Ninoy and the Blindspots of History

by Kim Quilingquing

The Filipino is worth dying for...

- Benigno "Ninoy" S. Aquino, Jr.

I was watching The Evening News at TV5 last Friday when they made a story on
Ninoy Aquino and the release of the 10 former soldiers who were supposedly
involved with his assassination. Unless the previous items which focused on Kris
Aquinos sobbing after the release of the weakened ex-soldiers, this time the news
item focused on the present generations knowledge of who Ninoy was and what he
did.
It was disheartening. Most of the people on the street who were asked by the
reporter revealed their ignorance of who Ninoy was or what he did. What added to
insult to injury was that aside from their self-imposed ignorance, they apparently
showed disinterest in knowing who Ninoy really was. More than that, the people of
today do not seem to care about finding some form of resolution to the AquinoGalman case. There were several answers offered by the people who were asked by
the reporter to share what they know of Ninoy. One of them said Ninoy was a
president. Another said that he was the father of controversial celebrity Kris Aquino.
And then there was someone wearing one of those recently commercialized Ninoy tshirts who dont even know what the person, whose face appears on her shirt, did
that made his face worth the space on the shirt (this is what Agnes and I have
always thought would happen if you ask some of those people wearing those I Am
Ninoy shirts).
Asked by the reporter on why such things are happening, Philippine Daily Inquirer
columnist Conrado de Quiros said that we Filipinos do not have a sense of history
and that our history is not ingrained in our socio-cultural consciousness and
practices. He also said that education has a lot to do with this and it would also be
the solution to this national amnesia. I fully agree with him. But while I lament the
lack of a sense of history of most of our countrymen, I cannot blame them for their
ambivalent attitude towards our countrys past.
The lack of regard of our people for our past stems from the lack of emphasis of our
educational system on Philippine History. While I may not possess a Ph. D. in
Philippine History, I did try to fulfill this duty to the country by learning enough to
represent my Alma Mater in academic competitions, and even teach the same and
Economics to my high school a couple of years back. In my experience in teaching
Philippine History, I noticed that much of the emphasis of learning is still in the

memorization of dates, places and persons. Much like what it was during my time,
and the time before mine. This is one of the things teachers of history (whether
Philippine, Asian, European, World, etc) must try to do away with due to its
indubitably interest-eroding effect on students.
Another thing I noticed, and this is very important, is that the 10-month period in a
regular school year is not enough for the current widely-adopted curriculum in
teaching Philippine History. While it has a heavy emphasis on the customs,
traditions, and culture of pre-Spanish Filipinos, it only reaches the US Colonial
period, at the end of the school year. In my experience though, we did our best to at
least finish the Second World War by the end of the school year. But what about
those periods in our history from 1946 up to the recent history of the country?
If the students only end the school year with Douglas Macarthurs I have
returned, how will they know about Claro M. Recto, Luis Taruc and the Huks, Carlos
P. Romulo, the First Quarter Storm, the Jabidah Massacre, the Plaza Miranda
Bombing, Martial Law, Jose Diokno, Raul Manglapus, Don Chino Roces, Edgar Jopson,
Ninoy, EDSA, the RAM boys and the Kudetas, the dismantling of the US Bases,
Philippines 2000, Juetenggate, EDSA II, and Garci? They might know about these
things, but most probably from older relatives, friends, campus political parties and
ideologies, or from their own readings in books and magazines. Their discovery of
these supposedly recent events by then would be too late for the student to realize
that it was these then unheard of events which actually influence the contemporary
socio-political setting he or she finds himself in. This is the biggest blind spot in
teaching Philippine History.
Another practice which perpetuates this error is the practice by most educators,
especially in the High Schools, to treat the prescribed textbook as the single be all
and end all of all the information and analyses of historical events. The textbook
(which was selected by either the chair of the department or by a panel of teachers)
is treated as the ultimate authority in all discussions of the class. It occurred in my
classes that we found out several errors in the textbook which was prescribed for
our usage, necessitating the use of other books by other authors to determine the
more accurate account of an event, or context of a particular incident which I
discussed with my classes. Knowing that the prescribed textbook was unreliable, I
had to ask my classes to read other books by other authors. Of course, one had to
be careful in choosing which books to recommend.
Experience has taught my generation that the Gregorio Zaide book we used during
our elementary and high school days were found out to contain several erroneous
facts and that the Teodoro Agoncillo book and the Renato Constantino essays we
used in college were full of preference for a supposed ideology of the proletariat.
But these books, along with several others from Leon Maria Guerrero, Ambeth
Ocampo, and the Filipino Heritage encyclopedic collection have given me my own
multi-faceted perspective of the history of the nation.

Before I ended my teaching at Xavier High, we were asked to review several books
on Philippine History from different text book companies who participated in the
bidding process for the new prescribed textbook for Philippine History. Among those
that I reviewed I recommended the book from Ibon Foundation against the concern
of my department chair that it might contain anti-American and even Marxist
concepts particularly in discussions of the Philippine-American War, agrarian reform,
the US Bases, Martial Law and contemporary history. Being a student of history, I
think it is important to take into account the widely-held perspective of society
during the time of an incident to portray a more appropriate picture of a particular
period or issue rather than the interpretations of the subsequent generations. And
in those periods and issues, the actual national perspective of the country had been
very much anti-American. On Marxist beliefs, I believe they are acceptable so long
as they advocate social justice and not armed insurgency. If the Jesuits can tolerate
and espouse Marxist concepts of social justice then why not us lay persons teaching
in a Jesuit high school?
Perspective is important in history. Once my students were very much surprised
when I gave them accounts of Gen. Gregorio del Pilars valiant defense at Tirad
Pass by two of del Pilars aides who were both present during the celebrated battle.
My students nearly fell off their seats when they found out that del Pilar died
because he tried to have a good look at the American positions and not astride his
white horse bravely rallying his men as portrayed in the famous Fernando Amorsolo
painting. The aides had to threaten the brave defenders of the pass with their
rifles to keep them from deserting after they saw Goyo fall down. I read the
accounts of aides Vicente Enriquez and Telesforo Carasco in Nick Joaquins book A
Question of Heroes. The white horse tale was nothing but the creation of
sensationalist American journalists very much fascinated with the dashing boy
general. All the while, we all had this perspective of a brave del Pilar in his
resplendent rayadillo uniform bravely defending Tirad with 60 men akin to Leonidas
and his 300. But while 300 epitomized courage and sacrifice, Tirad was but an
invention of pseudo-journalism. Imagine how many more events in our history were
made up by American, Spanish, or Filipino pseudo-historians. So you see we really
need to do something with our history books.
Looking back into our past may require a lot of reading, but if one is inclined to take
an active interest in socio-political affairs, and brave enough to speak on and be
involved in issues, concerns and public affairs, I think it is important that one must
exert the utmost in travelling to the past for without which the views you may take
and share on issues may only be out of your limited socio-economic, political, and
even ethno-religious backgrounds and as such it would amount to nothing but
uneducated ranting.
We should read about our past from Zaide, Agoncillo, Constantino, Schumacher,
Maria Guerrero, Craig, Coates, Corpuz, Abuyen, Joaquin, Anderson, Ocampo, Tan,
even Rizal, and if possible Blair and Robertson, and Retana and Morga. I must

confess though that among these, I have only been privileged to read a few, but my
desire to find copies of the books they have on our past continues. And it should not
stop, we must not stop looking back to the past instead we should try to learn as
much as we can from all those who have taken an interest and exerted efforts to
commit to posterity the legacy of our forefathers. We should learn from the different
perspectives, ideologies, and values then existing in the country. Maybe then we
could lessen the number of blind spots in our history. Maybe then we would be able
to understand Rizal better, or see what Bonifacio believed in, better appreciate what
Burgos did, what Aguinaldo represented, know Quezons political antics, see what
Marcos had in store to make this nation great again, and why Ninoy did what he did
when he knew he would die.
History is not merely the memorization of dates, names of person, places, or
things, and events, it is understanding why these dates matter, what this person or
that person did, why a place or thing is sacred to the nation, and why these events
have to be remembered and commemorated. History is knowing, understanding,
and having a sense of who we were, where we are, and where we will be. History is
a nations source of identity, pride, and purpose. It is a nations soul. It is only by
knowing our history that we would learn to value our past, our heroes, our country,
and ourselves as a nation.
And while a lot of us seem to go on with our mundane lives striving from day to day
earning money for our families, studying to excel in our studies, and indulging in our
own little ways of fulfilling our purposes for existence, maybe, just maybe with a
little interest in the past, and a some effort in reading about it from the net, or from
books and old magazines, we can take Ninoy away from that blind spot in history,
and at least give justice to his belief that the Filipino is worth dying for.
You the youth of today, especially the Christians, are being wisely educated to
despise your past, your race, your beliefs, and traditions, so that seeing yourselves
constantly being humbled and keeping before your eyes your own inferiority, you
will obediently place your neck under the yoke and become slaves.
- Kamandagan in Jose Rizals Sinagtala and Maria Maligaya
While we continue to forget our past, we do not see that it actually reaches out
from the grave for us, demanding the respect it deserves, and perpetually haunting
us until we are forced to face it and find answers to the questions that have always
been asked by the generations past: what really happened? Maybe when our people
find enough courage in themselves to face the past, we can reduce the number of
blind spots in the teaching of history in our academic institutions.