Considering that this month was opened by April Fool’s Day and that this month is also National Literature Month, I’ll be talking about a certain kind of humor in literature and media that is lacking in our present political discourse. 

Ignorance is bliss, not until you fall into the trap of taking a certain sarcastic joke to be true and exposing your gullibility online. (#SHAIME!) Yeah, I saw the excess “I” there, inspired by...

...which was a...

Kidding aside, humor has had a special place in our civic and political discourse even before the founding of our Republic. And as history will show, if rightly used, it can become a powerful way of “speaking truth to power,” to borrow the well-known Quaker phrase. The kind of humor this entails is, rightly put, a literary art of fusing humor, exaggeration, ironies, and wit to indirectly ridicule. 

We call this Satire.

Satires, from the world over, are often used to expose and criticize corrupt politicians and establishments, not by saying it directly but by making a joke out of them--at times impersonating them to the point of exaggeration (like in parodies), or even in a form of stand up comedy (like those “Late Night” TV shows in the U.S.) to share political commentaries and witty criticisms of policies deemed to be stupid or inconsistent. From Saturday Night Live in the United States to Eretz Nehederet in Israel and LeMan in Turkey, satires often disarm the initial defenses of people by means of humor, and then punches the real controversial message across. It disturbs the delusion, and it becomes the talk of the town.

*U.S. President Donald Trump’s White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, is portrayed in a skit by comedian Melissa McCarthy in the show, Saturday Night Live, February 2017. 

*A skit of a classroom where an Israeli teacher teaches kids an exaggerated Israeli exceptionalism, in the show, Eretz Nehederet.

But in a country such as the Philippines, while there is much criticism going on and much freedom (being eroded at the moment), this was not always the case. When freedoms are restricted and free press is censored by the powers that be, satire can become a powerful medium of dissent... a loud megaphone against people who perpetuate themselves in power. 

Take for example in the 19th century during the Spanish Colonial Period in the Philippines. Having had a few Spanish administrators and numerous Spanish friars to manage the Spanish colony, Spain depended on the friars scattered in the regions. Since these friars held wealth and absolute religious authority, the people under them, steep in superstition and held by the neck in terms of land, obey them almost without question. Hence, rampant abuse of the “friarocracy” authority was unquestioned. Fedor Jagor, a famous German ethnologist of the time, described the dullness of the country upon his visit:

“Never once did the least excitement enliven its feeble newspapers, for the items of intelligence, forwarded fortnightly from Hong Kong, were sifted by priestly censors who left little but the chronicles of the Spanish and French courts to feed the barren columns of the local sheets.”

This barrenness is so pervasive that the situation demanded creativity. Some Ilustrados (Filipinos in Spain) employed creative means to get their message across--equal representation in the Spanish royal court and equal opportunities and rights to Filipinos called by Spaniards in the derogatory term “indio.” Jose Rizal published his first novel Noli Me Tangere, in 1887 in Madrid, set in a fictional town of San Diego where the ills of the Philippine society under Spain was all too real. The Spanish friars in the Philippines attacked the novel ruthlessly, with Fray José Rodriguez publishing the pamphlet, ¡Caiñgat Cayó!: Sa mañga masasamang libro,t, casulatan (old Tagalog translation: “Be warned: Of bad books and writings”) in 1888.

*First page of “¡Caiñgat Cayó!: Sa mañga masasamang libro,t, casulatan” published by Fray José Rodriguez in 1888.

In response, that very year, Rizal’s colleague, Marcelo H. del Pilar, published a similar looking pamphlet, and with a pseudonym Dolores Manapat, wrote the satirical pamphlet Caiigat Cayó (old Tagalog translation: “Be like an eel”) basically insulting the friar-produced pamphlet and defending the Noli. Rizal himself would write satirical pieces, one of which was La Vision de Fray Rodriguez (The Vision of Fray Rodriguez)

Graciano Lopez Jaena, another Ilustrado, published the satirical Fray Botod (old Tagalog translation: Big bellied Friar), which was a casual conversation between a Filipino and a Spanish liberal about the caricature of a Spanish friar:  

--Who is Botod?

--Look at him, there he goes, walking on the plaza, that chubby friar talking with a woman at the foot of the talisay tree. Can you see him distinctly?

--No.

--Look well toward the center of the plaza. Look over the plaza, fix your eyes on the little tower of bamboo and nipa, it is the belltower of the town; at the foot of the ladder, also of bamboo, are several leafy trees, by the trunk of the most corpulent talisay tree,under its shade is Fr. Botod talking angrily with a woman. Do you see him now?

--Yes, yes, I see him; he is bold. How he knits his eyebrows! The lass is not bad; but it is obviously, by his manner and grin, Fr. Botod,or devils, is vexed; but, what do I see? . . . now he is raising his walking cane in a menacing gesture.

--He is intimidating the young woman, so that she will accede to his desire.

--Is this rogue of a friar going to hit the girl?

--He is capable. Come and look, a crowd of boys from the charity-school, some nude from the waist down, others from the waist up, are running toward the Reverend Father; they kiss his hand; and the ignorant rustic of a friar send them to blazes and, frightened, the boys fled.

--But, look, look at the shameless friar; he's slapping the girl terribly . . . Hum! She falls to her knees at his feet; she seems to be asking for pardon . . . she kisses his hand . . . Poor girl! He takes her along . . . Cursed friar! What a brute, how wretched! . . . But do you allow and endure such abuses against the honor of that weak creature, victim of the brute force of that cynical friar?

--We are already used to such scenes; they happen frequently.

--But what is that devil of a friar doing in this part of the world?

--He's the parish priest of this town.

--Parish priest! A friar, parish priest! I didn't know that friars are parish priests in the Philippines; I have been told so, but I never believed it.

--Well, see it and you'll be convinced.

In the American Colonial Period, the Americans introduced a less restrictive “free press” in the Philippines but it was still censored. The display of the Philippine flag was forbidden, and so was any show of Filipino nationalism that hinted support for the defeated First Philippine Republic (thanks to the Sedition Law of 1901). Inflamed with passion to get their message across, Filipino writers and artists were compelled to be creative to get past strict censorship. This took many forms--the sarswela or the allegorical “seditious plays” and especially satirical prose and art. It was here that cartoonists entered the Filipino satirical heritage which was previously dominated by literary writers. In the nationalist newspaper El Renacimiento, satire took the form of editorial and indignant cartoons which made fun of the latest issues of the day and made the readers pause for laugh and reflection. This was followed by the solely satirical 16-page magazine Lipang Kalabaw, first released on July 27, 1907. It would be the first and only Philippine satirical journal in history.

*The front cover of the first issue of Lipang Kalabaw on July 27, 1907, courtesy of Unang Labas. Entitled “Progresista Voters,” it shows how the Progresista Party (formerly Federalista Party that advocated for Philippine statehood under the U.S.) changed stance when rural voters (seen in the back row) tipped the vote for the party to support eventual Philippine independence. 

Interestingly, Lipang Kalabaw is the name of choice of the publication, based on the local counterpart of poison ivy, lipang kalabaw--a plant which stings the skin upon contact. The magazine’s name, portrayed in its masthead, is explained in full in its maiden edition:

“Taken internally, the plant [lipang kalabaw] is noted for antiseptic and sterilizing qualities; for external use it is a stimulant and an antiseptic as well. It has, moreover, a practical and vulgar application against rheumatism. In order to cure this malady one must strive to produce a rash. Rheumatics are flagellated without compassion with lipang kalabaw leaves and the rheumatism disappears as though by sorcery. This explains the symbol of our masthead. The ends we pursue can be divined. We shall strive to make the most use of the beneficial effects of lipang kalabaw. We shall use these as a stimulant for dormant energies for the good of the community. In cases of moral rheumatism, it will be utilized with its rightful imitations certain that the rashes the flagellations raise will produce a salutary reaction to the spirits. We do not count on gratitude of the patients.”

True enough, these cartoons and those in other news organs really stung the people they’re referring to, no matter how veiled the cartoons seemed to be.

*Satirical cartoon making fun of Dominador Gomez, a leading figure in the Nacionalista Party until a scandal in 1906-1907, as featured in Lipang Kalabaw, April 4, 1908.

*In High Stakes satirical cartoon, Manuel L. Quezon is portrayed as if in a poker game, alluding his maneuverings in Congress for Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act (for Philippine Independence from the U.S.) to be rejected, opposing Sergio Osmeña. The maneuvering ends with Osmeña agreeing to the rejection of HHC, as Quezon accepts responsibility of its rejection, and promising to get an even more beneficial independence bill from the U.S. As it turned out, after 4 months, Quezon gets Tydings-McDuffie Law passed, almost the same as HHC. From the Philippines Free Press, August 5, 1933.

Even in the United States at the time, American satirical cartoonists were unforgiving. Criticizing the American acquisition of the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century, some satirical magazines denigrated the new colony (a hint of racism there) but some also exposed the hypocrisy of the American political establishment in its policy toward the Philippines. 

* The cartoon at The Chicago Chronicle entitled “The Forbidden Book” portrays how the U.S. military banned the American media in covering the ‘insurgent’ activities of Filipinos in the Philippine-American War in their reportage.

*In the American satirical magazine Puck, “Uncle Sam”, an allegory of the United States, teaches his students, an allegorical representation of his new colonies, of “civilization.” Noticeable is the boy representing the Philippines, resembling President Emilio Aguinaldo. 

If Filipino Satire in cartoons and prose had its first boom in the Commonwealth Era, all the more was it so during the Third Republic period--at time when the Philippines became a newly independent country. This era lasted from 1946 to 1972, and was an exciting period for literature. Satirical pieces flourished and sold like pancakes. According to historian Alfred McCoy, those were the times when “the noisy Philippine press was said to be among the freest in the world.” The then future National Artist for Literature, Nick Joaquin, made waves through his satirical commentaries on the funny and strange conventions and drama in Congress via the Philippines Free Press. It was read by the public voraciously like radio dramas. And this was also the time when satirical cartoons on our dailies took to new heights.

Look at these editorial cartoons by artist E.Z. Izon. These works of his were *naturally* critical of any leader, especially those with authoritarian tendencies like Marcos in the late 60s and early 70s. True enough, Marcos got full blown authoritarian upon the declaration of Martial Law on September 23, 1972, as some of the media suspected.

*Free Press editorial cartoon of the members of the Constitutional Convention, most of whom were rumored to have been bribed by Marcos. Cartoon printed in 1972. By artist E.Z. Izon. Source: Presidential Museum and Library.

*Philippines Free Press editorial cartoon of the Quintero exposé, pointing to the bribery in the January 6, 1972 dinner of 39 ConCon delegates at Malacañang. Source: Presidential Museum and Library.

During the Martial Law Period, when every political commentary was censored, and when dissenters were all accused of being Communists, creativity was high once again. While other writers like Jose Lacaba wrote under a pseudonyms, some even went as far as to producr underground newspapers, called the “Mosquito Press”, and campus journalism, especially in the University of the Philippines were full of lengthy commentaries and great political cartoons. 

*A front page of Sick of the Times, a satirical tabloid piece during Martial Law, from the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Museum Collection. Credits to Eufemio Agbayani for the scan.

It was only when the dictatorship was overthrown that Freedom of the Press, and subsequently, printed satire, was restored.

The sad thing about Filipino satire is that while it began from exquisite literary art forms in the late 19th century to print cartoons in the early 20th century, it has somehow failed to catch up to the changing medium of today. Satire is well and good on print. The Pugad Baboy, which at one time ruffled the feathers of a certain Catholic school, is still alive and kicking. 

New satirical comics can also be found in the social media, although not as popular. Maybe these satirical pieces were unpalatable to a personality-based politics we have. Or maybe the absence of satirical pieces propagate such a personality-based (not issue or policy-based politics). 

But the absence of political satire in Philippine television today (now still a powerful medium next to social media) for example, has made a vacuum in society that fake news bloggers, social media personalities and wannabe political commentators have happily filled. The problem with most of these social media influencers is that they are blatant propagandists of those in power, and they often paint the world in false dichotomies of “us versus them”, of “black versus white” contributing to the further dumbing down of the public. In the real world, that won’t do because our world, and the problems we encounter as citizens of this country are more complex than these dichotomies.

Perhaps the closest thing we have of satire are the memes that somehow slightly poked fun at the conventions of today (even in their shallow capacity), or several satirical blogs and facebook pages that are obviously made up to disturb the complacency of people on societal ills (These are distinct from fake news blogs which pretends to be legitimate news organs therefore misleads). 

But a real Filipino satire, one that's rooted from traditions of our great literary heritage, demands a more elaborate funny story, one that engages the audience of the Aling Nena in the tindahan or the Mang Carding in the street. You know that a satire piece is good when it is so funny that it catches people of various political persuasions off-guard. 

In the West, satire has evolved from print and cartoon to elaborate Late Night TV comedy talk shows, and well-made skits that are also featured in YouTube channels. Especially now that the current administration in the United States loves to slam any form of dissent, shows like Saturday Night Live, The Colbert Report, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, etc. which had been doing lampoons since they began, have shown their light in the growing aggression of the political establishment against free press. Imagine a show, or several shows of witty sarcasm, of satirical goodness on television! The thing that closely resembles this in the Philippines are TV5′s Kontrabando and Word of the Lourd. 

But while these shows are good, they are not yet as widely watched and discussed in the streets, and at times not as pointedly stinging and direct, like what South African comedian, Trevor Noah, always does.

In Satire, notice how online paid trolls are immobilized by witty sarcasm. It’s easy to reply to a political argument. And trolls don’t back down. They usually reply with copy-pasted answers. But respond with sarcasm or joke? Either they fall flat on their face or hit on the joke. But as we Pinoys would say, “Ang pikon, talo.” That’s also the magic that is Ethel Booba on Twitter. The comedian just ends her controversial but commonsensical tweets with “Charot”, and the snippet automatically becomes a satirical statement to be laughed at.  Trolls would try to attack her tweets, to pull her down, but that would only make them kill-joys, effectively disarming them. And the key to Ethel Booba’s satirical genius? She gets the pulse of the common Juan in the street. 

The absence of satire in our common political discourse has made Filipinos politically gullible, that even a humble attempt at satire could still be believed by many people to be legitimate news. Again #shaime. (See Rappler’s “Why can’t Filipinos tell truth from satire?”)

We need a satire that is pointed enough to offend and pulls off a Lipang Kalabaw effect. It should irritate the onion-skinned, and strip off the legitimacy of the person being referred to by simply appealing to common sense. 

Take a look at the Superficial Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, a parody Facebook and Twitter account of the Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. It was born out of the Duterte government’s *accidental* celebratory posting of the late dictator’s birthday 99th birth anniversary last year through the Official Gazette FB. The Internet then reacted in disgust, hence SGRP whose makers still remain anonymous, was founded.

Here’s a sample of their satirical entries:

“SGRP” lampoons the Duterte administration by imitating the typeface and layout of their infographics and by featuring absurd wrong history that pokes fun on Marcos historical revisionism peddled by the regime. Now the administration has made the OG account inactive and settled for the clean slate that is the Presidential Communications Operations Office Facebook page. But no matter how the trolls reply to SGRP, they come off wrong, probably because they could not understand the sarcasm or they simply could not tolerate the sarcasm, that they end up looking “pikon.”   

Malcolm Gladwell, the famous author of The Tipping Point and Blink, describes and elaborates in his podcast Revisionist History this power of Satire. He invited Heather LaMarre, professor of Media and Strategic Communication at Temple University. I’m quoting an excerpt of the podcast here: 

Gladwell: “...Satire is complicated. It’s not like straightforward speech that’s easy to decode. It requires interpretation. That’s what draws you in. That’s where the humor lies. But that active interpretation has a cost. Heather LaMarre calls this the ‘paradox of satire.’

LaMarre: “So the trade off was satire becomes all of the thinking or a lot of the thinking becomes devoted to what the comic means, who the target of the joke is. And as they interpret that then they spend less time thinking about whether that warrants any kind of real consideration or counter-arguing sort of the merits of that message.”

Gladwell: This doesn’t happen when you listen to a straightforward discussion on politics. You just think about the arguments. But with satire...

LaMarre: “here, you’re spending all of your time thinking about the nature of the comedy which leaves very little mental resources available to think about whether the comedy has truth.”

While Gladwell argues that Satire in the West has lost its teeth for settling only in the comical instead of bringing the intended controversial message to its logical conclusion of disturbing people, he nevertheless continues:

A real satire uses a comic pretense to land a massive blow. The intentions are pretty plain. Not that hard to decode. If laughter is normally the great distractor, the laughter dissipates awfully quickly here. Satire works best when the satirist has the courage not to just to go for the joke. 

In psychology, there is this state of mind called Cognitive Dissonance wherein a person experiences mental discomfort upon realizing s/he adheres to conflicting beliefs or values. And Satire does just that--it makes you uneasy. It forces you to rethink your views. 

If you’re a troll who drank the poison of propaganda hook, line and sinker, and you just keep on copy pasting a particular message, you would be immobilized by satire. Because what you take seriously, people make fun of. And attacking a joke only makes you a party pooper. 

In effect, satire exposes and dismantles dangerous ideas built on prejudice, and forces people to be critical of everything their leaders do, because these leaders hold power and the people don’t. 

Satire is good for democracy. 

And now that we are in one of the most politically divisive moments in Philippine history, under an unhinged administration, now is the time to resurrect Filipino Satire on Television! --if only to lessen fanaticism and bring back sense to our body politic. We have Lourd de Veyra but we need more like him. *An article has recommended a good line up of Filipino satirists that could pull off a Late Night TV show (minus TBL, because y’know)*

Pinoy Comedians, writers, literary artists, producers, meme-ists, professional satirists, WE NEED YOU! (Shouts into the void)