THE REPUBLIC of the Philippine’s motto is Maka-Diyos, Maka-Tao, Makalikasan at Makabansa (For God, Humanity, Nature and Country).
The second part can also be defined as “people,” as in the Filipino people, but when translated literarily, tao just means person or man. So Maka-Tao can be translated as either “For Humanity” or “For the People,” depending on the context.
However, the concept of humanity is a Western idea, one which was brought about by European conquests, and the creation of an interconnected world system. Prior to the creation of this system, most countries – even the powerful ones – were limited to their own regions. A few groups of special individuals may find a way to travel and see the wider world, but by and large, the seething masses of humanity were confined to their little plots of land.
The Chinese didn’t know (nor cared) about Peruvians; Indians didn’t know about Nigerians; Eskimos didn’t know anything about Bhutan; and so on and so forth. Before the modern world, the different nations of the world might as well have lived on different planets.
The Europeans changed all this by creating global maps and commercial networks, allowing large numbers of people to move around. And by bringing different groups of people together, they had inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) created the idea of “humanity.”
Now, prior to this period, humanity meant one’s particular portion of humanity. For a proto-Filipino living throughout most of the pre-colonial and colonial periods, tao (humanity) meant brown people who spoke the some sort of proto-Tagalog language. With the Philippines’ integration into the Spanish Global Empire (and later American Consumer Capitalist system), however, tao took on a second, more universalist meaning: “Humanity,” a relatively recent social construct that included everyone on the world.
“Europe invented humanity,” said geopolitical analyst George Friedman, and he’s right. “By creating a global economic system, European empires brought together the various distinct groups of people into contact with one another; and this act of coming together is what led to the creation of the modern concept of ‘humanity.’”
From this concept, emerged all kinds of ideas, including human rights, globalization, etc… However,
“humanity” is dependent upon the existing global order, and for centuries this order was dominated by the European Empires (And later by America). Now, American Nationalism is attempting to tear down the over-extended American Empire, and if it succeeds then this global order will disappear.
Rising powers, like China and Russia, may carve out a few sections of the global order for their own interests, but it’s unlikely that the global system that we now take for granted will continue. Why? For the simple reason that the global system is too unstable and too expensive. No one wants to pay the (the human, institutional, demographic and financial) costs of maintaining an integrated world order, except for a few technocrats and academics in certain European and Western cities.
If or when the global system erodes, and the countries and regions of the world regain more economic and institutional autonomy vis-à-vis the global system, so will the concept of “humanity” loss its power and relevance, and at this point, there will no longer be a “humanity” but several different “humanities” as defined by local and historical realities. (jdr456@gmail.com/PN)
