|
|
|
|
member, Human Development and Harmony Cluster, Pamayanang SanibLakas ng Pilipinas
|
|
4
1. Total Human Development and Harmony Through Synergism 2. Holistic Health Care and Medicine 3. Deep Ecology and Harmony with Nature 4. Sense of History and Sense of Mission 5. Civics and Democratic Governance 6. Culture as Community Creativity 7. Light-Seeking and Light-Sharing Education 8. Gender Sensitivity, Equality & Harmony 9. Reconstructive/Restor-ative Justice 10. Associative Economics, Social Capital and Sustainable Development 11. Synergetic Leadership and Organizations 12. Appropriate/Adaptive Technology 13. Mutual Enrichment of Families and Friendships 14. Human Dignity and Human Harmony: Human Rights and Peace 15. Aesthetics Without Boundaries: 'Art from the Heart' . |
Imperative: a ‘3-D View of History’ By Ed Aurelio C. Reyes Lead Founder and National Spokesman, Kamalaysayan The term “three-dimensional” is applied on realities and representations that have thickness and depth, which would differentiate Bonifacio’s face squeezed into the ten-peso bill from the same face represented in his statue in front of the Central Post Office. But a history book, which has physical dimensions occupying space and therefore three-dimensional is still flat in my own reckoning if it simply lists events with data on dates and on identities of persons and places (or even of boats!) and fails to capture the breathing life and significance of those events chosen to be included as “historical.” That would only be “good” for a memorization-oriented and grades-indicated educational system where correct answers on exam papers in terms of memorized data eventually translate into diplomas in the hands of graduates who had learned to hate historical subject matters and are only too glad to forget all that they had memorized if they had not earlier done so. Such memorization of data from all the data-rich but essentially flat books represent the first “D” in the “3-D view of history”. Unfortunately, “D” as in “Detalye” is practically the only “D” in the way history is being taught in our schools. And so we were made to memorize the fact that the Katipunan had a Code of Behavior known as the “Kartilya” and that it was written by Emilio Jacinto, but we have retained no familiarity at all about its contents and much less were we taught the impact or the basis of such writing. We have been taught that our archipelago had been named Filipinas after Philip II, but we have never been given a backgrounder as to the character of that Spanish monarch, and we learned later and quite accidentally from private reading how historically despicable that monarch was. It’s as if we were forcibly given the collective name “Iscariot” and merely told that the name came from no less than the Bible! Fairly recently, even the contemporary government leaders made much of the document “Acta de Independencia” which was read in Kawit, Cavite on June 12, 1898, and on the basis of that document’s title transferred “Independence Day” to June 12 every year and more recently spun a high-impact, broad, expensive, even lucrative, centennial commemoration of that event on the basis of the title and assumed intent of the document and not on the basis of its contrary content. Ah, but who would bother to read the long texts from the document and see how that Acta merely shifted subservience from Spain to the United States and mandated our own flag to have the same color as a form of saluting the latter’s own Stars and Stripes? Worse, what we have been made to memorize was not all factual. The textbooks may have been changed but the date the Philippines was supposedly discovered by Magellan is still singing in our minds (to the tune of a song by a popular Visayan comedian-singer) as March 16, 1521. And the Katipunan flags are still being presented as an “evolution” even though they were unit flags that had no real design influence on one another. And the labels that history textbooks have attached with finality to some of our more prominent heroes have not been subjected to critical inquiry as to the validity of the judgments and implications lodged therein. Considering all these, when a friend who eventually joined Kamalaysayan was asked what he had earlier known of our history, he said, “Nothing really.” And with all the memorized data having fallen off from his brain, an old expatriate Filipino when his son who was growing up in California asked him pointblank with a sneer, “What is there to be proud of in being Filipino???” could only stare in silent frustration, and then shout out “Basta!” to end the conversation with an assertion of parental authority. Actually, there is much to be said to answer the child’s question, and it’s there in our history. But the parent, having only memorized and later forgotten details in his old history lessons, could not find answers in his mind. But details are important in answering such a rhetorical question, if the fibers of fact are woven by critical analysis into a profound comprehension of the second “D” in the framework: Daloy or Flow. Two questions can immediately be asked once a historical event is established to have happened: first, the inquisitive “Why?” which should unearth and reveal the circumstances, the movements, the motivations, and the forces that led to the event; and, second, the irreverent “So what???” which should establish the consequences of that same event, preferably through a long train of cause-effect developments leading all the way to its relevance to the present-day students being made to recall that event. Accurate? No, Just Most Credible Those of us who fully uphold the principle of intellectual honesty consider the value of accuracy of data given in historical accounts. The intention is to present “the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth” in all historical accounts, so that our people, availing themselves of enough such information, may be enabled to make their own observations, analyses, conclusions and recommendations for the resolution of present-day dilemmas. But even the best of intentions and the best of efforts to gather and present only the facts are impeded by objective difficulties in ascertaining and verifying facts from the past. Policemen face difficulties in solving a would-be murder case even if they arrive at the crime scene only a few minutes from the occurrence of the killing, and all the witnesses and all the relatives and friends of the victim are still available for questioning, Media reporters, especially investigative journalists have a hard time hitting the most important angles to that same murder story even if they could interview everyone. It is definitely more difficult to investigate a historical event that happened a century ago! This is why the matter of accuracy is generally an ideal to be pursued in earnest, while researchers and writers of historical accounts have had to be contented, at least temporarily, with presenting their data in the order of their comparative credibility of the conflicting sources of information and the comparative plausibility of the conflicting data. Which source is more credible about a Katipunan event in 1896, a mere spectator writing a few days after the event or a direct participant recalling the event after 30 years? There are no simple answers to questions like this, especially if various possible motives are to be considered fully. For this reason, an account on a historical event four centuries ago may still be drastically altered is new research could unearth additional data supportive of the version of the story that was warlier dismissed as improbable. Even the history book should be alive, with its accounts forever open to refinements in reliability. Some of the students taking a Philippine History course this semester may turn out to be a future discoverer of one fact or another that would force a drastic revision of historical accounts that we have been made to memorize as “sacred.” There is no such “sacredness” in the living study of history! Flow of the Storyline A date in history is proved significant only in relation to another date. This reelation establishes chronology and time lapse. Chronology: the people of Pasig under the Katipunero Gen. Valentin Cruz assaulted and overran the Spanish garrison at Pasig on August 29, 1896; the following day, the victorious Pasigueños joined the bigger Katipunan group in the Battle of Pinaglabanan, established to have been held on August 30, 1896, but stubbornly still billed as the “First Major Battle of the Katipunan,” a debacle. What a gross chronological inaccuracy, this label, just to be able to say that the first victory of the Katipunan was in Binakayan, Cavite! This was pointed out in 1996 by Pasig historians led by the recently-deceased Dean Carlos Tech, to then National Centennial Commission chair Salvador H. Laurel, who promised a correction, but such correction did not come. Let’s deal with the time lapse, and consider this: we fully revere the heroism of Gen. Gregorio del Pilar’s last stand at Tirad Pass that delayed by some years Aguinaldo’s oath of allegiance to the American flag, but pay little attention to the fact that heroism at Mactan delayed by 44 years, or almost half a century, the Spanish colonization of the Philippines. The details are to be fully established and proportionately appreciated only by finding their appropriate and actual places within the storyline of history. Otherwise, the glimpses of scenes do not make up a logical flow in the minds of the students. Such comprehension of logical flow would be an invaluable factor in making them feel the very real connection between our heroic ancestors of historical chapters past, giving them full reason to be proud of a rich bayanihan and kabayanihan heritage that would surely inspire and guide them in present-day and future chapters in this same lifestory of this same nation. Without any sense of daloy or flow, of storyline, our familiarity with Philippine history would be akin to watching the same dramatic slapping, fighting and love-making scenes in a third-rate movie that we had all seen in the television promo and finding no storyline because in the first place the producer had not required the scriptwriter to make one. What kind of historia has no istorya? Ours, the way we have been teaching this in schools! When it comes to "Dates in Our History," the first one that many people remember is March 16, 1521. After all, we were all made to memorize that date as that of Magellan's discovery of the Philippines. So wide has been the familiarity, the degree of mass memorization, that a popular comedian singer, Yoyoy Villame, started one of his songs precisely with what supposedly happened on that date. So wide and deeply-entrenched has been its mass memorization that many would raise their eyebrows way past their foreheads whenever I say we were memorizing the wrong date all along. Yes, the history books have quietly been corrected in more recent decades. They now say March 17. What happened was Pigafetta, Magellan's chronicler, had failed to account for what has become a science-based international convention of adding or subtracting one day whenever one crosses the Pacific Ocean, depending on direction. Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor date; it was already December 8 here but the official date is the date of event where it happened. Magellan's discovery happened here, so the date is March 17. But what's the big deal, really? Save for some degree of embarrassment that we were almost swearing by that date as gospel truth, it really didn't matter much if it was the 16th or the 17th. The event and its consequence was and will be the same even if we were all to agree, arbitrarily of course, that it happened on “February 45, 1521”! A date in history can be shown to be of any significance only as we relate it to another date. Interrelating two dates shows their chronological order and the time lapse between them. Only in the order or the time lapse or both can we find any significance -- understanding, profound lessons and inspiration -- in those dates. Part of what was exciting about the founding of Rizal's La Liga Filipina and Bonifacio's Katipunan, with widely disparate aims, is that they both happened within only five days in mid-1892! Take March 16 or 17, 1521. What is significant about that? We know that within a few weeks from that date, native forces in Mactan led by Lapu-Lapu annihilated those of Magellan, and even killed this conquistador, in battle. After being routed, and subsequently almost finished off by the forces of Humabon in mainland Cebu, the Spanish expedition, or what was left of it, packed its bags and fled homeward. It was still 1521 then. Let me relate that date (1521) now to year 1565 when Miguel Lopez de Legazpi was able to finally establish Spanish colonial rule in our archipelago. Subtraction tells us that our Victory at Mactan postponed by 44 years, roughly half a century, the Spanish colonization of our history. I would prefer having our pupils and students remember that data (the roughly-half-century delay) more than exact dates which can even turn out to be inaccurate or at least debatable (like the place we were memorizing to be the site of the first mass). It's good that many people are somewhat familiar about Bohol's 85 years (almost a century) of freedom from Spanish rule due to Dagohoy's successful revolt, without really memorizing the starting and ending years. For those who wish to know, these dates are in the history books, anyway. Data storage is a function of records, from scrolls and books to microdiskettes and CDs; the human mind was created for greater things, like thinking, analyzing, appreciating. March 16, 1521 is not even a date in our history. On that date, Magellan was about to "discover the Philippines," but even he didn't know that-- it was to happen the following day. Our ancestors couldn't care less. And even when he came and he saw and he tried to conquer, the heroes of Mactan foiled his attempt. And set back Spanish intrusion and domination over us by about half a century. What did happen on March 16, 1521 in our history was what our ancestors were doing all over the archipelago on that date and in the decades that came before and the decades that followed. What kind of civilization was flourishing here before the Spaniards destroyed our culture and historical records? We practically don't know. How much do we know about our history beyond memorization of unrelated dates that are more important to foreigners than to our ancestors? Beyond when, where and who and what, do we also ask how and why? Time Lapse: Lesson From a Ruler There is an important realization to be had with the help of any one-foot ruler. If we take the Chou dynasty chronicles of B.C. 722 as the hypothetical starting point, and 2005 as the end, we have had at least 2777 years of written history, or about "230 years per inch" on the ruler. It was only in the last 484 years, or roughly a mere one-sixth of this entire time span, that we have been under Spanish and American domination. Looking at a one-foot ruler, therefore, we can say that we are relatively familiar with only its last two-inch segment, from the "10" marking to the end. We know next to nothing about almost the entire length (ten inches) of that ruler! Spirit of the Study The third D pertains to Diwa. This dimension includes point of view and the value of intellectual honesty. Point of view is important in this question: Whose history are we studying anyway? The answer should define which viewpoint, what flow and events, which details, are to be given focus in the study. Let us deal with point of view. If we are studying the biography of Dr. Jose Rizal, it is important to seek out to the best of our capabilities the truth in the “Retraction” controversy. If we are studying the history of the Filipino people as a whole, the talk about Rizal’s “retraction” can be mentioned but the crucial question would be: what, if any, was the effect on the people of Spanish claims that Rizal retracted. Did the people stop believing in what he wrote? If we are studying the biography of Ferdinand Magellan, even the name of his brother-in-law who got involved in his project may really be significant. Otherwise…. And we come to the matter of “discovering” or “rediscovering” the Philippines. From whose point of view do we talk about regarding this 1521 event? From the point of view of Europe, thitherto ignorant of our islands and our people existing beyond what they had thought to be the edge of a flat world, Magellan did discover the Philippines, no ifs, no buts, and no sense “re-discovering” us, either. From our point of view here in what they and only they can have reason to call “Far” East, from the view of Filipinos then, now and to come, we discovered Magellan and whom he represented, a pink-colored people of heavy metal clothing, greedy for gold and with peculiar behavior, symbols and rituals. And we did not have any reason to “rediscover” him, either. From the point of view of studying the respective local histories of Limasaua and Butuan, as communities, who have been rivals for the controversial distinction of hosting the first mass in these islands, the challenge is to make any connection of relevance to any felt impact in those local histories. Failing to establish any, both communities must admit that the competition pertains not to any noble effort to complete their own heritage but entirely to the lucrative monetary potentials of the claims, used in luring in tourists. There is the claim that “Enrique of Malacca,” the first man really to circumnavigate the world, was supposed to have been a Visayan because he got by in conversations with the natives here. The idea is an attempt to claim for the Filipino people the circumstantial distinction of one of their ancestors having been brought the full circle around the world as a slave, as if that were really a distinction to be proud of, not to mention the feeble foundation for the wishful claim. (The Filipino nation does not lack in reasons to be proud of itself and its heritage mainly on the basis of the honorable and heroic character.) This would have had some real significance if local history showed a real impact on the local community of an Enrique having come back from circling the world. Otherwise, the wishful claim has actually been a cheap one. Indeed, for example, aside from tourism value now, what has been the impact on local history and sense of pride of Leyteños in the circumstantial disctinction that a certain incompetent but superstar American general chose the shores of Leyte to land on in returning to recolonize the Philippines? With due respect to those who seek a sense of pride from pure luck, the self-respecting Filipino, proud of his own people’s heroic heritage, would find the MacArthur landing hereabouts a cheap kind of glory. Detalye, Daloy and Diwa. That, in broad strokes, is a brief presentation of the “3-D View of History.” This theme is actually done more justice in a much longer talk. Intellectual Honesty and Historiography Intellectual honesty is not the same as “cold objectivity.” History has to have a viewpoint in subject and authorship of interpretation and cannot honesty and logically demanded to be really neutral. But any bias has to be admitted even if by implication. So with uncertainties that cannot be helped but have to be admitted. In the same vein, I would like to believe that the more responsible journalists use the word “allegedly” not only to avoid libel suits but more so to be honest, to admit certain degrees of uncertainty. Those of us who fully uphold the principle of intellectual honesty consider the value of accuracy of data given in historical accounts. The intention is to present “the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth” in all historical accounts, so that our people, availing themselves of enough such information, may be enabled to make their own observations, analyses, conclusions and recommendations for the resolution of present-day dilemmas. But even the best of intentions and the best of efforts to gather and present only the facts are impeded by objective difficulties in ascertaining and verifying facts from the past. Policemen face difficulties in solving a would-be murder case even if they arrive at the crime scene only a few minutes from the occurrence of the killing, and all the witnesses and all the relatives and friends of the victim are still available for questioning, Media reporters, especially investigative journalists have a hard time hitting the most important angles to that same murder story even if they could interview everyone. It is definitely more difficult to investigate a historical event that happened a century ago! This is why the matter of accuracy is generally an ideal to be pursued in earnest, while researchers and writers of historical accounts have had to be contented, at least temporarily, with presenting their data in the order of their comparative credibility of the conflicting sources of information and the comparative plausibility of the conflicting data. Which source is more credible about a Katipunan event in 1896, a mere spectator writing a few days after the event or a direct participant recalling the event after 30 years? There are no simple answers to questions like this, especially if various possible motives are to be considered fully. For this reason, an account on a historical event four centuries ago may still be drastically altered is new research could unearth additional data supportive of the version of the story that was earlier dismissed as improbable. Even the history book should be alive, with its accounts forever open to refinements in reliability. Some of the students taking a Philippine History course this semester may turn out to be a future discoverer of one fact or another that would force a drastic revision of historical accounts that we have been made to memorize as “sacred.” There is no such “sacredness” in the living study of history! The “Tayo” Discourse, according to the “Pang-Tayong Pananaw,” seeks to correct earlier frameworks of study of our people and our history, and seeks to reestablish what was destroyed by the colonizers when they came here. It seeks to redeem our original sense of collective self-awareness and collective self-esteem, an inner view of our collective selves that is far more important than impressions of us in the eyes of other peoples. Before the Spaniards came, our ancestors had already developed a system of writing using symbols representing syllables. This is what is now called baybayin or pantigan, more popularly called by its coined name, “alibata.” Unable to understand these writings, the Spanish clergy ordered them destroyed after judging them as “works of the devil.” Few artifacts survived, including the copperplate found in Laguna a few years ago. We have reason to believe that these writings told our ancestors of things about our ancestors, the original pang-tayo view, where we are the subject, the speakers and the addressees in the discourse. Spaniards made several attempts to write to inform their own people in Spain about us – about our people and our land. This was the “Sila” Discourse, where the Tagalog-speaking Spanish friar would be saying “Sila na mana Indio ay mana tonto…” in explanations addressed to their fellow-Spaniards. The Americans continued this pattern, with the pro-colonalism politicians and writers telling their fellow-Americans that we were unfit for self-governance. The Taft Commission made sure that Philippine history be rewritten, this time from the American colonizer’s point of view. Many of the early Filipino historians maintained such basically foreign viewpoint. That was the “Sila” Discourse. Earlier, in the last decades of Spanish rule, Rizal and the other activists of the Propaganda Movement carried on a “Kami” Discourse. These were articles and orations from us, about us, but addressed to Spaniards and other Europeans, telling them that we were a noble race being oppressed by Spanish friars and colonial authorities. “Kami ay marangal; kami ay inaapi.” What we urgently need now is the “Tayo” Discourse. We have to have Filipino opinion leaders addressing Filipino audiences about Filipino characteristics, woes, aspirations, common efforts, and directions. We need to tell ourselves the Truth about ourselves from the innermost recesses of the Filipino soul, and stop falling completely for foreign standards, judgments and remote analyses about our own lives as a nation. Such homegrown consensus, taking consideration of foreign viewpoints but no longer beguiled or intimidated by them, would be an important component of our efforts to really build our sense of nationhood. Integrative spirit Who should really be our national hero? We have often heard this question, or have even joined in raising it. Anyone who thinks within the 3-D view of history would be careful not to simplistically, much less emotionally, choose between Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio. The question is not a valid one to ask; it is divisive in its inception. The Americans, who told us in the early 1900s that we needed to have a national hero, do not have one. And therefore they see no need to quarrel over the comparative merits of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln, whom they call and venerate as, collectively, their “Founding Fathers.” But the U.S. government with its colonial intentions saw value in keeping the Filipino people divided among ourselves over a lot of things. On this specific question they really succeeded and so we are still divided. Answering the question is to perpetuate this useless divisiveness. It falls within the intellectual tendency strong among westerners to dissect things and overproject particles and individuals, as opposed to the more oriental and more spiritual predisposition to focus more on the integration of things. Rizal and Bonifacio both shone and led in different periods of our history. Each one of them responded to a specific set of socio-political circumstances that differed from that addressed by the other. And the response of one in his own time and circumstance cannot be fairly compared to the response of the other to the latter's own challenging circumstance. And there isn’t even any real need to compare them. Rizal took on from the period of Gom-Bur-Za when there was nascent collective consciousness of our distinction from, discrimination by, and basic equality to, the colonizers. There was need to amplify this further, and this could best be projected in political debate and other forms of competition with the colonizers in their own games and in their own country. Rizal led in this Propaganda Movement along with Marcelo H. del Pilar and Graciano Lopez Jaena, and, in their own distinct way, Juan Luna and Felix Hidalgo. They were also able to learn and show from their own experience the futility of any further expatriate struggle for reform. Rizal persisted in the struggle for reform, but brought it home. He founded the La Liga Filipina, and his experience of being arrested and exiled to Dapitan showed that even this was no longer workable. (Rizal came out with a statement in December 1896 condemning the Revolution, but even the Katipuneros understood it to have been made under duress -- he was a prisoner in anticipation an execution, and, contrary to popular belief, he was not perfect.) Bonifacio really learned a lot from the writings of Rizal, Plaridel and the others, but integrated them appropriately and creatively with his own studies of indigenous pre-Spanish philosophies and of the beliefs of proto-nationalist protest Christianity in the great tradition of Herman Pule's Confradia. Contrary to popular belief that he was semi-illiterate, Bonifacio understood three western languages, was a philosopher and a brilliant literary writer, whose statesmanship was superior to most others. He was in a good position to lead in the birthing of this nation and he did not balk at this. He formed the Katipunan, led it in a moral and ethical education campaign and organizing work for four long years, before finally presiding over a state assembly (‘Asamblea Magna’) in Pasig that decided to start the Revolution by the next rainy season. He led in planning and undertaking the brilliant military scheme for a Katipunan victory in August 29-30, 1896, which could have succeeded if only the Katipunan contingents from Cavite had shown up to perform their assigned role of capturing Intramuros. Bonifacio was responding well to challenges that had to be faced in his own time in our history, quite different from the challenges that had to be faced by Rizal. So why compare them? Or why compare only them? We have Apolinario Mabini, Emilio Jacinto, Marcelo del Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Tandang Sora, Gregoria de Jesus, Antonio Luna, to name only a few more, and they are all national heroes and heroines in their own right, whose heroism was given the opportunity to be fulfilled and made known to us due to the heroic efforts of countless other Filipinos now unknown to us. Lapu-Lapu did not single-handedly repulse the Spanish invasion force the way the biblical David faced Goliath alone in combat. It was a collective victory won by our ancestors steeped in the synergetic spirit of bayanihan. It was only the history book writers, akin to the sensational mass media, that plucked out certain names to be projected as bida, leaving the rest to be forgotten as a “cast of a thousand extras.”
NOTES: Subhead
|
|
|||||||||
|
FEEDBACK BOX: |
'3-D' View of History: Significant Details, Sense of Storyline, and
Healthy Spirit of Study ('Detalye, Daloy at Diwa');
