Published October 9, 2009
Countries/Regions , Imperialism , Occupation , Philippines , Politics , United States
Tags: bangsamoro, colonialism, imperialism, islam, mindanao, muslim, philippines, United States
Julkipli Wadi, in the book The Moro Reader, writes:
It can be said thus that there are, at least, four major strings of control that operate in the Moroland; namely: (1) U.S. colonialism (historical, unclosed); (2) Philippine colonialism (direct; relative to Moros); (3) multilateral colonialism (geopolitical, strategic and economic interests; corporate globalization); and (4) current U.S. colonialism (war on international terrorism; “second coming”)…What can be generally stated this time is that when the Philippine Republic took over in 1946, the status of Moros became “neocolonial” with respect to the Philippines but “doubly colonial” in relation to the Philippines and the United States. It is because when the United States absolved Moros’ sovereignty and transferred it arbitrarily to Filipinos in 1946 and even earlier, the Philippine Independence did not necessarily close American colonialism in Mindanao and Sulu. What happened is that the mode of U.S. control was simply transfered to Filipinos and thence became indirect and continued to operate by proxy. (Wadi, 22)
Wadi, Julkipli, “Multiple Colonialism in Moroland” in The Moro Reader: History and Contemporary Struggles of the Bangsamoro People. Edited by Tuazon Bobby M and Oscar Evangelista. Philippines: CenPEG Books, 2008.
Saree Makdisi writes about life for Palestinian students in Israel:
Even in Israel itself, Palestinian students-citizens of the state-face great difficulties, when compared with their Jewish peers. The state provides 1,600 subsidized day-care centers, for example, but only 25 of those are in Palestinian towns. Only 4,200 of the 80,000 Israeli children aged zero to three who attend day care are Palestinian, though had that number been in proportion to the actual population, it would have been closer to 20,000. Israel invests more than three times as much in a Jewish student than it does in a non-Jewish one. The state’s list of the 553 towns and villages granted top priority for education exclude all Palestinian towns inside Israel other than four villages. There are 25 special art schools for Jewish children, and none for Palestinians. And at the higher levels of its school system, Israel opens far more curricular tracks to Jewish students than to Palestinian ones. As a result of all these forms of discrimination-and despite the fact that Palestinians traditionally place great emphasis on their children’s education, a fact attested to by the disproportionately large numbers of Palestinians among the Arab inteligentsia-a far greater proportion of Jewish students make it through high school, get accepted to university, and graduate. Only 10 percent of Israel’s university students are Palestinian, for example, though proportionately speaking it ought to be double that number. Only 3 percent of its Ph.D. students are Palestinian. Only 1 percent of its university lectures are Palestinian. (Makdisi, 206)
Makdisi, Saree. Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., 2008.