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)
No comments:
Post a Comment