MY CLASS on the Philippine Revolution has been an unusually lively mix of undergraduates and graduates. We have just finished discussing the three works in English that are the starting points for any study of the period. Most famous, of course, is Teodoro A. Agoncillo?s ?Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Andres Bonifacio and the Katipunan? that is still available since it was first published in 1956. Then there are two other works that should be consulted, but one has to go to a library to find them. For want of more catchy titles both are plainly known under the same name: ?The Philippine Revolution.? One is by Teodoro M. Kalaw (first published 1925), the other by Gregorio Zaide (1968). Kalaw and Zaide are overlooked because they are out of print. Agoncillo may be currently available but remains unchanged, with no revision, since 1956.
During the so-called ?Centennial years? (1996-1999) there were many commemorations, the more important ones being the centennials of: the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution (August 1896), the execution of Rizal (Dec. 30, 1896), the declaration of Philippine Independence (June 12, 1898) and the outbreak of the Philippine-American War (Feb. 4, 1899). The University of the Philippines Press published 100 books to mark this milestone event but most of these were literary rather than historical. Thus, some people started to wonder why Agoncillo?s 1956 work remained the so-called ?standard work? for close to half a century. This was a time for a new book, a new look.
Then came Onofre D. Corpuz, former secretary of education and University of the Philippines president, who published ?Saga and Triumph: The Filipino Revolution Against Spain? (1999), a work that unfortunately fell victim to inadequate marketing and distribution. It became readily available only in 2002 when the Centennial fever was but a faded memory.
It is significant that while Corpuz?s academic discipline is political science, he had a long association with the National Historical Institute as a board member. He honored this appointment by publishing a two-volume general history of the Philippines, ?Roots of the Filipino Nation? (1989).
It came as a surprise to many that his last university appointment was not with the department of political science or with the department of history, but with the School of Economics, that he honored with yet another book, this time an ?Economic History of the Philippines.? One would think that after his book on the Filipino Revolution against Spain, Corpuz has probably completed or has the notes for a companion volume on the Philippine-American War.
More than a century after the events that made the nation, many primary and secondary source materials have come to light that have not been fully utilized to update our view of the Revolution. Using these, Corpuz provides a more holistic view. In his chapter on the death of Bonifacio he wrote:
?Generations after the event, and even into the 1980s-1990s during the decade of official centennial celebrations of many important events during the Revolution, some Filipinos persisted in the view that Bonifacio?s death was the fruit of a personal Aguinaldo-Bonifacio conflict. This indicates that: the histories had not adequately clarified the true circumstances of Bonifacio?s death; or that the event itself is beyond clarification; or that, perhaps, many Filipinos have an unshakeable propensity to simplify complicated questions in terms of personality conflicts.
?It only remains to at least refer to two assessments, both written long after 1897. Both view Bonifacio?s execution within the context of the Revolution. The first is that of Teodoro Agoncillo in his ?Revolt,? flawed by errors of colonial social history and questionable sociological analysis; but it has the well-argued proposition that Bonifacio was ?betrayed.? The second is that of Jose Alejandrino in his ?La Senda del Sacrificio, episodios y anecdotas de nuestras luchas por la libertad? (1933). Alejandrino acknowledges Bonifacio?s patriotism and contribution as initiator of the Revolution; he stresses the legality of Aguinaldo?s assumption of leadership; he affirms that Bonifacio?s death was not in vain because it was necessary to national unity; and he credits Aguinaldo with the forging of national unity among the diverse elements in the Revolution.
?Alejandrino was close to the events he writes of. Agoncillo was not.
?Summing up, Bonifacio was an authentic hero long before his tragic death. The launching of the Revolution was due to him, and to no other man. But Bonifacio was not the Revolution. The Revolution continued without him.?
We are glad that the great critic of our error-ridden textbooks, Antonio Go, has finally agreed to sit down with the Department of Education and see how we can improve things. Correcting errors of fact or spelling is a step in the right direction, but we must move on to the more controversial area of interpretation. We have more than enough academics to provide content for our history books, but deciding what gets into our textbooks is easier said than done. Deciding why in history is more complex than we think. One can de-construct in the tertiary level, but what history do we construct for students in the primary, intermediate and secondary levels?
* * *
Comments are welcome in my Facebook Fan Page.
