bang hindi nakuntento ay pinaulanan pa siya ng bala. Kahit na bagsak na siya ay sinaksak pa siya sa leeg. Talagang mababanaag natin na grabe ang galit nila sa kanya at ganun na lamang ang kabastusang ginawa nila. Para bang walang puso ang mga gumawa nito. Kapwa Pilipino pa na inosente ang binaboy nila!
b) Bakit Pinatay Si A. Bonifacio?
"Sa pagtalakay sa nakaraang paksa...ang kongklusyon ni Mabini...ang dahilan ay 'personal ambition' ni Aguinaldo...dahil matatalo ni Bonifacio si Aguinaldo."
Ang parteng ito ng lektura ang siyang nagmulat sa akin sa katotohanan. Kaya pala pinatay si magiting na Bonifacio. Ito ay dahil sa personal na mga dahilan, hindi pala para sa kabutihan ng nakararami, kundi personal na dahilan. Inggit. Galit. Pagkasakim sa kapangyarihan. Ang tao nga naman, hindi makuntento sa kanyang estado kaya patuloy na sinasamsam ang kagustuhan. At sa mali pang paraan ito pinapatupad.
Sumasang-ayon ako sa ideyang pinakita at inihayag sa lektura, o sa parteng ito ng sulatin. Tumutugma nga ang dahilang ito sa pagpatay kay Bonifacio. Kasi naman, sa sama ng ugali nila ay hindi na kaduda-duda na mas maraming papanig kay Bonifacio. Dahil si Bonifacio ay isang taong naninidigan para sa katotohanan at pagkakapantay-pantay. Dahil nga alam nilang matatalo sila at masasapawan sila ni Bonifacio ay bigla silang nag-isip nang iba't-ibang dahilan para lamang mawala sa landas nila si Bonifacio. Hindi naman makatarungan iyon. Sigurado naman talagang kaiinggitan siya (Bonifacio) dahil nga maraming papanig sa isang lider na kahit na walang natapos ay makatarungan naman. Bagay na hindi kailanman pinakita ng ibang Pilipino na kumalaban sa kanya.
III. Is The Article Still Relevant?
Naniniwala ako sa mga kasabihang "The truth will set everyone free" at "Walang sikretong hindi nabubunyag". Ito na nga siguro iyon. Kahit itago man natin ito ay lalabas at lalabas pa rin ang katotohanan.
Sa aking pananaw ay talagang importante ang kaalamang ito. Kailangang malutas na ito at madiskubre na ang buong istorya tungkol dito. Dahil parang pahapyaw pa ang pinakita dito. Kailangang may isang taong maglakas loob na ikuwento ang buong katotohanan. Dahil naniniwala ako na kailangang mabigyan ng hustisya ang kamatayan ng isang magiting at huwarang Pilipinong bayani na si Bonifacio.
Kailangan at importante ang mga arikulo dito para nga mabigyan ng "historical justice" si Bonifacio. Kung kailangang baguhin ang nakatala sa kasaysayan ay nararapat lamang na baguhin ito. Huwag nating pagkaitan ng pagkakataong malaman ng lahat ng mamamayan ang katotohanan. Hahayaan na lamang ba natin na tuluyang mabaon sa limot ang katotohanang ito? Ganun na lang ba ang isusukli natin sa lahat ng ginawang kabutihan ni Bonifacio, pagkatapos ng kanyang ipinaglabang pagkakapantay-pantay? Kaya nga pinupuri ko si Prop. Aragon dahil ang ginawa niyang ito ay isang hakbang upang mabigayng linaw ang pagkamatay ni Bonifacio.
issue on comfort women
I was shocked. I was dumbstruck. I was bombarded with too much cruelty that made me shiver. I have never been exposed to such harsh maltreatment, especially to women. How could they? How could they treat women that way? After everything that they did, I really think that it is indeed appropriate to publish the book, which includes comfort women on it.
I do greatly believe that Fujioka Nobukatsu has been so selfish all along. Is he afraid to tell the world about what his forefathers did to many Asians? He must not! After all, everything is already history. And what is left for them to do, for us to do, is to learn some things out from it. Let it guide us in doing what is right. Just like the words and principles of Supreme Andres Bonifacio. He believes that women should not be treated as animals, but humans. They should be respected, and most especially, be loved. Too bad for Japanese they don’t have someone like Andres Bonifacio, lucky for some of us who knew the truth about him because we can live and follow on his ideals.
I was just wondering about the continuation of the articles entitled ‘War at Home’ and ‘Lola Rosa: Icon and Survivor’ because they seem to be cut. The continuation seems to be lost or not included. "Kasi parang nabitin ako dun eh." But still, it’s ok. The point has been depicted.
I would just like to share my opinion about the first two articles entitled ‘The War At Home’ and ‘Let’s Stop Apologizing’. I kind of agree to the statements yelled by some students in the crowd. "THINK OF THE VICTIMS, STUPID!". " DON’T DISTORT HISTORY!" They really aren’t fascists. They know that what they’re saying is true. They just used their freedom of speech. Those who opposes the publishing of comfort women in books must not steal the rights of the future generations to know the history of their country. They must tell what is true and what has happened. Because if they will hide the thing about comfort women, it’s just another way of depriving children of their right to know. It’s just another way of making the future generations ignorant and biased. Fujioka is saying that if the topic about comfort women will be brought up, children will think that Japan is the a cruel place? I think that’s the part where their job as a teacher intervenes. They must let the students comprehend that it’s just a part of their past, and that all they got to do is to learn from it. I think he’s just being too narrow minded, close minded, and biased. He didn’t even think or even reflect about the things. I wish he’d just open his mind to see a broader perspective of things.
Okay, so I understand his arguments. It's really hard on his part because he's a teacher. Who is the first who gets affected teaching children about the cruel and bloody past of their own country? It's him. It's really hard to feed the students negative things about their country. Who gets affected reading essays of students describing how cruel is their race and how bad their country is. Yeah, it's him. And I'm sure a lot of teachers are also feeling the same way he does. But then again, they must also think about the victims and their families. Who gets affected when a relative was actually sexually abused during the war? Who suffers many days and nights mourning about the loss of their beloved ones due to brutal rapes? Who comforts the mentally-damaged and sexually abused relative? It's their family. The Family. He must think of their families, right? The latter is a more heavier argument rather than his proffession.
If Fujioka wins with his arguments, then the future generations would only end up like us, Filipinos who are very ignorant of the REAL thing that has happened in the past. They would be like most of us who are deprived of the past, deprived of the truth, deprived of knowledge. They will only end up like us who bows to the greatness of Aguinaldo well in fact it’s his greed that killed the real great hero, Bonifacio. It’s just the same, right?
I think the saying "History is written by winners" is indeed true. The most obvious proofs? Take Bonifacio’s situation. Take the comfort women’s situations. They didn’t mention and don’t want to mention about these because they want to maintain their pride for the sake of their so-called ’winners’. Followers of Aguinaldo kept the real history for his sake. Same as the comfort women. Fujioka wants to hide this fact because he’s proud! He doesn’t want to accept facts!
Two Parts I Like Most To React
Lola Rosa : Icon and Survivor.
It was such a brave thing to break silence. It was even braver when you made it first and make others follow your lead. But the bravest of them all is when you publicize a story which, being so dark and shameful, you tried to keep and ignore for a couple of years.
She was indeed an icon and a survivor. Lola Rosa just did the right thing. She laid the first stone which goes all the way to justice- justice for all of them who were sexually enslaved by the captors. As I said, it was a brave thing for her to do such thing, and to think that she did it first. She made the others follow her.
Many may hastily judge her as a prostitute, filthy and crazy woman for doing such. But we must bear in mind that it was against her will. She was raped. She was raped brutally. And we know that it is against the humanitarian law.
Despite her past, it was a good thing for her to move on. Although she didin't actually move on, she just continued her life minus the reminiscing of the past. Yes, she survived. She survived the immoral acts she suffered under the Japanese regime. Yet despite her dark past that still haunts her, she has recovered. She created a life for herself with the people to whom she devotes her life with- her family.
She is an image of a strong woman. I hope we may learn something from her story. And I am also hoping that indeed, justice will be served for them.
From The Depths of Silence: Stories of Survivors.
The story about the rape of Nanking disturbs me the most. I would really like to quote this line depicting immoral acts of the Japanese. "Chinese women were raped in all locations and at all hours." Also this, "Old age was of no concern to the Japanese". I mean, these just show the brutal side of the Japanese. They didn't even respect those great grandmothers and grandmothers. They even included them in their massive rapes. I mean, this only makes me angry. I am a self-confessed feminist, and it really angers me the most when women are not respected. Even the little girls are raped. They still dont even know anything about sex. But still, they are also victims. All the stories by the women only depicts the brutality and madness of the reigning colonialist. What more could I say? Japan indeed has caused many nations a bloody dark past.
Is The Article Still Relevant?
I really think that the article is still relevant. The world needs to know the real thing that has happened in the past. I dont want to deprive the people of their right to know the truth. It is their right to know! Just like my stand on the Bonifacio issue. We don't want to keep the majority ignorant of the truth.
I was also thinking of the families of the victims. This may exploit their family, but we must think that this is one of the effective ways to give them justice. The victims deserve all the apologies and the assistance and justice. What the Japanese has damaged could not be mend, and it will remain instilled in the memories and souls of the victims, which is the most unfortunate part. Actually, apologies wouldn't be enough. But then again, we must also reflect on things equally. We do not live by the eye-for-an-eye law anymore. So forgiveness must also be given to those who really confessed their sins.
I do greatly believe that Fujioka Nobukatsu has been so selfish all along. Is he afraid to tell the world about what his forefathers did to many Asians? He must not! After all, everything is already history. And what is left for them to do, for us to do, is to learn some things out from it. Let it guide us in doing what is right. Just like the words and principles of Supreme Andres Bonifacio. He believes that women should not be treated as animals, but humans. They should be respected, and most especially, be loved. Too bad for Japanese they don’t have someone like Andres Bonifacio, lucky for some of us who knew the truth about him because we can live and follow on his ideals.
I was just wondering about the continuation of the articles entitled ‘War at Home’ and ‘Lola Rosa: Icon and Survivor’ because they seem to be cut. The continuation seems to be lost or not included. "Kasi parang nabitin ako dun eh." But still, it’s ok. The point has been depicted.
I would just like to share my opinion about the first two articles entitled ‘The War At Home’ and ‘Let’s Stop Apologizing’. I kind of agree to the statements yelled by some students in the crowd. "THINK OF THE VICTIMS, STUPID!". " DON’T DISTORT HISTORY!" They really aren’t fascists. They know that what they’re saying is true. They just used their freedom of speech. Those who opposes the publishing of comfort women in books must not steal the rights of the future generations to know the history of their country. They must tell what is true and what has happened. Because if they will hide the thing about comfort women, it’s just another way of depriving children of their right to know. It’s just another way of making the future generations ignorant and biased. Fujioka is saying that if the topic about comfort women will be brought up, children will think that Japan is the a cruel place? I think that’s the part where their job as a teacher intervenes. They must let the students comprehend that it’s just a part of their past, and that all they got to do is to learn from it. I think he’s just being too narrow minded, close minded, and biased. He didn’t even think or even reflect about the things. I wish he’d just open his mind to see a broader perspective of things.
Okay, so I understand his arguments. It's really hard on his part because he's a teacher. Who is the first who gets affected teaching children about the cruel and bloody past of their own country? It's him. It's really hard to feed the students negative things about their country. Who gets affected reading essays of students describing how cruel is their race and how bad their country is. Yeah, it's him. And I'm sure a lot of teachers are also feeling the same way he does. But then again, they must also think about the victims and their families. Who gets affected when a relative was actually sexually abused during the war? Who suffers many days and nights mourning about the loss of their beloved ones due to brutal rapes? Who comforts the mentally-damaged and sexually abused relative? It's their family. The Family. He must think of their families, right? The latter is a more heavier argument rather than his proffession.
If Fujioka wins with his arguments, then the future generations would only end up like us, Filipinos who are very ignorant of the REAL thing that has happened in the past. They would be like most of us who are deprived of the past, deprived of the truth, deprived of knowledge. They will only end up like us who bows to the greatness of Aguinaldo well in fact it’s his greed that killed the real great hero, Bonifacio. It’s just the same, right?
I think the saying "History is written by winners" is indeed true. The most obvious proofs? Take Bonifacio’s situation. Take the comfort women’s situations. They didn’t mention and don’t want to mention about these because they want to maintain their pride for the sake of their so-called ’winners’. Followers of Aguinaldo kept the real history for his sake. Same as the comfort women. Fujioka wants to hide this fact because he’s proud! He doesn’t want to accept facts!
Two Parts I Like Most To React
Lola Rosa : Icon and Survivor.
It was such a brave thing to break silence. It was even braver when you made it first and make others follow your lead. But the bravest of them all is when you publicize a story which, being so dark and shameful, you tried to keep and ignore for a couple of years.
She was indeed an icon and a survivor. Lola Rosa just did the right thing. She laid the first stone which goes all the way to justice- justice for all of them who were sexually enslaved by the captors. As I said, it was a brave thing for her to do such thing, and to think that she did it first. She made the others follow her.
Many may hastily judge her as a prostitute, filthy and crazy woman for doing such. But we must bear in mind that it was against her will. She was raped. She was raped brutally. And we know that it is against the humanitarian law.
Despite her past, it was a good thing for her to move on. Although she didin't actually move on, she just continued her life minus the reminiscing of the past. Yes, she survived. She survived the immoral acts she suffered under the Japanese regime. Yet despite her dark past that still haunts her, she has recovered. She created a life for herself with the people to whom she devotes her life with- her family.
She is an image of a strong woman. I hope we may learn something from her story. And I am also hoping that indeed, justice will be served for them.
From The Depths of Silence: Stories of Survivors.
The story about the rape of Nanking disturbs me the most. I would really like to quote this line depicting immoral acts of the Japanese. "Chinese women were raped in all locations and at all hours." Also this, "Old age was of no concern to the Japanese". I mean, these just show the brutal side of the Japanese. They didn't even respect those great grandmothers and grandmothers. They even included them in their massive rapes. I mean, this only makes me angry. I am a self-confessed feminist, and it really angers me the most when women are not respected. Even the little girls are raped. They still dont even know anything about sex. But still, they are also victims. All the stories by the women only depicts the brutality and madness of the reigning colonialist. What more could I say? Japan indeed has caused many nations a bloody dark past.
Is The Article Still Relevant?
I really think that the article is still relevant. The world needs to know the real thing that has happened in the past. I dont want to deprive the people of their right to know the truth. It is their right to know! Just like my stand on the Bonifacio issue. We don't want to keep the majority ignorant of the truth.
I was also thinking of the families of the victims. This may exploit their family, but we must think that this is one of the effective ways to give them justice. The victims deserve all the apologies and the assistance and justice. What the Japanese has damaged could not be mend, and it will remain instilled in the memories and souls of the victims, which is the most unfortunate part. Actually, apologies wouldn't be enough. But then again, we must also reflect on things equally. We do not live by the eye-for-an-eye law anymore. So forgiveness must also be given to those who really confessed their sins.
poverty
Where there is colonialism, there is poverty, oppression, and lack of freedom and liberty too.
According to a 2002 National Statistics Office report, during that year 3.4 million Filipinos were unemployed and 4.6 million underemployed. Today it is widely assumed, unofficially, that there are at least 10 million unemployed or underemployed Filipinos. The national debt is hovering around 85% of GDP. And with the price of oil on the rise, poverty in the Philippines is expected to worsen.
I know we're already tired of hearing and talking about this issue again and again. But since we're assigned to tackle our opinion regarding a current issue, I chose poverty not only because I'm affected by it, but because it's regarding reality. I mean, mostly are affected by it, especially now that the prices of commodities are increasing. Poverty is the by-product of other issues such as graft and corruption, lack of job opportunities, education, discipline, etc. It's related to other issues regarding our country in the present. It's also very common, and it's very blatant especially here in Manila. You could just see beggars in the sidewalks and street children asking for alms.. It's indeed a BIG issue.
Looking back during the times when we're under the regime, or should I say, colonialism of the Spaniards, poverty already exists. We knew that the Spaniards took total control on us, which means they totally govern our economy including our resources. I think they didn't just govern our resources, but actually stole it away from us, because that's what the concept of colonialism, right? Good thing if all our resources are given back to us. But it wasn't. Instead, Filipinos at that time were enslaved. We were not given freedom, and worse, we were left to suffer.
The difference is that today, we're given enough freedom. It only depends on us if we let the next generations suffer the same problem that we have.
According to a 2002 National Statistics Office report, during that year 3.4 million Filipinos were unemployed and 4.6 million underemployed. Today it is widely assumed, unofficially, that there are at least 10 million unemployed or underemployed Filipinos. The national debt is hovering around 85% of GDP. And with the price of oil on the rise, poverty in the Philippines is expected to worsen.
I know we're already tired of hearing and talking about this issue again and again. But since we're assigned to tackle our opinion regarding a current issue, I chose poverty not only because I'm affected by it, but because it's regarding reality. I mean, mostly are affected by it, especially now that the prices of commodities are increasing. Poverty is the by-product of other issues such as graft and corruption, lack of job opportunities, education, discipline, etc. It's related to other issues regarding our country in the present. It's also very common, and it's very blatant especially here in Manila. You could just see beggars in the sidewalks and street children asking for alms.. It's indeed a BIG issue.
Looking back during the times when we're under the regime, or should I say, colonialism of the Spaniards, poverty already exists. We knew that the Spaniards took total control on us, which means they totally govern our economy including our resources. I think they didn't just govern our resources, but actually stole it away from us, because that's what the concept of colonialism, right? Good thing if all our resources are given back to us. But it wasn't. Instead, Filipinos at that time were enslaved. We were not given freedom, and worse, we were left to suffer.
The difference is that today, we're given enough freedom. It only depends on us if we let the next generations suffer the same problem that we have.
The descent of Man
Creationism vs. Evolutionism
There are still differences of opinion about the descent of man. In the past, there have been bitter disputes over what doctrines should be taught, especially in public schools.
Today however, we understand that all theories should be given equal weight and taught side-by-side. Accordingly, we will outline the two schools of thought and demonstrate the advantages that result from this evenhanded approach.
Evolutionism
Evolutionists hold that man arose by the same gradual process as other creatures. This belief follows from the principle that the same laws of nature apply to man as to the rest of the physical world.The Evolutionist Model demonstrates how an ancestral "ape-man" could have evolved an upright stance and humanlike physiology. However, it does not explain the tremendous expansion of the intellect and other intangibles that characterize humanity.
Creationism
Creationists, on the other hand, believe that man was created instantaneously by a cosmic powered super-being from another dimension. This belief is based on ancient, heavily retranslated writings taken from badly decomposed fragments of scroll found in a series of caves in the middle-east.The Creationist Model explains the advent of human intelligence by ascribing it to divine fiat in the creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve. A major weakness is that it fails to account for the origin of Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law.
Opinion
When I am asked what's my side to this unending issue on the origin of man, I couldn't possibly answer directly to it. Because I'm torn between the two major ideas-scientifical and religious beliefs. I don't easily believe on things which have no valid proof, which makes me believe on the evolutionism, or the scientific one. But I'm a Christian, so I also believe in God. Therefore, I believe in His words.By doing so, I partly believe that it is He who created man. Got my point?
I say I believe in the scientific origin of man – the famous Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin. I believe in his theory because he presented and supported his works with facts, facts which are keenly obtained through investigation, experimentation and observation. And we know that a fact is a very good basis. It's a very good pillar to a never-ending argument.
I say I also believe in the religious belief, which states that man is created by a supernatural person – which we call God. The reason for this is that I believe in His words, not just that I'm a christian. And so far, despite the emergence of the theories of some scientists, the religious belief, which is Creationism, is still the strongest basis. It is because the scientifical origin, or the evolutionism, has still some flaws. The missing link has not been found, although there have been studies stating that man indeed came from monkey species. Or should I say, the missing link is still unknown.
I didn't say that creationism is a perfect theory, or belief. It's just that I'm a devoted christian, and I believe in Him, though there are times that I believe more on the evolutionism. I don't know. It's like I believe on two clashing ideas. I took a part from one side, and a part from the other. It just really makes me wonder that the idea presented in my reference is indeed applicable. It says there that why can't we combine the two ideas? The bible failed to mention the wives of Adam and Eve's sons. Maybe their wives were the early hominids, or australopithecus or something. And it is starting from there.
As long as the evolutionism hasn't been totally approved, I'm still going on the creationism side.
There are still differences of opinion about the descent of man. In the past, there have been bitter disputes over what doctrines should be taught, especially in public schools.
Today however, we understand that all theories should be given equal weight and taught side-by-side. Accordingly, we will outline the two schools of thought and demonstrate the advantages that result from this evenhanded approach.
Evolutionism
Evolutionists hold that man arose by the same gradual process as other creatures. This belief follows from the principle that the same laws of nature apply to man as to the rest of the physical world.The Evolutionist Model demonstrates how an ancestral "ape-man" could have evolved an upright stance and humanlike physiology. However, it does not explain the tremendous expansion of the intellect and other intangibles that characterize humanity.
Creationism
Creationists, on the other hand, believe that man was created instantaneously by a cosmic powered super-being from another dimension. This belief is based on ancient, heavily retranslated writings taken from badly decomposed fragments of scroll found in a series of caves in the middle-east.The Creationist Model explains the advent of human intelligence by ascribing it to divine fiat in the creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve. A major weakness is that it fails to account for the origin of Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law.
Opinion
When I am asked what's my side to this unending issue on the origin of man, I couldn't possibly answer directly to it. Because I'm torn between the two major ideas-scientifical and religious beliefs. I don't easily believe on things which have no valid proof, which makes me believe on the evolutionism, or the scientific one. But I'm a Christian, so I also believe in God. Therefore, I believe in His words.By doing so, I partly believe that it is He who created man. Got my point?
I say I believe in the scientific origin of man – the famous Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin. I believe in his theory because he presented and supported his works with facts, facts which are keenly obtained through investigation, experimentation and observation. And we know that a fact is a very good basis. It's a very good pillar to a never-ending argument.
I say I also believe in the religious belief, which states that man is created by a supernatural person – which we call God. The reason for this is that I believe in His words, not just that I'm a christian. And so far, despite the emergence of the theories of some scientists, the religious belief, which is Creationism, is still the strongest basis. It is because the scientifical origin, or the evolutionism, has still some flaws. The missing link has not been found, although there have been studies stating that man indeed came from monkey species. Or should I say, the missing link is still unknown.
I didn't say that creationism is a perfect theory, or belief. It's just that I'm a devoted christian, and I believe in Him, though there are times that I believe more on the evolutionism. I don't know. It's like I believe on two clashing ideas. I took a part from one side, and a part from the other. It just really makes me wonder that the idea presented in my reference is indeed applicable. It says there that why can't we combine the two ideas? The bible failed to mention the wives of Adam and Eve's sons. Maybe their wives were the early hominids, or australopithecus or something. And it is starting from there.
As long as the evolutionism hasn't been totally approved, I'm still going on the creationism side.
TOFI
It has always been a rule in Physical Education not to exercise in an instant without doing warm-ups. Why? Common sense. Breaking this rule will only result to different muscle cramps and pains, which, as we all know, may produce undesirable effects to our system.
My point here is simple. I'm not a one-sided person. I consider both sides before I air out my opinion. What about TOFI? Well, I'm against it, obviously. I'm against it in the sense that the increase is too high and that it's very unreasonable to have such an increase in an instant. Like, it could have been better if the increase was gradual. I'm not really the right person to hear talking about tuition fee increase because I'm really, really financially-incapable. But, with the sudden alleviation of the prices of commodities, along with the 'pure intentions' of UP to improve the system, I agree with the increase. But as I've written earlier, it's dangerous to haste things up, or to rush things out, because it will only result to undesirable effects to the system.
Want to know some of those 'undesirable effects' I'm talking about? Well, I'm just gonna site my two high school classmates who are both UP passers but didn't get a chance to enroll in the university because of that damn TOFI. Well, UP has just lost two of the best students in the country. And I'm sure they're not the only ones who have that story. I'm sure there are lots of them, unable to enroll because they can't afford. And what's the use of the so-called bracketing system if they can't fully support financially-incapable students like us? They said they have revised that bracketing system, but it only became worse. They've set up certain criteria, but then again they don't follow it. What's going on, UP Administration? What has happened to the so-called premiere University of the Philippines?
My point here is simple. I'm not a one-sided person. I consider both sides before I air out my opinion. What about TOFI? Well, I'm against it, obviously. I'm against it in the sense that the increase is too high and that it's very unreasonable to have such an increase in an instant. Like, it could have been better if the increase was gradual. I'm not really the right person to hear talking about tuition fee increase because I'm really, really financially-incapable. But, with the sudden alleviation of the prices of commodities, along with the 'pure intentions' of UP to improve the system, I agree with the increase. But as I've written earlier, it's dangerous to haste things up, or to rush things out, because it will only result to undesirable effects to the system.
Want to know some of those 'undesirable effects' I'm talking about? Well, I'm just gonna site my two high school classmates who are both UP passers but didn't get a chance to enroll in the university because of that damn TOFI. Well, UP has just lost two of the best students in the country. And I'm sure they're not the only ones who have that story. I'm sure there are lots of them, unable to enroll because they can't afford. And what's the use of the so-called bracketing system if they can't fully support financially-incapable students like us? They said they have revised that bracketing system, but it only became worse. They've set up certain criteria, but then again they don't follow it. What's going on, UP Administration? What has happened to the so-called premiere University of the Philippines?
peeking on someone's mind
i just read my professor's blog and journal. And i suddenly realized that it is indeed very fun peeking into someone's head.
and i was really hoping that somehow, i get a chance to realize that it is indeed very fun to post something substantial in here.
till then.
God bless.
and i was really hoping that somehow, i get a chance to realize that it is indeed very fun to post something substantial in here.
till then.
God bless.
Monday, September 10, 2007
the miseducation of the filipino
this article is written by Renato Constantino. i would just like to share my ideas regarding his write-up.
few comments
The first thing that I would really like to comment about is the choice of vocabulary of the author. The author blatantly has a wide command of the English language. And it’s such a good thing for him. But sometimes not good for me, cause I really have to prepare our mini dictionary on my side in case I’ll encounter an alien word.
On the content, it’s really not a waste of time reading the article. Not only will you learn new vocabulary but also your eyes will be opened to a fact that has long existed in which our eyes are just so blinded to see, because we are just so pre-occupied with the idea that the Americans are totally of help. But then again, we must remember that the world is created with symmetry, that in every evil, there’s goodness, and that in the presence of advantage, there’s a disadvantage.
Education is indeed a very vital factor for one’s development. And as we all know, through education, one’s mind is molded because of the teachings, ideas, and values taught to him. Due to this fact, it’s only either of the two that will happen: the person will become productive provided that he was taught with the right things, or, the person will become otherwise since he acquired negative things. So here comes Renato Constantino, educating us the right way.
I wrote some learning and comments from selected parts of the article. And these are as follows:
Compared to US, our country is still in the process of improvisation or still underdeveloped. Culturally speaking, US has firm tradition or has it’s own culture which was not influenced by other cultures. It has developed freely which sprang from it’s indigenous people. Indeed, US is the master of it’s own house. And provided that we are a corollary of the certain country’s intense desire to spread their seed, we couldn’t deny the fact that we have already adopted some of their cultures and traditions, including their language. American education stresses the importance of internationalism and we simply follow the lead without knowing that our very own foundation of nationalism is weak, making this move disadvantageous. To site is our national virtue of hospitality which, according to the article, has transformed into a stupid vice. (Adoption of Western Values)
Due to the failure of Philippine education, we became so ignorant to the fact that we allowed aliens to strip us of our possessions and wealth. We even praise them for their success, not knowing that some of it is mainly caused by us. They even labeled our country as paradise, but as a matter of fact, Philippines is a heaven just for them but not for some of our countrymen. Because we are still an indirect colony of other countries, many Filipinos fought for complete or total independence and freedom, getting nothing in return but negative thoughts and opposition. Due to colonial education, Filipinos find it hard to grasp the nationalistic principles that must be learned. (Un-Filipino Filipinos)
For a child to master a foreign language, he must first master his own. Because no one is brave enough to advocate the use of our native language as the madium of instruction, the use of English has become dominant. Because a lot are illiterate on this, the use of English as a medium of teaching is an ineffective step, thus producing citizens who do not have mastery of English as well as their native language due to the deliberate neglection to it. Simply put, the masses are becoming more and more illiterate even to their own language. Since many find it hard to use English, many also find it hard to express and lack of expression prevents learning or development of thought, leading to cultural stagnation. (Impediments to Thought)
It is true that we are being dumped with American forms of media. And we can’t deny the fact that mass media is a great factor in molding our character and ideals. It greatly affects our system. Due to this fact, we can’t help but get affected and infected with the whole Americanization thing. And the only way to cure this? Philippine Education. I agree with what is stated that Philippine Education should produce men and women who are not only educated or who do not only know how to read and write and add and subtract, but also men and women who know and who are aware of the present situation of the country and should do something about it for it’s betterment. Philippine education should not only teach the students the basic knowledge and skill but also inculcate within their hearts and minds the values and teachings of our fellow noble countrymen such as Bonifacio and Rizal. Filipino should not only go to school to get a degree or diploma, but should also embed within themselves the values and characteristics that this drowning nation needs. As a saying goes, “Application should always go with education, because the latter is nil in the absence of the former.” (Needed:Filipinos)
*the continuation is in my next posts. :)
few comments
The first thing that I would really like to comment about is the choice of vocabulary of the author. The author blatantly has a wide command of the English language. And it’s such a good thing for him. But sometimes not good for me, cause I really have to prepare our mini dictionary on my side in case I’ll encounter an alien word.
On the content, it’s really not a waste of time reading the article. Not only will you learn new vocabulary but also your eyes will be opened to a fact that has long existed in which our eyes are just so blinded to see, because we are just so pre-occupied with the idea that the Americans are totally of help. But then again, we must remember that the world is created with symmetry, that in every evil, there’s goodness, and that in the presence of advantage, there’s a disadvantage.
Education is indeed a very vital factor for one’s development. And as we all know, through education, one’s mind is molded because of the teachings, ideas, and values taught to him. Due to this fact, it’s only either of the two that will happen: the person will become productive provided that he was taught with the right things, or, the person will become otherwise since he acquired negative things. So here comes Renato Constantino, educating us the right way.
I wrote some learning and comments from selected parts of the article. And these are as follows:
Compared to US, our country is still in the process of improvisation or still underdeveloped. Culturally speaking, US has firm tradition or has it’s own culture which was not influenced by other cultures. It has developed freely which sprang from it’s indigenous people. Indeed, US is the master of it’s own house. And provided that we are a corollary of the certain country’s intense desire to spread their seed, we couldn’t deny the fact that we have already adopted some of their cultures and traditions, including their language. American education stresses the importance of internationalism and we simply follow the lead without knowing that our very own foundation of nationalism is weak, making this move disadvantageous. To site is our national virtue of hospitality which, according to the article, has transformed into a stupid vice. (Adoption of Western Values)
Due to the failure of Philippine education, we became so ignorant to the fact that we allowed aliens to strip us of our possessions and wealth. We even praise them for their success, not knowing that some of it is mainly caused by us. They even labeled our country as paradise, but as a matter of fact, Philippines is a heaven just for them but not for some of our countrymen. Because we are still an indirect colony of other countries, many Filipinos fought for complete or total independence and freedom, getting nothing in return but negative thoughts and opposition. Due to colonial education, Filipinos find it hard to grasp the nationalistic principles that must be learned. (Un-Filipino Filipinos)
For a child to master a foreign language, he must first master his own. Because no one is brave enough to advocate the use of our native language as the madium of instruction, the use of English has become dominant. Because a lot are illiterate on this, the use of English as a medium of teaching is an ineffective step, thus producing citizens who do not have mastery of English as well as their native language due to the deliberate neglection to it. Simply put, the masses are becoming more and more illiterate even to their own language. Since many find it hard to use English, many also find it hard to express and lack of expression prevents learning or development of thought, leading to cultural stagnation. (Impediments to Thought)
It is true that we are being dumped with American forms of media. And we can’t deny the fact that mass media is a great factor in molding our character and ideals. It greatly affects our system. Due to this fact, we can’t help but get affected and infected with the whole Americanization thing. And the only way to cure this? Philippine Education. I agree with what is stated that Philippine Education should produce men and women who are not only educated or who do not only know how to read and write and add and subtract, but also men and women who know and who are aware of the present situation of the country and should do something about it for it’s betterment. Philippine education should not only teach the students the basic knowledge and skill but also inculcate within their hearts and minds the values and teachings of our fellow noble countrymen such as Bonifacio and Rizal. Filipino should not only go to school to get a degree or diploma, but should also embed within themselves the values and characteristics that this drowning nation needs. As a saying goes, “Application should always go with education, because the latter is nil in the absence of the former.” (Needed:Filipinos)
*the continuation is in my next posts. :)
Friday, September 7, 2007
i busted big time. just this morning, the results of the first two parts of the exam in math17 are already given. i didn't expect much since it was indeed pretty hard. no. not pretty. it was actually VERY hard. but then again, it's based on my point of view.
i only got 22 out of 40. that's still the true or false test and the multiple choice. my, i was so shocked to see other scores such as 32 36 and gosh, 38. now that made me wonder. is it me? or im just really too stupid?
that made me depress, actually.
now, i can't think of anything to write. i was really hoping i could be a man of sense. especially now that i am starting to read. i mean, im starting to bring back my old habit of reading.
i was also hpoing that this blog would prosper. here we go again.
but then again, i hope i could write a lot by next time God bless.
i only got 22 out of 40. that's still the true or false test and the multiple choice. my, i was so shocked to see other scores such as 32 36 and gosh, 38. now that made me wonder. is it me? or im just really too stupid?
that made me depress, actually.
now, i can't think of anything to write. i was really hoping i could be a man of sense. especially now that i am starting to read. i mean, im starting to bring back my old habit of reading.
i was also hpoing that this blog would prosper. here we go again.
but then again, i hope i could write a lot by next time God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
