Personal Realizations on this Midterm Examination day

My thoughts swirled from Hegel’s primacy of thought to Althusser’s ISAs as I ran from my class from the new Physics building to Palma Hall. This exam is perhaps one of the most important tests I would have to take as an undergraduate in this university. Every moment I spend inside classroom is as valuable and as fleeting as the morning rain in the middle of summer. The brevity of that midterm examination carried much weight so much so that its result would inevitably define my future. As I composed my scattered thoughts on what are ISAs and RSAs, my mind wandered off to the far far away land of what-ifs. What if I did poorly on this exam? Will this eventually affect who I am and who I will be in the future? If my probable failure in this endeavour, heavens forbid, does come to fruition, what does the future hold for me then? Will I still be able to look at myself in the mirror after seeing my blue book full of uncertainty?

I had to force my way out of my dimming lucidity for me to escape the stark reality that was slowly percolating inside my thoughts. Positive thoughts were my friend, but at that instant they were rare and seemingly unreachable. As I tried to collect my composure, my reflections led me to consider that unlike RSAs, ISAs are social mechanisms employed by influential social institutions in order to maintain the status quo of ideology and politico-juridical factors in place in a society. In doing so, a social institution may promulgate the current mode of production thus maintaining its stronghold on its unknowing and unwilling subjects. Unlike a RSA, an ISA blends with its background, rendering itself invisible to any uncritical eye. It is by this cloak of invisibility that allowed the Church to establish itself as the most dominant ISA during the time of Rizal.

Midterm examinations such as this one have always inspired me to know myself better amidst the back drop of a particular field of study. Lectures in my Philippine Institutions 100 class have always been enlightening. History should be viewed with a critical and a curious eye if one wishes to see history as it is – flawed and biased. Even so, one should not be discouraged at this imperfect system of history-writing. If there’s something that really stood from I have learned from Renato Constantino, then it would be this. Though one can never be objective in writing history, one could always use the instruments of history to craft a nationalistic history that would enable its people to reuse their past and move toward their historic goal of a better way of life. It is in this paradox of history that could unravel the complexities of one’s golden past. At the end of the day, the reading of history ultimately depends on an individual’s ability to sift through history’s maze and use only what would benefit most one’s agenda. It is therefore true that an individual makes one’s own history and not anyone else for him; it is only a question of how one would choose to look at the continuum of events at one’s own time and context. (01/27/2011)

Ang Iba’t-ibang Gamit ng Isang Bayani

Kapag national hero ka, nagiging tissue paper ka dahil sa maraming bagay ka nagagamit

Nasabi na marahil ng linyang ito ang lahat ng tinalakay sa klase sa araw na iyon. Tama si Renato Constantino sa kanyang sinulat na hindi maaaring maging patas at objective ang pagsusulat ng kasaysayan.Hindi maiiwasang maisama sa pagsulat ng isang manunulat ang lahat ng kanyang mga bias. Masusing pagsisiyasat ang dapat gawin upang ganap na mabigyan ng linaw ang kahit sinong mag-aaral ng kasaysayan na naglalayong ang mga maiilap na katotohanang nasa likod ng bawat kwento. Sa paksang ito umikot ang kabuan ng pinag-usapan ng hapong iyon.

Paboritong gamitin si Rizal sa iba’t ibang gamit ng maraming manunulat upang bigyang kahulugan ang kani-kanilang mga paksa at i-ayon ang mga ito sa kanilang pagbibigay kahulugan kay Rizal. Sa magkaibang kahulugan nagamit ng iba’t ibang grupo ang iisang bayaning Rizal. Tiningnan bilang isang pacifist si Rizal nina Renato Constantino at ng Knights of Rizal. Ganito ang pagkakabansag sa kanya sapagkat tiningnan siya bilang isang kritiko tumatanggi sa isang armadong pag-aalsa. Sang-ayon ako sa sinabi ni Ginang Fernandez na kahit si Rizal ay sasama sa sa isang karapat-dapat na pakikidigma. Kulang sa suporta at paghahanda ang mga nagpaabot ng paanyaya na sumama si Rizal sa nilulutong rebolusyon. Matalino si Rizal nang kanyang hilingin ang mga pagbabago na kinakailangan ng bayan ngunit na naipakita niya ang kanyang karunungan nang kanyang tanggihan ang isang walang katiyakang pag-aalsa. Ginamit naman siya ng mga Rizalista para isulong ang kamalayan sa katutubong kultura. Higit na napakadaling ihalintulad si Rizal sa isang Asiyanong-diyos kaysa sa isang Hudyong-diyos. Sinasamba at binibigyan ng reberensya ng grupo si Rizal. Tiningnan naman siya bilang isang subversive ni Jose Maria Sison upang isulong at bigyang kahulugan ang kanyang mga pakay na itayo ang Communist Party of the Philippines. Sa pananaw ni Propesor Sison, si Rizal, mula sa kanyang pagkabata, ay pilit nang isinusulong ang mga pagbabago kinakailangan ng bayan.(01/25/2011)

Sighs could only take us so far.

A body of lies and untold stories are waiting to be found inside the dark crevices of Philippine history. One should not only be open to the stark reality that much of what is written in the pages of history is not what it seems to be. The recording of events can easily be manipulated to better serve the whims and prejudices of its writer. Seeing events as the separate recording of what seems to be the most significant disturbances in the space-time continuum can be misleading and, not to mention, blinding to anyone who views the past as such. Proper caution and unnerving dedication to the truth must therefore be practice if one wishes to uncover the truth to any historical account. As such, the recording of history should never be left to the hands of historians. Professor Fernandez’s commentary on the untold side of history is, unsurprisingly, controversial, refreshing, and truth be told, very telling. Let me share some of her most compelling accounts.

Even at the start of the semester, Professor Fernandez’s fascination and outright admiration for the late President Marcos became more and more apparent. I cannot blame her for I also share the same belief with that of hers. Marcos is, indeed, a brilliant statesman who was deeply conscious of the intricacies of history and the politics of the time. Though he may have committed a number of human rights abuses, his successes in his economic reforms could not be left unmentioned. His achievements in history cannot be left out because in doing so, a great injustice will be, yet again, be committed against this greatly misunderstood man. He was the only Philippine president to have dared open diplomatic relations with the socialist bloc with the likes of the USSR and China. It was during his administration that the country started to veer away from its abusive capitalist allies-led by the United States. Similar to our Asian neighbors, he was also hell-bent for the industrialization of the country. He saw that the country’s current ally would never allow the Philippines’ to avail of its national sovereignty and develop its current factors of production. It took a lot of courage for Marcos to cross over the current hostilities that typically surrounded communist countries and, in the process, he equipped the country with the necessary trading partners that would enable the country to advance in its bid for industrialization.

The case of China’s unprecedented economic achievements as well as other non-democratic neighbouring countries reveals that economic progress does not need democracy for its fruition. As the 25^th of February draws nearer, I could only wonder if what would have become of the Philippines if democracy was not restored. Could the country be better equipped for the challenges of tomorrow? Or more importantly, could the Philippines attain its true sovereignty in the process? These are questions that can only be left for time to decide. It is a shame that Marcos can only be remembered by the human right abuses during his time and not his ambitious dream of a prosperous and sovereign Philippines. (01/20/2011)

Reflections on the Veneration Without Understanding

Rizal should not be the national hero of the Philippines. This was Renato Constantino’s thesis in his 1969 work. He reasons out that though Rizal’s greatness is unquestionable, but his nationalistic interests are doubtful. According to Constantino, Rizal’s repudiation of the revolution has been glossed over in the history books and should therefore constitute as unnationationalist behaviour by the national hero. He further points out that Rizal’s elevation to a national hero was a product of the American intervention. During the American Philippine Commission of the 1900’s, the Commission was in search of a Philippine personality who abhors the idea of revolution and instead, someone who embraces governmental reforms in the form of peaceful means. Rizal fits perfectly this description of passiveness and was elevated to his status of prestige and reverence. This measure assured the American colonizers an unmitigated colonization of the archipelago since the Filipinos would emulate Rizal’s passiveness and be focused on bringing down the Spanish colonizers. Aside from being called an American-sponsored hero, Constantino also labelled Rizal a limited hero. He reasons out that Rizal’s elitist and upper class upbringing has inevitably shaped his ideology and limited his grasp of the social reality that the lower classes face. According to Constantino, it was because of this limitation that consequently fashioned Rizal’s aspiration for the Philippines to formally be recognized as a Spanish province rather than a colony. He treated this as another repudiation of the separatist movement that fuelled that Katipunan revolt.

Constantino’s arguments, at the time and even in the present, are controversial and radical. I very much appreciated the coherency of the flow of today’s discussion for it clarified much of my questions and objections I had on this article. Historians, in their writing of history, should be scrutinized, first, for their agenda in writing and, second, on their sociological background prevalent during their time. By doing so, readers can be critical of a text’s context and really see from what standpoint the arguments of a written piece are coming from. Such was the context of Constantino’s article that one would have to examine his historical backdrop as well as his intention in writing this article. It was written during the first term of President Marcos where political turmoil present in the country was starting to build up. As Professor Fernandez decisively pointed out, it was at this era that American political meddling was at its most active inside the halls of the government.

A new light of Marcos made itself clearer to me. Perhaps Professor Fernandez is right in saying that Marcos had, indeed, all the right reasons to declare martial law during that time. In declaring martial law, it was evident to Marcos that the Philippines should free itself from the clutches of its American colonizers. The country’s national sovereignty was at risk if no precautionary measures were to be undertaken by the present administration. It is because of this epiphany of still an influential American dictates to the Philippine government that Renato Constantino wanted to expose in his writing. He wanted to promote the Filipino consciousness to this truth that we are still under American rule despite our sovereignty as an independent country. However, his exposition came at a costly price and was directed to an undeserving hero, Rizal. In the end, I applaud his intention to raise the Filipino consciousness to the prevailing American colonization, but, like Professor Fernandez, I cannot stand idly by and blindly accept Constantino’s desecration of the country’s rightful national hero. (01/18/2011)

Over the Fence: The Other Side of History

Bias is inherent in any attempt to write history. History is laced with much prejudice that trying to decipher its intricacies will inevitably lead one to the endless labyrinth that is history. Such was the case in today’s lecture. A number of relevant Philippine historians were discussed in class. Namely, they were Antonio Pigaffeta, Antonio de Morga, Dean Worcester, Gregorio Zaide, Teodoro Agoncillo, Renato Constantino, Reynaldo Elato, and Albina Vecson Fernandez. All of the mentioned historians had their own biases, biases that consequently shape how these writers would record their personal interpretation of history. Antonio Pigaffeta’s account of Magellan’s voyage is a good example of how biases can distort such recording of history. At the battle of Mactan, amid the losing battle of the Spanish conquistadors to the native Filipinos, Pigafetta focused on the boldness and bravery of Magellan and his men instead of recording the event as it was a victory of the natives over the first invasion of the Spaniards. Rizal’s annotation of Antonio de Morga’s revealed that even before the Spanish colonization Filipinos had their own culture and history. As Rizal included his annotations to de Morga’s Sucesos delas Islas Filipinas, he tried to show that the archipelago possessed a rich past which was subsequently distorted and erased as the years went by. Zaide tried to justify and even validate the Spanish colonization. Agoncillo emphasized the critical part of the ruling class, which in most cases is the elitist class. According to Agoncillo, events in space and time are interpreted according to an elitist point of view, thus marginalizing the masses which have an entirely different perspective than of the elitists. Likewise, Renato Constantino focused on the collectively anonymous masses of the Philippines. Constantino reasons out that in order for history to be reusable and be more pragmatic to the public, it should be viewed as an account of events as seen and experienced by the greater masses in the country.

The common thread that binds all the historians mentioned was their inclination of writing history with a gender-blind handicap. Moreover, most of recorded history takes off from the perspective of a conventional upper-class white male. The recording of history is literally taken from the perspective of a man. History, as defined by a stereotypical man, is derived from any monumental event that showcases heroism and valour of selected men. In effect, recorded history becomes the history of the victors and the story of the oppressed are forever left in the dusty vestiges of time. Such is the fate of the losers of history that they are relegated to a lower significance and are long forgotten. Losers are not the only ones who are marginalized. All women across time have been victims of this prejudice. If one looks closely, one would see the inequities faced by women especially on how they are portrayed in history, marginalized and taken for granted. Women who are fortunate enough to be remembered in time are those remembered because of their relationship or association with a prominent male hero. Gregoria de Jesus was the wife of Bonifacio and Saturnina Rizal was the sister of Jose Rizal. As I have not yet read any of Professor Fernandez’s work, let me react on what she said in class. She was very particular in laying out the foundation in rewriting history but now more focused on her side of the story. This rewriting should in effect have the perspective of an under-classed non-white woman instead of history’s stereotypical upper-class Western male. In the past and even nowadays, it is still hard for women to be recognized without skipping over their acquaintances with prominent men of history. (01/13/2011)