Made in the Philippines, Made by Filipinos

Throughout the Philippine history, a lot of conspiracies and controversies have baffled the Filipino mind as to what to believe and what to banish from one's thoughts. It is a known human nature to sympathize and concur with the person who has the same experience or the person who is, at a national level, a brother or a sister. It is such an embarrassment to realize that until this time and age, the Filipinos still uplift the foreign culture, ethics and morality, and withdraw ties from the Filipino way of life. This characteristic has been going on for centuries upon centuries that even in written and spoken words about our nation's history, historians then and now salute the effects of "colonial mentality." Through chapter 1, (In Good Company) and chapter two, (The Filipino Point of View) in Antonio Hila's book entitled "The Historicism of Teodoro Agoncillo", nationalism is boosted through how a historian writes history is intertwined; passing through explanations and statements of opinions, a knack for knowing the underlying causes and effects of twisted historical data is heaved from any Filipino who may have read Agoncillo's expressions. "It takes courage and a strong sense of nationalism for the Filipinos to banish the bad effects of colonialism." Professor Agoncillo in view of how Filipinos could not re-write the Philippine history using their point of view spoke these words. In all aspects of a human being's life, anything written based from experience or the person himself; that is why, regarding history, professor Agoncillo had been keen in pointing out that the Philippine history should be written in the Filipino point of view, better elaborates freedom of prose. It is but ignorance in which a Filipino would dare rely on foreign statements than his own historical notes, which had been buried, exhumed and buried again. Forged for over centuries, the Philippine history had been written by foreign hands who would, of course, sugar-coat their words in order to satisfy their own countrymen regardless of writing a biased, prejudiced data about the Filipinos and their country. Choices of words matter in writing; positivism and new historicism enters the picture. A historian would be praised by producing hard, reliable and provable facts; however, he would be shamed if he himself could not empathize with the situation or the event in which he wrote. This empathy called for from every historian could be benefiting and destructing at the same time. Having to know where to get the historical facts and having to know how to relate to and with the historical facts is one grand job for a historian; but having to know that by a foreign hand, the history of the Philippines would be smudged and crumpled, empathy and provable facts does not seem appealing anymore. Honor and glory was associated with how the Filipino heroes from the Spanish, American and Japanese colony fought for the freedom and independence of this land. Is it necessary to see Philippine history books demeaning our heroes as menaces and bandits in the centuries they fought in? Science and arts: Their differences lie with how common they are. No science lived without passion, and no passion lived without arts. In history, science alone could not draw the people's interest with regard to the interpretation of the historian; however, arts alone could not find believers from the crowd it serves to entice. To gather two and two together, one staple decisive factor is relied upon, that is, critical thinking. In Teodoro Agoncillo's words, "reading with feelings and understanding is linked with critical thinking which enables the historian to make valid judgments." Encapsulating how a historian critically thinks lie with how he interprets the history he wishes to re-write. Interpretations vary from one historian to another because of how the historian before him also sided with a different interpretation for his works. Again, from professor Agoncillo, "When new facts are known which "contradict" or "modify" previous facts, a new conclusion is drawn. This is the reason why interpretation "varies from age to age and from person to person, and why history is constantly being rewritten."" Though differences in interpretations are acceptable and considered inevitable, it is a far cry from writing the history with twists and bigotries depicted. Adding insult to injury, these twists and bigotries are made by foreign historians about the Philippine history. Any interpretation that goes beyond facts-based data is like castle in the sky; historians are asked

to share what they know about history, both old and new, but as human beings, they are in no position to commercialize history's blood, sweat and tears. Putting in mind the difference between positivism from new historicism, chronology from history or literature and history would not make much of a merit in a Filipino historian's manner of writing if he is inspired by wrong means. The Spaniards, Americans and the Japanese would write our history in a completely different light. They by all means, would, glorify their quests and adventures in the lands that they colonized; this is then due to what is called, "narcissus complex." Per se, anyone could have such a complex. A Filipino, writing about his motherland's history, would then state his highest regards to the vast events that promulgated the hearts of Filipinos to fight for freedom and independence; moreover, he could place the Filipino heroes within the league of the crme of the crop. In such a state of mind, Agoncillo heeds the sense of nationalism within every Filipino historian. Though narcissus complex could be practiced by particularly anyone, it is not correct to assess one's history from a foreigner's standards. Quoting from professor Hila, "Agoncillo maintained such a difference (historian's outlook and interpretation of facts) is not as significant as acquiring "the habit of thinking as a Filipino, not as Spaniards or Americans."" No person would want to put his country in shame; it goes for any Filipino who does love the Philippines. Better yet, as a historian, he would rather say everything good and charming about the country; however, truth, in any aspect, would be compromised, which is why a historian should interpret in accordance to how he should interpret it, and not how he wants to interpret it. Amidst all the imposed guidelines, a historian must follow, still, question remains why does a Spanish, American or Japanese's point of view of the Philippine history differ from a Filipino's point of view? Agoncillo stated his sentiments through these words: "As an independent people, it is our duty not merely to know but to understand our past and interpret it from the Filipino point of view. This is crucial, for hitherto to our history has been seen through alien glass. The result has been twisting of facts in such a way as to denigrate the Filipino and so to instill in him an inferiority complex that has made him look upon himself with misgivings. While persons and events are interpreted from the Filipino viewpoint, there is, however, no attempt to subvert or twist historical facts to accommodate national or regional prejudices. What is attempted is a re-consideration of the facts of our history and their re-interpretation from our point of view." The Filipino point of view for history's sake could only be made possible if "colonial hangovers" would be dropped like a hot potato. It is but our own fault that we clung to what we thought was beauty and sophistication that was indeed encapsulated in the Western civilization. This colonial mentality instilled in the Filipino soul now would break the hearts of all the people who fought for sovereignty until their dying day. Quite honestly, who better write about the Philippine history than the Filipinos? There is no rule stating that other historians of different nationality are banned from writing about our history; however, a primary source is still the best source. Filipinos were viewed as inferior by our colonizers because, obviously, we were colonized! This may perhaps be one of the colonizers' reasons as to why they stood ground on their biased historical records about the Filipinos in their regimes. Perhaps the saying, "to each his own" may be applied whenever history is re-written but then again, our "own" as Filipinos is knowing precisely how we started, we know how we became who we are now, and we know very well how we could re-tale our own stories with vibrancy and accuracy of interpreted and empathized facts of history. The call for nationalism is wide spread. Some Filipinos judge it as a virus, while some know very well that such a passion holds us all together. Filipino nationalism has its strongest ally in historians and our written history alike. Brushing off colonial mentality, Philippine history, critically thought of, interpreted and written by the Filipinos, gives us our identity as Filipinos in which all colonizers could not take from us. If only, there is a better way to disseminate the growth of nationalism. If only such growth would nourish us from being swayed by what we read about our history from alien points of view. If only there would become a holistic change in the Filipino mind-set that what is foreign is better than what we have in our own land. If only every Filipino, young and old, would realize that the history of the Philippines is here to stay. It will vividly live within our hearts no matter for as long as Filipino words are incorporated, blended and intertwined with our history, strength of centuries' worth of independence and freedom will fortify our memories of who we were, who we are and whom we will forever be.