Jump to content

Talk:Datu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

"These titles are the equivalent of European dukes and marquesses." <---- Just curious: On what basis is this comparison made? Alternativity 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sino sino ang sampung bornean datu na dumating sa pilipinas?

Answer: The extent of power, wealth and influence that a local prince had, especially also if he was a kapanalig (or an ally under the protection of a Rajah or King or any other greater unit in the precolonial societies of the Archipelago). It is a rough comparison.--94.83.253.145 (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about in Sabah!?

[edit]

This article is only talking about the "Datu" title in Philipines, but no mention of the "Datu" title in Sabah, Malaysia. There are notable Sabahans like politicians who have the "Datu" title. --אדמוןד ואודס自分の投稿記録 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I personally did not know that. If you have sources, I do suggest you [[Wikipedia:Be_bold|Be Bold] and make the necessary changes to the article? With the caveat of course that the data already here should be respected. (Meaning, not discarded) It would be nice to see this article expanded, but I'm afraid I'm not very knowledgable about the Datu rank as used in Sabah and I have no sources with me on the matter, so I'm afraid I'd be of little help to you. Good luck with the editing, though. Cheers. Alternativity (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Datu only in the Philippines?

[edit]

That title is also known in Malaysia inter alia. -- Abfall-Reiniger (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made just a brief research, but, found no sources for Datus in Sabah. Up to know, I only found sources about the titel Dato and Datuk to be awarded by Malaysia. The Datu was not even listed in a very complete glossary that names probably all noble and Royal titles in Malaysia, even several different versions of Dato and datuk, like Datuk Patinggi or Dato Kurnia Bakti DiRaja. May be, the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu and Sabah, are those who live in Malaysia and do use the Philippine datu title. There must be many people who are entitled to lower titles or datu titles by genealogical relation in Malaysia. That could be an explanation, but, may be, someone can enlighten us more. Regards About the Sultan (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we did not call our chiefs Datu we called them Apo in the preoccupation times.Kasumi-genx (talk)
datu is also used among animist tribes in Mindanao along with the title of Rajah, the title Datu also includes the Manobo, Bagobo and the other (40++)non-Muslim tribes in Mindanao, I should know my dad is a Datu. Junji (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Junji: I have already added a section and many references to the Lumads of Mindanao in this article about the Datus. Please help watch and protect this article from those who wish to alter the facts in it.--TLS MMM (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Malaysia and Indonesia therms used are Dato and Datuk. Datu is used in local Filipino tribes. There is an article about Dato, and a sub-article about Datuk. --TLS MMM (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Datu in Malaysia and Indonesia

[edit]

Please feel free to create new articles of Datus in Malaysia and Indonesia, specially if you are knowledgeable about it. I might attempt to do so also.--Jondel (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For RDAndrew

[edit]

Thank you for your contribution about the local laws that protect the rights of indigenous peoples of the Philippines, including also the rights of local nobilities of Sulu.

However, please do not erase the section pertaininf other laws in the Country, especially the Constituional basis, that sheds light to the truth about noble titles in the Philippines.

I have incorporated your contribution in the section about the Present day Datus, putting into the footnotes the citations you used in your previous edition. If you have questions and contentions please do it first in the discussion board of this article, so that the users of Wikiepdia will be enlightened by the truth about the issue concerned. --TLS MMM (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For TLS MMM

[edit]

Thank you for your message, I agree with you in some part but in some part I do not. You mentioned that Datus can only by blood descent, that is, one has to have Filipino blood in his veins, and has to be a descendant of ancient Filipino royal or noble families. That is not true as in 1878 Sultan of Sulu (who was Sovereign at that time granted Baron de Overbeck Datu title)! I can provide you with certified copy of this document translation, therefore I require you will remove this sentence from the article. Also please take a note by law of succession the Sultan of Sulu office still exist.

Secondly you removed Sulu from first sentence just before Mindanao (if you are familiar with Philippine geography you should know that they are different areas, therefore I require you will add Sulu there, as most of the Datu titles were granted by Sultan of Sulu!!!

Also I would not dear to call Sultanate as tribe and Sultan as tribe leader. Even presently Sultan is recognised as head of the Muslim Community, therefore please add before tribe leaders also a Sultan. Thank you for advance RDAndrew (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For TLS MMM 2

[edit]

Thank you, I shall create page Raja Muda (Raja Mudah) shortly, I am happy with your additions, but I will also add Datu in Royal Sultanate of Sulu as it is describe din 1974 book. It has solid reference. RDAndrew (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For TLS MMM 3

I think you are not familiar with Sultanate of Sulu. Raja Muda means Crown Prince!. Crown Prince will succeed his father, therefore other claimants claims are null as they have no proof of recognition. The last recognised coronation of Raja Muda was in 1974, therefore the current head of the Royal House of Sulu by law of succession is Raja Muda Muedzul Lail tan Kiram! Or if you have any documents which show that the names you added were recognised by government please share them:D RDAndrew (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For RDAndrew

[edit]

I have already intedgrated your legitimate suggestions. Please take note that I have highlighted the title Raja Mudah. But it seems that there is no wikipedia article about this. Would you be kind to create it. I think you are more competent in doing it. Please also take note of the Philippine legal provisions in that article, and also in related articles about honorary titles. There are objections to some honory titles given to non-tribe members and to foreigners, also in view of the provisions of the Constitution, as well as regarding the sentiments of local nobles and tribe members. Filipinos are sensitive to some insinuations that foreigners are accorded higher status over them, in their own native land, especially that their own Constitution prohibits them to receive or confer new such nobiliary titles. I know you are aware of the colonial experience, and struggles of the Filipinos for independence and for equal status with foreign colonizers.--TLS MMM (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


For RDAndrew

The previous editions that you have undone shows a more complete picture and topics about the subject. Please present your suggestions with corresponding references, before deleting any section. This is the second time that you have deleted parts of the article on Datu - parts which are well-documented. If there are contrary facts, please present them before deleting anything. If there are suggestions that are valid, well documented, from your part, I am sure that they welll be well considered. Articles should present facts that are related to the topic.--TLS MMM (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-examined the section you deleted, and it presents the other claimants to certain royal titles in the Philippines. The references are valid. I can see no reason why they should be deleted, unless you have documentations that these are not true claimants, and that what are said about them are not factual. --TLS MMM (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Social Structure of Sulu, the section you added was very specific, which would mean that this article will have to accomodate all the rest of the relevant and specific customs of each tribe in the Philippines. However, there is already a specific article that mentions exactly what you wish to incorporate in this article. So, what you added was summarized somewhere on the sub-section on honorary titles, and a link was placed so that if readers are interested to what you want to present, they can refer to it in an article, where it is more sutitably discussed. It seems fair that way.

If you can give a generic summary of the customs of all the Muslim tribes in Mindanao without referring to just one type of society, it might be a good contribution to this topic. Thank you for your efforts to enlighten wikipedians.--TLS MMM (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency in the presentation of entries in the sub-section on the Present Day Datus, all the Sultans of Sulu were grouped together in the entry for the Sultanate of Sulu, in the same style of presentation of the Sultanates of Maguindanao, Lanao, etc.--TLS MMM (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are several claimants to being head of the ruling family of the Sultanate of Sulu, it seems better say that the crowned Raja Muda is considered by a branch of the ruling family as their head. --TLS MMM (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section about datu in martial Arts was removed because it is impertinent to the topic of this article. it is adviced that it should be placed in some article about martial arts.--Sulbud (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with Scott's assertion "Datus were not called kings"

[edit]

Hi everyone. First of all, the article is looking great! Congrats on the fantastically effective collaboration on this page!

I was doing some reading today and had a thought. In his discussion of Tagalog Society and Religeon, Scott asserts that "...Datus were not called kings (Hari), not even paramount chiefs; that term was known only in reference to foreign monarchies (kaharian) and their viceroys (halili). It is significant that Spaniards called them principales (chiefs), not regulos (rulers)."

My understanding is that this Spanish interpretation came about because Datus did not hold absolute dominion over their "subjects" the way european royals did. This question might not be so significant on this page, as there's no question that Datu is still a royal title of sorts. But it does beg the question of what to call the territories they ruled. Would we be correct in calling such territories "kingdoms"? And if not, what should they be called? I am not sure how to integrate the Scott quote into this text. I'll give it some thought first. But if anybody else wants a crack at it, I certainly wouldn't object. The reference is on Page 221 of Scott, William Henry (1994). Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 971-550-135-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). - Alternativity (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Barangays were like European kingdoms. But, we also had real kingdoms, e.g., Butuan, etc. As regards the smaller and lesser influential ones, Scott also mentioned about "autonomous Principalities", and so did Morga, who had lived at a more proximate time to the epoch when this social reality was still existent (cf. precolonial section of this article). A principality (like Monaco and Andorra in Europe) does not necessarily have the vastness of a territory, etc. of what might qualify a kingdom. But its ruler is nonetheless a royal sovereign prince. And again, we have to consider that this is another western convention in expressing what is innate to the culture of East Asia- another analogy, I would say. Well, the people in this Archipelago had their own way of conceiving and practicing a monarchic type of government, which had similarities and also, dissimilarities with their European counterparts or those in other parts of the globe.(Cf. Short paragraph, which cites footnote n. 22). --94.83.253.145 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section on "Recorded list of Datus in the Philippines"

[edit]

The Section on "Recorded list of Datus in the Philippines" was transferred to another article (Recorded list of Datus in the Philippines), to make the entry on "Datu" concise. Most data in the section that was transferred lacked sufficient citations. That rendered this article less scientific. Besides, the list could go on and on, making it difficult to confirm the claims of those who add names to the list without citing references. Those who are interested in the above-mentioned section are invited to edit the new article created and to improve it by adding suitable citations. --Sulbud (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Datu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Datubaylan

[edit]

Datubaylan is a contemporary term sometimes used to refer to all the territories of the Philippines and is also referred to a passable and possible new name for the country. The term Philippines came from the Spanish King at the time when the country was colonized. In contrast, the term Datubaylan is a convergence of the datu (chief, ruler, or king) and the babaylan (spiritual leader and holder of science, arts and literature). The datu is the common term for political leader among central and southern ethnicities while the babaylan is the commen term for spiritual leader in northern ethnicities. Datubaylan is also a resounding configuration of the Asian roots of the country and has an indigenous coinage in its pronunciation and general spelling. Another term being pushed to become the country's new name is Maharlika, however, the term itself is profoundly Tagalog-centric and thus non-inclusive for other ethnicities.

The above-mentioned sub-section of this article was removed since:

1.) It is not directly related to the subject of the article. 2.) It appears to belong to another independent article. 3.) It was not scientifically written, lacking credible reference materials. --Sulbud (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Re-opening of "Monarchy" discussion

[edit]

I had completely forgotten that this discussion was going on as early as 2012. I'd like to raise a number of important points about the article.

  1. First of all, it's important to note that as per WP:NOTFORUM, the main article space should not contain the personal beliefs of editors – only the explicitly stated assertions of reliable academic sources. If some editors believe that the academic literature somehow has a "western bias", I'm afraid Wikipedia can't do anything about that, and the proper way to address such a bias would be to bring it up in the academic journals, where the disagreement can be subject to scholarly peer review.
  2. I’d like to reiterate that all of the most updated historiographic literature I have immediate access to all either: (a) clearly state that datus in the Tagalog and Visayan regions and most of Mindanao did not exercise sovereign authority (Scott 1984,1994; Junker 1990,1999; Jocano 2001 – with the caveat that I can’t claim to have read much about the Sultanates of Jolo and Maguindanao); or (b) don't seem to discuss the matter of sovereign authority in enough depth to provide an operational definition (Dery 2001; Alejandro ed. 2000; the other sources on highly specialized fields like warfare or agriculture). Maybe someone out there has an updated historiographic analysis that still says otherwise. Please do add (quote and cite) your source so that we can finally get away from editors insisting on their interpretation of the truth.
  3. This has been explained better elsewhere, but: Wikipedia concerns itself with provable Facts, not with Truth. Facts are objectively verifiable. Truths are subject to interpretation.
  4. The recent edits seem to assert that there is a difference between a monarchy and a sovereignity, or of a monarch and a sovereign. That one does not have to exercise sovereign authority to be a monarch. Everything I’ve read so far sees the exercise sovereign authority (only evolving to include limited sovereignty trough parliamentary or constitutional limits in modern times) as the very operational definition of a monarchy. If it is not, then I’d like to see that citation, with a quote please. Because Wikipedia does not allow you to invent operational definitions.
  5. Recent edits have also proposed some sort of “pre-colonial Filipino understanding of Monarchy.” Again, I’d like to see a scholarly definition. The one time I’ve seen a detailed definition, Scott cites San Buenaventura specifically saying that the Tagalogs did NOT apply the term Hari to their Datus, Lakans, or Rajahs, but only to foreign monarchs. If indeed there’s “pre-colonial Filipino understanding of Monarchy,” someone please provide an operational definition sourced from reliable literature because that deserves its own wikipedia article. If it exists.
  6. A datu is a datu. It’s an indigenously evolved word which means what it means. Generically, a datu is a ruler. Why is there a need to denote a Datu by introducing this European word, “Monarchy” (etymology: late Middle English: from late Latin monarcha, from Greek monarkhēs, from monos ‘alone’ + arkhein ‘to rule’) when we already have THE native word, Datu, and a generic neutral operational word, ruler, which can be used in an operational defintition? The foreign word Monarch introduces denotative and connotative meanings not in the indigenous word Datu. The indigenous word Datu has denotative and connotative nuances which are not captured by the foreign word Monarch. Again, WHY USE A FOREIGN WORD? (Please note that unless objectively proven to have been actively used by locals, even the word Kedatuan is a foreign, although closely related word.)
  7. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, there have been objections to the word “Chief.” That seems right: there’s an academic dispute about the use of the word Chief, too. If I recall correctly, Junker, in particular, has pointed out early Filipino polities don’t fall neatly into the paradigms used to describe evolutionary chiefdoms. [Monarchy2017notes 1] But that’s beside the point, because nowhere in this article takes pains not to call Datus chiefs. I don’t see any point in saying somewhere in the article “Datus were more than just chiefs” when nobody has said they are chiefs. If someone else sees a point to that, maybe they should write that section. I won’t, because it’s inane, it’s defensive, and because it presumes a worldview where some men have more nobility in their blood than others. But that’s just me. Besides which, who says monarchy is the only viable step up from chiefdom?
  8. I suspect what the editor is referring to is the level of aristocratic…is the right word nobility? Honor? Blue-bloodedness? Which is somehow measured separately from actual executive, judirical, legislative, and military power. Which is exactly why “monarchy” is problematic. This foreign concept prevents us from understanding the mechanisms of power and agency within that society. That’s the entire point of the field of critical historiography. (And paleogeography)
  9. The article is now in bad need of a cleanup to rephrase or remove parts that are written from a non-objective POV. A single editor’s POV.

That’s it for now. I’m inviting folks from Wikiproject:Philippines and Wikiproject:Politics to comment. Given that I’m the proponent of the cleanup, I am now also requesting someone more neutral to please do a cleanup. Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes on the dispute:
  • The Junker and Jocano references are comprehensive analysis of social structures throughout the archipelago, as long as they're covered by historical documents. The article has been rewritten to make them look like they're only referring to some polities but not others. I'll make this correction in the text later. (Scott also does comprehensive analysis, but doesn't provide a synthesis; he discusses the polities individually.)
  • I'd like to point out that my concerns over the term "monarch" have absolutely nothing to do with the aristocracy or nobility of the Datu. The opposing party seems to keep returning to this point, and to the degree to which I understand titles of nobility I agree that Datus can be characterized as aristocrats, nobles, and perhaps even royals. But the words "monarch" and "sovereign" go beyond the nobility of the Datu and makes implications about the social organization of these polities, and the social contract between the ruler/leader of the society and the individual member of that society. Jocano and Junker clearly describe the datu exercising authority by means of leadership ability and personal charisma. Jocano vaguely describes a few Datus as attempting to compel obedience by force. But even this is a far cry from commanding obedience through monarchial power.
    • The huge problem with this is that it obscures our understanding of how loob (ka-looban,utang na loob,kagaanan-ng loob) operates, as described by Virigilio Enriquez as fundamental elements of Filipino Psychology. That this is the Filipino's concept of Nobility has been asserted by ethnohistorians and anthropologists since Isabelo de los Reyes and Jose Rizal and Ferdinand Blumentritt. (But I don't have their books on hand, so I can't study and cite them yet. Junker alludes to it, but obliquely.) The problem is that the social contracts that guide this ka-looban/ka-gaanan ng loob are different from those of a monarchy. They're constantly negotiated and can be broken, with Filipino freemen and nobles choosing to follow a different Maginoo as Datu. (Junker, Scott, and Jocano all say this.) This kind of agency is precluded by the obedience a Monarch commands by virtue of the office.
  • I'm no expert on aristocratic genealogy, but I suspect there will probably be a similar disagreement on the universality of the words "monarch", "king", and "sovereign" in literature. Scholarly articles focusing on genealogy might apply those terms more widely, but scholarly articles focusing on social structures and political economy will apply those terms more widely. I believe we can achieve a middle ground by simply resorting to neutral terminology. If the article simply does not use the terms "monarch" and "sovereign", and uses "ruler" or even "noble ruler" generally instead, then the conflict over connotations disappears. Datus are fully aristocratic, fully noble (whatever that means), and perhaps even royal. But the point of the Maginoo and Timawa classes having more agency is preserved.
    • I'll point out that the issue at hand is agency specifically, not freedom broadly, as the last paragraph of the current subheading "Political exercise of command and control" implies. (See [1]) See my point above about their loyalties to the datu clearly being described as a constantly negotiated choice.
    • Current literature does this. They don't say these polities were monarchies, neither do they say they were not monarchies. They simply describe the Datus as not exercising absolute authority. The word "monarch" is avoided altogether. Probably also because it's a European term, which would just be confusing when applied to local contexts... oh wait, that's what's happening here.
  • I must once again emphasize that this discussion should be happening HERE in the talk page, not as opinion expressed on the article itself. I've placed Disputed-POV templates on the appropriate sections, as per Wikipedia guidelines.
---- Alternativity (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alternativity,

Thank you for a very comprehensive presentation of arguments on the recent edits of this article.

As you have pointed out, the main point of disagreement is on the concept of monarchy or of a monarch. Perhaps this difinition from the Wikipedia article on monarchy could help:

A monarchy is a form of government in which a group, usually a family called the dynasty, embodies the country's national identity and one of its members, called the monarch, exercises a role of sovereignty. The actual power of the monarch may vary from purely symbolic (crowned republic), to partial and restricted (constitutional monarchy), to completely autocratic (absolute monarchy). Traditionally and in most cases, the monarch's post is inherited and lasts until death or abdication, but there are also elective monarchies where the monarch is elected.[1] Each of these has variations: in some elected monarchies only those of certain pedigrees are, whereas many hereditary monarchies impose requirements regarding the religion, age, gender, mental capacity, etc. Occasionally this might create a situation of rival claimants whose legitimacy is subject to effective election. Finally, there have been cases where the term of a monarch's reign is either fixed in years or continues until certain goals are achieved: an invasion being repulsed, for instance. Thus there are widely divergent structures and traditions defining monarchy.

Perhaps studying the said article might be enlightening. Though brief, it seems to cover various aspects of the subject. As you can see on one map posted in this article, certain parts of the Philippine archipelago is illustrated as having sub-national monarchies (Southern Mindanao). Yet not much have been written about this sub-national monarchies and others that were existing and are still unknown in the international sphere.

With high esteem. --Sulbud (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Sulbud,

Thanks very much for replying on the talk page. A quick reply (I may have more thoughts later, I'm rushing some other obligations right now).

1. First of all, according to my understanding of wikipedia rules, relying on that other (Monarchy) page's definition constitutes a synthesis, unless the scholars who asserted that point. See WP:Synth. I've got Ideas towards the end of this post for how you might want to get around it, as you write on the page mainspace. But I'd still like to address some points from the Monarchy page, since this is the talk page and not the main space. (In other words, these are my words, and I draw my own conclusions. I can't put them on the main page because I haven't found citations that use these exact words yet, as required by WP:Synth.)

2. From the Monarchy page: "a group, usually a family called the dynasty, embodies the country's national identity"

Here's an underlying philosophical factor in my objecton. This assertion clearly implies a construction of group identity that is top-down. (Note that this is identity, not authority.) While this has become the norm for modern nation-states, and was the norm for monarchies, everything I've read so far screams that this was a European (or in the case of Ma-i, Botuan, etc, Chinese) misconception. Kapwa, the fundamental identity paradigm within Filipino Psychology, is not to-down, but convergent. While the Windsors "are England", to cite an example, the datu led his barangay. No nonsense about embodying it. In fact, if anyone was an embodiment of the Bayan, it was the Bayani. Although as my points go, this one's a bit esotheric, so I'll let it go. (I need to read up on enriquez' assertions about the historical roots of Filipino Psychology more before I cite him on the page itself.)

I think point #4 is a practical application of this.

3. From the Monarchy page: "one of its members, called the monarch, exercises a role of sovereignty."

There's a big difference between (a) the exercise of sovereignty through the majestic authority of the office, and (b) authoritative influence through reciprocal obligation.

What is more, Junker's operational analysis of the structure of Datus' authority (drawn from examples from Luzon to Sulu) asserts that this flow-of-authoritative-influence-through-reciprocal-obligation followed a pyramidal structure, with loyalty being owed one step up the structure but not further; the timawa was loyal to his datu, but not to the datu's datu (or Lakan, or Rajah, or Sultan). The Senior Datu would have to lean on his influence on the Junior Datu in order to obligate the Timawa. That's textbook feudalism, but I'm not convinced it constitutes hegemonal authority.

Similar assertions have been made by Jocano, Junker, and Scott (and I suspect, Mulder, Dery, Hofileña, and Enriquez but I need to go through entire bibliographies to confirm they said what they said and find the right pages and sections to cite).

There's a passage where Scott describes the Datu REQUESTING work from the Timawa, specifically needing to convince them. A sovereign would simply expect this, or demand this. But this is Scott, and as far as I can tell he never attempted a comprehensive comparative synthesis and differentiation, so I don't know if this is just one case.

4. Regarding the definitions of parliamentary and constitutional monarchies and crowned republics on the Monarchy page: There are differences in monarchical structure, yes, but each conception of monarchy is united by the concept of the monarch as sovereign and the royal dynasty as embodiment of the nation. (This is where the "Divine Right" assertion comes in in many cases from the British to the Polynesian) The Absolute monarch asserts absolute power as the sovereign and embodiment of the nation, and the other forms of monarchy devolve power through the constitution or parliament or republic FROM the sovereignity of the monarch. Also, all the parliamentary and constitutional monarchies and crowned republics I know (European, Oceanian, East Asian, and Southeast Asian) where originally "absolute monarchies" earlier in their history, and simply evolved into what they are by devolving the powers of their sovereign onto some mechanism like a constitution or house of lords.

A practical version of these arguments of mine: so far as I can tell, the timawa does not catch fish "in the name of the king" (sa ngalan ng hari), but with the sponsoring aid and care of his Datu (sa tulong at kalinga ng aming datung pangulo...er, ew). That's a huge huge difference, because of the nature of the implied relationship between leader and fisherman. The structure of identity and reciprocality are completely different. (The monarch is under no obiligation to care for the subject, but the Timawa would drop his loyalty to the Datu like a hot ube (yam) if there was no perception of care (kalinga)...er, sigh).

Here, actually, I think might be a clue to where we can find references for a "Filipino conception of monarchy": maybe the modern Filipino (but we can't be sure about the "typical" Ancient individual in a pre-Philippine polity) has created an indigenized merging (aba, halo-halo!) of the patron and the monarch, most evident in the veneration of "Mary the Queen" and "Christ the King." Maybe an anthropologist who has studied this phenomenon has said something which can explain an "indigenous conception of monarch," and then gone out of their way to trace the roots of that idea to precolonial times?

The THING is, we're not actually supposed to be discussing these nitty-gritties. The existence of such arguments is the exact reason why Wikipedia has rules against synthesis. We're only supposed to quote and summarize, never to draw our own conclusions. Unfortunately I still believe that to call Datus sovereigns (or monarchs or kings) in terms of political authority is still "drawing our own conclusions."

Thankful for the discourse, - Alternativity (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Another solution: I think there's enough literature to assert that the Datus were "popularly referred to in literature, and sometimes referred to by firsthand chroniclers as huangs (kings)(insert Chronicles of Song reference here) or Whatever-the-spanish-called-them (monarchs) (insert Spanish ethnographer reference here)." It's factual, it's undisputable, and most importantly it's authoritatively cited.

PPS: I must say, once again, I have no objections to your assertions of nobility or aristocracy (or even royalty in the heraldic sense, which is not the same as monarchy in the politico-military sense). My objections very specifically concern social organization and social psychology.[2] The space describing nobility needs to be rewritten according to WP:NPOV but I don't actually object to most what it says, per se. In fact, I agree with about 90% of what you say.(Datu = Aristocratic/Noble Ruler, sure.) I just can't find a clear scholarly justification (or more importantly, cite-able referenced justification) for that final conclusion (Datu = Aristocratic Noble Ruler therefore = Monarch). Perhaps someone has written a journal article disputing Junker already? (I know Mulder has disagreed with Jocano, but I can't find my Mulder book.)

PPS: I hope you don't mind if I reformat footnotes into one place? Just to keep the discussion fluidly organized.

Alternativity,

I think the key is in seeing the diversity perspectives about what a monarchy is, and the titles by which monarchs are called in various cultures, e.g, king, sultan, prince, grandduke, datok, including the lesser titles count, princely count, or imam (Use in Oman), the Slavic titles include knyaz and tsar (ц︢рь) or tsaritsa (царица) - a word derived from the Roman imperial title Caesar. This diversity is due to the differences in historical experiences of peoples, their culture and collective psychology, etc. The Datu's had also their specific contexts, which differ from island to island in this Archipelago (those in Luzon as compared to those in the Visyas and Mindanao). I cannot recall any culture that calls its monarch "monarch". Monarch is a universal convention that is currently accepted and used to refer to various types of rulers that can be classified under this system, to a wide range of titles attributed to them in the varried contexts including range of territorial jusrisdiction, religion, etc. It seems that in the evolution of human society this system was the prevalent one prior to the time when democracy became the more accepted form of government in many places. But even though, certain monarchies have mutated from being autocratic to parliamentarian adjusting also to changes in societal context where they exist.

I think the dilemma of Morga when he reached the Archipelago was how to describe the social system that was similar but also diverse from what was being practiced in the West. So, he said that "There were no kings or lords throughout these islands who ruled over them as in the manner of our kingdoms and provinces". That is why he opted to use more generic and inclusive terms "principalities" and "lordships" saying: "These principalities and lordships were inherited in the male line and by succession of father and son and their descendants. If these were lacking, then their brothers and collateral relatives succeeded." The Spanish lawyer also observed a certain form of vassalage being practiced among the local principalities. Seeing the diversity and uniqueness of the local system, he contended himself at calling the native rulers by what they are referred to by the natives, i.e., "datos", and not "kings". --Sulbud (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sulbud ,

I remain extremely concerned about applying "monarch" to a specific locality as a universal convention, unless it's accompanied by (A) a specific indigenous contemporary (to the history) statement that their ruler is a "monarch" (the southeastasian "hari" would have sufficed) and (B) an operationalization of what exactly that means, because (I) that subjects complex, continuously evolving, culturally unique indigenous cultures to anthropological oversimplifications; and (II) it provides additional justification for initial imperial/colonial authority and for later postcolonial power structures.

THAT's actually exactly what Mulder points out in P65 of the link I shared above: http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/jsaa/article/viewFile/640/638. (In various forms, I'm sure I've also read that concern raised or implicitly recognized by native scholars Jocano, Dery, Hofileña, Jocano Jr, Ocampo, Mojares, and Harper among others, resident scholars Scott and Mulder, and Southeast Asian historian Junker and (Milton) Osborne, as well as By Rizal, Blumentritt, and National Artists Nick Joaquin and F. Sionil Jose. And of course Agoncillo, Constantino, and Zeus Salazar a generation earlier. I mean, isn't this colonization of vocabulary a core assertion of virtually all postcolonial historiographic scholarship, not just Filipino?)

More to the point, I still think that the outright acceptance of the universality of the word monarch, unless supported by cited scholarly consensus, constitutes as big a violation of WP:Synth as saying "Maynila and Tondo were 'Sinified states.'".

- Alternativity (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternativity,

If you do not agree that "monarch" is a universally accepted term to refer to royal or noble rulers, so what is the current convention used to refer to royal or noble heriditary rulers, if not this term? If applying this term also to royalties of other nations is also a violation, which scholarly consensus says so? --Sulbud (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned a bit the online journal you recommended. But from what I read, the author is trying to say that Filipinos can't get any better whatever they do, and that no matter whether they are under foreign rulers or they are self-ruling they seem destined to fail. Well, I respect your opinion, if you think this author is reliable. After all, you are entitled to your opinion. Good luck.

By the way, I cannot observe sufficient inline references in his work, for the claims he makes.--Sulbud (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulbud,

If there isn't a citeable scholarly consensus for that specific country or locality? You use the native word. And then in the operational definition (explanation), you use the generic term, ruler, just to keep global readers from being confused.

Also, there IS scholarly precedent for applying the words "Noble" and "Aristocratic." Dery, Junker, Scott, and Jocano all use one or the other at some point, and sometimes even provide operational definitions. Those are perfectly usable, and I always thought the exact phrase "birthright aristocracy" was pretty effective.

The word "king" used to be common in popular literature and early historical textbooks (the late 70s seems to be a dividing line for such texts), but that has been widely disputed so there isn't consensus anymore. THAT usage can be cited as long as there's also an explanation of why the dispute exists.

But the basic answer to your question is: You use the native word.

- Alternativity (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was already said. But the article is in the context also of having comparabilities with other cultures for a more comprehendible exposition. Who says that "monarch" is an unacceptable universal term. Has this specific author also scholarly consensus? Of who? --Sulbud (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about the entire article being about comparabilities with other cultures; there's a section about that, but that section is not the whole article. And I don't actually think there's a problem with a comparison to monarchies, as long as it's a comparison ("Like many monarchies..."), and there are cite-able sources for the comparison. It's the assertion of equivalency that's problematic. -- Alternativity (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where we both agree. The exposition to be used should be geared toward comparability, not equivalency. As what have been already widely discussed, the differences between the social conventions used in the Archipelago and that in the West or other parts of the world are conspicuously notable. Yet, there are also elements that are common, e.g., aristocracy, root in feudalism, hereditary rights, etc.

It is fun working with you. ;-)--Sulbud (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hm. As for your other question: The applicable wikipedia policies to this situation are:

  • Wikipedia:No original research is the policy that says we can't draw our own conclusions without sources
  • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is the guideline for determining which sources are reliable or not.
    • The specific section applicable to this situation is at WP:SCHOLARSHIP
  • There's a wiki article on Scholarly consensus, but ironically it's a c-class article at best. Here's a [article on Scientific consensus] which might be good reading (Or not. It was just one of the top google results when I searched.) And my background is in the Social Sciences, not in history, so there may be some nuanced differences. But I presume in the case of Philippine history, we're probably talking about the most-widely-academically-referenced recently-published-scholarly-work that hasn't been conclusively-disproven.
  • If you want to really go in-depth, WP:SCHOLARSHIP suggests:
      • "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context."

I hope that helps! :D - Alternativity (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulbud, oh! I'm beginning to understand that our disagreement may just be a matter of semantics. Well, this certainly has been fun, in that case. :D

I've been trying to figure out how to rephrase the section on "Political exercise of command and control" so that it's more neutral. I'll probably try putting in that more-neutral language within the weekend. I think that as long as the article doesn't say that there's an direct equivalency between Monarch and Datu, it isn't actually important to say in that section that Datus didn't exercise power the same way as a Monarch. It can simply explain how the exercise of power actually worked.

I'll also try to figure out some proposals for how to expand the section on the comparisons between Monarch and Datu, but that means going into some rather intense research. Our conversation here has led me to believe that Virgilio Enriquez may be an important reference, if he ever said anything about the application of Filipino psyschology to local Political leadership. I don't know yet. I've gotta go to the other library to find the appropriate references. Hehe. Give me a while for that expansion. :D

Hm. As a result of this discussion, actually, I wonder if I might pick your brains: while we're talking Datu vis a vis Monarch, I think someone else up on this talk page has brought up the question of the similarities of the Datu of Philippine Barangay vis a vis the Datu of Indonesian (and Malaysian?) Kedatuan. Hehe. More library work needed, probably? Hehe.

- Alternativity (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Alternativity, the many aspects of the theme require a huge amount of research. Actually, you might entertain the thought of writing a book about it since you are in the academe. Are you still teaching?

As for me, I just look for some convenient time, because I am also working. When my brain is a bit tired or bored of my work, I have to shift to another object of mental excercise. Otherwise, I will get burnt out. So, editing is a kind of break to maintain my sanity. Hahaha. I actually made the earliest major overhauling of the article some years ago. There were nights that I slept late because reading about the subject and writing about it in wikipedia was very interesting. Now, I also have other interests. I also go to the gym for work out. Mens sana in corpore sano. There are so many interesting things to occupy oneself with in this world. Only time and energy are not sufficient.

Looking forward to your redrafting of the sections under discussion. I will just be here to offer some suggestions.

Happy weekend. :-)--Sulbud (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes so far, and removed POV section

[edit]

Hi everyone. I've started to do a rewrite of the article by reorganizing the section asserting the nobility/aristocratic nature of Datus. It'll be followed by a section rewriting the section which explains their level of political authority. This is still pretty messy, but hopefully we can improve it as we go along.

Sulbud, I temporarily removed these specific paragraphs from the text since they're written in a way that creates POV issues (as per WP:NPOV), but since I think you make important points here, I'll move these here to provide context for our earlier discussion.

Clearly, the pre-colonial political systems existing in the Archipelago are not the same as those existing in europe when the Westerners made first contacts with the peoples in these islands. A principality (like Monaco and Andorra in Europe) does not necessarily have the vastness of a territory, etc. of what might qualify a typical kingdom. But its ruler is nonetheless a royal sovereign prince.

One important thing has to be considered: Junker's 1990 analysis is another western convention in expressing what is innate to the culture of East Asia- another analogy. The people in this Archipelago had their own way of conceiving and practicing a monarchic type of government, which had similarities and, also dissimilarities with their European counterparts or those in other parts of the globe.

Landa Jocano's and William Scott's concepts of monarchy were also quoted earlier in this part of the article. Though these authors maybe anthropologists, one may question whether they are specialists on question of monarchy since their definition of a monarchy seems not exhaustive and seems limited only to absolute monarchy.

It must be noted also, as it is affirmed above, that Junker used the observations of early Spanish settlers in the Archipelago, who have no clear comprehension of the social structure of the local civilization. Such early observations are useful but do not seem complete to Junker and Scott. The later works of Spanish and other European writers and scholars in the middle and late 20th century (after more than two hundred years later) affirm, however, the observations of the earlier attributions to the local royalties and nobilities.

Scott's and Junker's definition of a kingdom will not accomodate the present day Kingdom of Tonga in the Pacific, which has only 103,036 citizens living on various small Pacific islands covering a combined total area of only 748 km2 (a territory which is smaller than the present day Butuan City or Tablas Island in the Philippines). Isolated and far from more developed civilizations like China and the rest of Asia, it was probably more primitive than the Philippine Archipelago in its social structure and culture when the first western explorers reached its shores in 1616. The fact is, Tonga was and still now a kingdom recognized by the family of nations, and its monarch is recognized by the monarchs of Europe and other parts of the world.

The same definition of a kingdom will not accomodate as true monarchs the current constitutional monarchs of Spain and of the United Kingdom because as the academic definition of Junker says: "their ability to exercise power over the citizens" is "not absolute", but "dependent on the democratic consent" of other sources of power (in this case the citizens). However, the fact is, the King of Spain and the Queen of the United Kingdom are among the most highly regarded monarchs in the world today.

It seems that, in order to be credible, Scott's and Junker's definition of a kingdom has to be studied more exhaustively and reevaluated. Sources from experts on questions of monarchy (e.g., Vicente de Cadenas y Vicent) and its juridical aspects, other than from those written by colonial explorers, must be carefully considered. For one thing, despite quoting the observation of Antonio Morga regarding hereditary "principalities and lordships", the two contemporary authors still deny the existence of a particular form of monarchy in pre-colonial Philippines. This puts into doubt these authors' comprehension of what a monarchy is.

A few final notes: Regarding the issue of size of territory, I'm not sure the argument still needs to be made, since there's nothing in the article right now that says territorial size is a defining characteristic of a monarchy. As for the things Junker Jocano and Scott say, I'll try to rewrite the section on Nobility to emphasize that all of these scholars acknowledged the hereditary nobility and aristocratic nature (although not sovereign authority) of the Datus.

I'll also try to create a section that provides more detail about the local concept of nobility and rule.

Please do flag me if I miss something we discussed in the section above. :D

Thanks, - Alternativity (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alternativity,

Recent edits are excellent. Thanks for the hard work invested. This subject should really be expanded into a book - something that will be of value for future researchers in Philippines History and Culture. I hope you have time for such project.

As to the question of expanse of territorial jurisdiction, I think that, since the medieval times until now, the geopolitical understanding of sovereign principalities has not changed when it comes to seeing that it as no impediment to international recognition. Take for example the Principality of Monaco, which has been existing since 1297, and has a territorial jurisdiction of only 2.02 sq. km. That is probably the size of the smallest barangays in the Archipelago when the Spaniards reached the Philippines. The Principality never expanded its borders since the Grimaldis became its rulers. On the contrary, the current territory is only around 20% of its original jurisdiction, some years after its restoration from Napoleonic invasion. So, the size of territorial jusrisdiction does not appear to be an issue until now. The photo below shows the size of the Principality, which was popularly referred to as "The Rock" in the previous centuries.



--Sulbud (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stuart Berg Flexure and Lenore Carry Hack, editors, Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Random House, New York (1993)
  2. ^ Mulder expresses my concerns very effectively in his discussion at Page 65 here: http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/jsaa/article/viewFile/640/638 Not an exact match for our discussion, but reflective of my rationale for insisting on thorough scholarship.

Sovereignty

[edit]

Hi Alternativity,

There is one more concept that needs to be given more clarification in this article: Sovereignty. Please also consider the geopolitical understanding of the concept, also in various stages of history. Thanks. --Sulbud (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Sulbud, yeah, I need to specifically read up on sovereignty more, myself. Actually, I think a section on sovereignty can be extracted from sections already in the article - the question is how to organize material so it can be clearly understood. I'll try to contribute what I can as soon as possible.

At the same time, though, anybody and everybody else please please chime in on this discussion? I know I've invited folks at Wikiprojects Philippines and Politics already. Perhaps you have access to sources and insights that haven't been brought up in this discussion yet?

Thanks,

- Alternativity (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes to the 2017 Re-opening of "Monarchy" discussion section

  1. ^ Although the problem is, Junker then continues to use the word “Chief”, but in brackets. It’s all slightly confusing.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Datu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-colonial Polities and Fons honorum

[edit]

Hi, I am having problems with the 'Pre-colonial Polities and Fons honorum' section. To me it seems like original research or an essay of some sorts. A lot of the sources seem to lead to philosophy books or other legal sources and not anything related to the Philippines. I question whether this section belongs on this page. Glennznl (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive editing" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Disruptive editing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 27#Disruptive editing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sulbud (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Datu&oldid=1216544897"