Why We Need to Rewrite Philippine History

Why We Need To Rewrite Philippine History
(First Part)

As a teacher of History, I am perhaps better equipped than many people to have an informed opinion of Philippine society and what ails it. But of course, my analysis is not the only one out there, nor is it the most correct. Historians themselves do not share a common view of things, much less a perfect one; it is simply unlikely given their individualities, personal beliefs and convictions and different range of knowledge. G.R. Elton, a historian-philosopher, pointed this out when he said that history changes depending on how much knowledge and evidence you have at hand. The more you know, the more accurate your history becomes. But add to that your own interpretations of the data and you become—whatever profession you are in—a historian in your own right.

But what kind of historian? Here now lies the problem for it is at this point where ideas diverge, and where the amateur historians are sifted from the professionals. For Elton, at least, history must not be subordinated to one’s ideology or personal politics. One may interpret, but one must not suit history to his or her preconceived answers. Your facts and evidence must reign supreme. Eventually, they will yield the answers to the questions posed. So far, so good.
If only it were that simple.

Philippine history—the type taught in our colleges—provides a very good example of this type of problem where a particular framework is made to explain the flow of history. Take a look at the most popular textbooks that are currently used in Philippine schools. They mostly follow a framework that explains Philippine society in materialist terms, correctly pointing out its social, political and economic ills but sorely failing in its project, whether overt or covert, to change Philippine society hopefully for the better. By a “better” society I mean that the people who comprise it share a common goal of providing everyone the opportunity to realize their utmost potential by putting the interest of the greater majority above anything else. By implication, this means that personal agenda and competing ideologies must take the back seat and surrender to the dominant social and political values that the people freely find most acceptable and beneficial to their well-being.

Why has Philippine history—and the teaching of it—has failed to strengthen Philippine society into a “better” one is an interesting and a highly volatile topic. One has to go over the entire history of the country from pre-colonization to post-colonization in order to have a good grasp of the country’s present problems. One also has to face up to the established historians and their loyal followers who are revered by many as giants in their field, giants who are perhaps to be occasionally questioned but never challenged.

Filipino materialist historians in particular have made the themes of exploitation, oppression and class struggle as the focal points of Philippine history, depicting the foreign colonizers as the first oppressors who handed down their ill practices and ill-gotten privileges to their Filipino “cohorts” who insatiably perpetuated these practices down the line. This is fairly accurate interpretation, but one that is also fraught with dangers. For one, it has the strong tendency to discredit the legitimate efforts of the upper class to push for a free and equitable Philippine society. Secondly, it institutionalizes the victim mentality in the citizenry, making them prone to blaming others for the failures of their society. Not surprisingly, this type of history has left in its wake Filipino heroes divided along class lines, the Jose Rizal versus Andres Bonifacio hoopla being the most prominent example. To this very day, class division permeates nationalist discussions whether in the streets or in universities. Inevitably, it is easy for the themes to be exploited by ideologically-based groups in advancing their own interests to the detriment of the emergence of a united and strong nation. Like any other class-defined histories, this portrayal offers very little room for alternative solutions to social problems other than the final overthrow of the ruling class through violent means. Instead of helping crystallize the shared values that should serve as guide for the emergence of a “better” Philippine society, the present type of historical writing does very little to realize that goal.

(To be continued)