Nativizing the Imperial: the Local Order and Articulations of Colonial Rule in Sulu, Philippines 1881-1920
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nativizing the Imperial: The Local Order and Articulations of Colonial Rule in Sulu, Philippines 1881-1920 A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The Australian National University Cesar Andres-Miguel Suva U4927240 4 December, 2015 1 Statement of Originality The work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge, my own original work, except where acknowledged in the text. (Sgd.) Cesar Andres-Miguel Suva 2 Nativizing the Imperial: The Local Order and Articulations of Colonial Rule in Sulu, Philippines 1881-1920 Thesis Abstract Cesar Suva Australian National University This study is of how local legitimacy anchored and influenced colonial regimes in the southern Philippine archipelago of Sulu in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In particular, it explores how the internal contest to establish a native moral order defined the dimensions of Sulu’s incorporation into the American Empire upon its arrival in 1899. It also provides further insight into a general pattern of native-colonial interaction throughout island Southeast Asia: a region where chiefly rule was often leaned upon by western empires of the nineteenth century. Through this discussion, orthodox notions of colonization, conquest, resistance and of the workings of modern colonial states, are re- examined. Most importantly, it will reveal how local understandings of governance and legitimacy, much more than American ones, profoundly affected the formation of the ‘modern’ order in Sulu. Through an examination of correspondence and dialogues with colonial officials, combined with contemporary and later twentieth century ethnographies and local oral literature recording colonial events, this study will venture to make the following key points: Firstly, The Americans, at their arrival in Sulu in 1899, slid into a long-established role as the colonial faction in the lingering contestations between elite rivals after the death of Sultan Jamalul Alam in 1881. Secondly, the Tausug, the predominant ethnic group in Sulu, were not opposed to foreigner rule, as much as they were opposed to what, in their understanding, was immoral rule. Individual Americans filled the local role of the stranger king, an institution produced out of the highly mobile, cosmopolitan Austronesian world of which Sulu and other insular Southeast Asian societies form a part. The alien-ness of the stranger king gave them the objectivity to mediate and bring justice over native faction leaders, who themselves were too enmeshed in the web of vendettas and jealousies that fueled conflict. When Americans played this locally determined role incorrectly however, they could rapidly lose their legitimacy. Third, what emerged in the first few years of the twentieth century were two different articulations of rule in Sulu. One was the rapidly constructed ‘modern’ colonial state found in American annual reports and correspondence to the metropolises of Manila and Washington. The other was the state as performed in Sulu by colonial agents for the local inhabitants, framed in the morality evidenced in the rituals of rule by local datu. As time went on, the Americans built the physical and institutional trappings of their modern state around the Tausug, reifying the cleavage between colonial and local. What resulted was ambivalence toward the modern state for its disconnection with the locality, and the persistence of an unofficial, locally driven para-state with its pre-colonial rituals fully functioning in the shadow of the colonial state. Colonial rule in Sulu was a delicate, multi-faced and mutually stabilizing balance sustained by local leaders and colonial officials in keeping these rationalities complimentary rather than contradictory. A closer look at this interaction reveals the ways in which human societies in close, often antagonistic interaction, can rationalize and legitimize the operation of the state 3 Acknowledgements I would foremost like to thank my loving, supportive, ever-so-patient partner Elaine without whom it would have been impossible to undertake this PhD. Neither would this thesis have been possible without the teaching fellowship awarded by the School of Culture History and Language at the Australian National University, for which I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been a recipient. I would also like to thank my supervisor, Paul D’Arcy, for the perfect balance of guidance and freedom. Previous professors from previous degrees Francine Michaud and David C. Wright were pivotal in the decision to pursue a scholarly career. There were also my informal mentors at the ANU: John Powers, Peter Hendriks, Robert Cribb, Mary Kilcline Cody, Chris Ballard, Meera Ashar and Thomas Dubois, whose help in ideas, writing and teaching were tremendous. Naturally, a graduate student requires other graduate students with whom to commiserate and contemplate, integrate and inebriate. These wonderful companions include Noelyn Dano, Misael Racines, Mic Cabalfin, Sylvain Deville, Fanny Cottet, Dominic Berger, Ross Tapsell, Pyone Myat Thu, Meghan Downes, Ingrid Ahlgren, Adam Croft, Max Larena, Rajiv Amarnani, Jennai Lajom, Bryce Kositz, Preethi Sridharan, Eve Houghton, Emerson Sanchez, Jairus Josol, Ronald Holmes, Nicole Curato, Vince Daria, Riza Halili, Risa Jopson, Lara Tolentino, Emy Liwag, Jeofrey Abalos, Cy Rago, Jayson Lamchek, Florence Danila, Jiade Wu, Lina Koleilat, Andrea Acri, Jed Dayang, Kimlong Cheng, Akram Latip, and Nicholas Halter. 4 Table of Contents Statement of Originality ....................................................................................................................... 2 Thesis Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ 4 A note on names ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Map of the Philippines ........................................................................................................................... 9 Map of the Sulu Archipelago ............................................................................................................ 10 Map of Jolo Island ................................................................................................................................. 11 Key Figures in Sulu by locality 1876-1904 ............................................................................... 12 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Creating the margins ...................................................................................................................... 16 States in Sulu ..................................................................................................................................... 18 The colonial state in society ........................................................................................................ 21 Borderlands and the colonial state .......................................................................................... 23 History and the margins ............................................................................................................... 24 Rationalities of rule ........................................................................................................................ 26 Friction ................................................................................................................................................. 29 Internal contestation and colonial demi-rule ...................................................................... 31 Narratives of resistance ................................................................................................................ 33 The Tausug perspective ................................................................................................................ 38 Chapter summary ............................................................................................................................ 41 Chapter 1: Dynamism, the Tausug polity of the late nineteenth century, and moral ascendancy .............................................................................................................................................. 45 Chiefdoms and segmentary states ........................................................................................... 46 Volatility .............................................................................................................................................. 47 Sulu polities ........................................................................................................................................ 49 Sultans and datu ............................................................................................................................... 51 Fictive kinship ................................................................................................................................... 55 Prowess, honour and shame ....................................................................................................... 59 The defense of honour: rido .......................................................................................................