Presto!

Mr. John Del Rosario stipulated the idea or concept about “natural law” and “natural rights.” No one pressed this out for all to read; he did. I barely asked a simple question and it seems that one would be silenced by his writings and rich flavor of words which I and scores of others like me have difficulty understanding, and yet he would still think that he is doing a good job trying to communicate with the indigenous people of the Mariana Islands. He needs to level out to the height of reading comprehension so that we all can fully internalize what he is talking about and what he represents as an indigenous person of these islands. The notation of the persona of John Locke in the discourse so far is a good cue, and perhaps it is fitting to borrow a thought of John Locke again where he said, “We are like chameleons, we take our hue and the color of our moral character from those who are around us.” I am dreaming that soon enough Mr. Del Rosario would reflect with us and use his 40 years of journalistic experiences for the benefit of the indigenous people who are seeking guidance, clarification and teaching on subject matters that would be acceptable and sustainable to the future generation of indigenous people. This cockeyed idea of “I told you so,” or “trust me,” or “I know better than you” would not cure the ills of the large portion of the indigenous people’s confusion and doubts about the issue of landownership. The indigenous people are seeking for the answer, not Mr. John Del Rosario’s answer, but the answer. If moved as the rule in this discourse, Mr. John Del Rosario is not “should” but “is” an instrument for cure on landownership rights in the Mariana Islands.

We know from natural laws that man started as a dumb brute but in the course of human history evolved to the level of what we are today. We are all creatures of conflicts and contradictions. We see the world in terms of “subject” and “object.” This is what makes these discussions all too interesting. We will all learn, but we need to read ours first, before we could see what others’ views of reality or the illusion of man’s creations as it were.

What nature makes must have a beginning. Arguing over creation versus evolution of nature or the universe is a matter for another forum. But let us, for the sake of drawing in Mr. John Del Rosario, to keep us moving with his thought on “natural law” and “natural rights” because we need to fill the void of knowledge the indigenous people have about landownership rights. If I were to believe Mr. Del Rosario, he would have to tell me what makes him think the way he checks with outer reality. I would like for him to tell me what he represents as a thinking machine. Is Mr. Del Rosario thinking as a utilitarian, contractarian, conservative, vitalist, structurist, reductionist, deductionist, envisionist, or some all-encompassing profile branding his thought processes and outlook for mankind? What would describe his belief and inclination about this discussion? We need to know where he is coming from so we would be able to see his point of reference.

We know that man did not discover but invented language. This invention made possible for man to communicate and associate with others. These all say about natural laws. In the discussion by Mr. Del Rosario, he should enable to keep us tuned in on how natural laws where man used words to describe nature and thus relate to nature. Man’s dealings with nature are contradictory, but somehow we coined the idea about “natural law” and “natural rights.” So, we need for Mr. Del Rosario to expand on these matters. We will ask him more questions, when we know what his real talking points all about.

If the indigenous people are to hue with some credible authority for answers and guidance on important issues, we need to ask of that person to tell us “what is truth.” We know as well that man invented religion. This invention connected man to have restricted standards to his moral discretion. So, we need to start from the start by asking Mr. Del Rosario to school us on this. The answer to this simple question would aid the indigenous people cushion their hesitation for the run of the mill suggester lurking in the horizon.

We again turn this burden to Mr. Del Rosario and ask that he forges on to the conclusion of his convincing argument. The indigenous people should be the arbiter of the issues of landownership in the Mariana Islands. Take us to the premise and provide the factual evidence for all the points you have. The courtship with the indigenous people on this issue squarely returns to your courtroom. Presto, Mr. Del Rosario. Let your creative use of words be your gift to the indigenous people of the Mariana Islands.

Francisco R. Agulto
Chalan Kanoa, Saipan