Saturday ∗ 04 Apr 2009

sugod mga kafatid!

I can’t help but delight in the ManoloQuezonIII-ChipTsao debacle. First came ChipTsao and his satirical take on the Philippines versus China on the Spratlys. Second was the expected general public sentiment that this was racist, unacceptable, and off with ChipTsao’s head! Third, Manolo writes this status on his Twitter and Facebook via Ping.fm: “All the crap …” Fourth, hindi na kinaya ng powers ng bloggers na sina Dona Victorina at Reyna Elena, hindi lang si ChipTsao, kungdi pati na rin si Manolo.

Sabi nga ni Reyna Elena, hindi raw siya maka-move-on, wala naman silang relasyon ni Manolo.

Pero baket nga ba hindi bet ang sinulat ni Manolo. Obviously, this was his real (if virtual) self as well, the kind who would – as many of us do – put what they think up on their statuses, and be ready to be liked or hated for it. Ideally, we can defend ourselves, talk about our statuses and say, “this is what i mean, this isn’t what i mean”. Ideally, that status would’ve been kept within Facebook and Twitter, dun na lang ang chikahan portion, or in this case ang chakahang walang hanggan.

But this came to be treated like a soundbite, and was brought to the blogosphere by Reyna Elena and Dona Victorina, complete with, naku, how shameful for a grandson of a former Philippine president, how horrible that it is Manolo, the credible journalist and blogger, the one who thinks and does research! How absolutely unacceptable! Even more so than ChipTsao. Because Manolo is one of us.

And of course in the beginning “one of us” just meant that Manolo is a co-blogger, a co-intellectual, a member of the elite whose voice has become important particularly in the blogsphere. In the beginning, all this meant was this: Manolo must be taken to task, he must defend his soundbite, if only because in the process of commenting on ChipTsao, he in fact ended up chastising the Filipinos who thought this was a racial slur, over and above the satire.

Manolo didn’t need to apologize. He could have merely explained himself. Because that whole story about being a writer versus a Filipino is what’s crap – how can he even be schizo like that? As a writer, I admired the satire in ChipTsao, as a Filipino I shouldn’t have? Manolo must realize that this is the flimsiest of excuses, and that in fact, he was kidding no one here. Sana inamin na lang niya where he was coming from when he said it, what kind of intellectual he truly is, what his perspective is really. There is no reason to apologize for knowing satire and irony the way Manolo does. Maybe if he thought better about an explanation we would have a more intelligent debate going on among Filipinos about ChipTsao. Did Manolo hate being called elitist? Why the hell so? If you look at the blogsphere, it has become more and more fashionable to be this after all.

I imagine though, that Manolo must’ve felt like he was being pushed against a wall, so napa-retract na lang ng statement ang lola niyo. Because while both Reyna Elena and Dona Victorina were critical, they were kind still. What was unkind were the comments to their blogs, and they could go on and on and on, given the direction in which it was going.

At winner lang ang mga bading sa blogosphere in this way, dahil talaga naman, mapapa-cower ka na lang in fear, hindi kakayanin ng powers mo ang Chakahan101. Lalo na kung hindi ka naman bading in the way that they are, not even a babaeng bakla. Anyone who has read those comments would know that only the gay community can do it, to bring it to the point where matataranta ka na lang, dahil tuluy-tuloy lang. From how you look to what you do, from what you think to where you’re from, from your educational attainment to your present disposition. Ay, more than an OFW scorned, what we must all realize is that hell hath no fury like an intelligent bading scorned. ‘Yan talaga ang good luck na lang sa’yo.

At ayan, Manolo has become victim. But he is so lucky too, because Reyna Elena had the grace to say, o, let’s stop na about Manolo, nag-sorry na siya. Because really, I can imagine this going on and on til’ kingdom come, naku, even Manolo’s future junanakis wont live it down. Kevs that it iz on that level that iz just so… mean and nasty — talagang ini-evil na siya — precisely because it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Of course this is also the one reason why Manolo could’ve ignored the uproar completely, but well, apparently he couldn’t.

Off with ChipTsao’s head? Chakahin si Manolo Quezon III? Sugod mga Kafatid!

Posted in: komentaryo, media, pulitika

Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

11 Comments/Pingbacks

  1. Pedestrian Observer GB
    April 4, 2009 at 12:54 am

    Gloria declared war against China and she has instructed an armada of Kumpit armed with Sumpit to head for china except for one teeeny little bit of a problem….. how to fit all the troops in one Humvee they once used in withdrawing out of Iraq……

  2. GabbyD
    April 4, 2009 at 5:53 am

    i too was confused, and i asked him about it in his blog. his reply was:

    “Gabby, the point is precisely what you pointed out, and i overlooked: satire is only ever permissible when aimed at the high and mighty, and hardly ever permissible at the expense of the downtrodden (permissible, perhaps, only when one of their own criticizes their peers). this is something people instinctively latched on but i refused to see it, castigating others for “not getting it,” when they actually did. crime of arrogance.”

    i agree — satire, good satire, doesn’t take potshots at the weak. its too easy. its lazy. its like mocking the homeless for living in a cardboard box.

  3. E.P.
    April 4, 2009 at 7:42 am

    tanong lang madame ina. paano i-kri-kritik ang walang power? palagay ko naman ay may ka-kritik-kritik din sa powerless, hindi ba? halimbawa, paano bibigyang kritika ang paghahangad ng isang powerless na magkaroon ng power para gamitin sa kapwa powerless? anung literary kaeklatan ang dapat gamitin? hindi ba pwedeng gamitan ng satire? hindi ba ganito rin ang posisyon sa barriotic punk?

  4. reyna elena
    April 4, 2009 at 9:33 am

    i enjoyed reading what you wrote, regardless of your point – am not saying that out of disrespect. i could tell you’re one heck of a writer. until i clicked your elsewhere online. nice! writer ka pala sa PDI.

    one thing, mabait po talaga ako, pramis! at least i have a record, i never started any fire :-)

  5. ina
    April 5, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    POGB, hahahahahahaha!

    GabbyD, i don’t know that it would be safe to say that good satire must not take potshots at the weak, or that it is not permissible to talk about the downtrodden with irony. because even Rizal, who MLQ3 uses as an example of our satirical roots, talks precisely about the downtrodden Filipino vis a vis the colonial oppressor, the stupid and indolent vis a vis the educated. does he not?

    E.P. sa tingin ko dapat may mas malinaw na depinisyon ang powerless and weak. dahil maging ang mga “powerless” sa ating pananaw, ay maaaring maging powerful sa kanilang mga konteksto, bagamat iisipin nating biktima lang sila ng kanilang social class. ito na nga ang example mo: yung powerless na may paghahangad at kumikilos tungo sa pag-oppress ng kapwa powerless niya. hindi nga ba’t may mga lugar na iisa lang sang marunong bumasa, halimbawa, at ito ang kanyang educational power over everybody else. gayundin yung mga lugar na iisa lang ang may kuryente ang bahay dahil siya lang ang makaka-afford, e di economic power na rin yon. hindi rin naman nababago na sa mas malaking pagsipat sa kondisyon ng lugar na yon, ay powerless ring maituturing ang mga iisa marunong magbasa at may kuryente.

    maganda ba ang barriotic punk? for that, babasahin ko na siya dahil binanggit mo.

  6. ina
    April 5, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    reyna elena! :) bet na bet ko kaya ang blog mo. it’s a winner. :)

  7. GabbyD
    April 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    indeed, i hoped that this chip incident would spark a discussion on the nature of satire. i’m glad we can have one now :)

    who ought to be the target of satire? i confess, that i think the answer i gave earlier is only half right. not only should the target should be the powerful, but ‘whipping boy’ should be sufficiently ‘over the top’ so as to be obvious that its satire.

    the classic example is swifts’ modest proposal. the target is the powerful english. the whipping boy were the (then) impoverished irish. the over the top proposal is that the poor irish eat their children.

    hence there are two key compenents, both need to be present.

    what of “indolence of the filipinos”? i’m glad you mentioned it, and what u wrote made me want to read it for myself. luckily its free online.

    in the indolence, rizal never took potshots at pinoys. in fact, he assiduously defended the filipino from the charge of natural laziness… one of the key quotes:

    “Indolence in the Philippines is a chronic malady, but not a hereditary
    one. The Filipinos have not always been what they are, witnesses
    whereto are all the historians of the first years after the discovery
    of the Islands.”

    if anything, rizal argues, its the spanish who made us so…

    Rizal’s clinical, matter-of-fact tone matches swift’s. very clearly, he attacks the spaniards directly, without resorting to irony at all…

    sorry ha, napahaba. :) i fell in love with humor in general, satire as well, back in college. i still remember reading voltaire and loving it. Colbert is also a personal inspiration of mine. satire is an evolving lit genre also, big differences between rizal and swifts satire (classical), to modern ones. Even in the modern milleu there is serious satire (Orwell, 1984) and humorous satire (Carlin, 7 dirty words).

  8. E.P.
    April 7, 2009 at 7:30 am

    maganda yung barriotic punk, kung malapit ka sa dugyuting topiks, na tingin ko naman ay oo. hihihi, sorry.

    may nabasa akong comment, sabi daw ng isang senador, mahina ang tradisyon ng satire sa bansa, marahil ito ang ugat ng kadramahan ngayon. tingin mo? pero parang mahina nga anu?. karamihan kasi ng nababasa kong nobelang filipino madrama. bihira lang ang satirical ang turing tulad ng taguanpung.

  9. daryll
    April 9, 2009 at 1:05 am

    puede ba bang mag-comment, kahit nag-apologize na ang mga salarin? as a filipino and as a writer, all i can say is, badly-written lang ang satire ni chip tsao. mali ang progression ng mga comparisons at parallels na ginamit niya. he only has this to blame for the response it evoked. and i cannot forgive him for that. we deserve better. =)

  10. ina
    April 9, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    daryll! true true. but what does it say when we don’t even deserve well-written satire? aray.

  11. NashLeneRs ROCK
    May 24, 2009 at 2:06 am

    Hi! Going off-topic…

    Why can’t we see your reviews of “Fuschia” & “Ded Na Si Lolo”?

    We browsed your other blog entries and the way you write is interesting to read. We would like to read your reviews of the Sine Direk films especially “Kamoteng Kahoy” that would come out in June 10. Thanks for your time!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© Katrina Stuart Santiago  ·  Contact Me
Wordpress theme and web development by @joelsantiago