29/07/2026
Sabi ng admin ng Taga Lakandula na page, hindi daw nararapat na gamitin ang indigenous attire ng mga Igorot sa mga political demonstrations. He posted a photo of one of the participants in the People's SONA that was held yesterday in Baguio City. That participant was wearing an Igorot attire.
I was at that event listening and taking photos as an observer and for documentation purposes. I snapped this photo during the event.
Taga Lakandula is wrong in saying that indigenous attires have no place in political demonstrations. He has a very thin understanding of why indigenous attire is always present in mass movements especially in regions with large indigenous populations like the Cordilleras.
Taga Lakandula seems to think that you can just separate the political from the cultural. If you read on Igorot history from the first contact with the Spaniards to today, the political and the cultural are intertwined with each other. Mag-asawa ang dalawang yan.
Yes, medyo mahirap intindihin. To really understand why this is the case, kelangan mo talaga magbasa about sa history ng Igorot struggle for independence and for their rights from the time of the Spaniards to today. Historical context is really important.
William Henry Scott, the historian who studied the Igorots and wrote papers and books about them often highlighted the political relevance of the indigenous attires of the Igorots.
In short, everything is political. When our Igorot ancestors fought back the Spaniards in their bahags, it was political. When Congressman Lam-en protested in Congress in the 1960s wearing his bahag, it was political. When Macliing Dulag and members of other tribes in Kalinga protested wearing their bahags against the Chico Dam, it was political. When Igorots in Baguio and Benguet wore their bahags and joined the protests last year to condemn the flood control corruption, it was political.
In conclusion, nobody knows where Taga Lakandula got the impression that indigenous attires can't be political. Because history completely debunks his argument.
