The perils of teaching martial law as history

LAST MAY, we saw the near-victory of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the vice presidential election. If not for the candidacy of Leni Robredo, we would have seen Marcos Jr. inching toward the seat of power that his father jealously guarded for 20 years.

Marcos Jr. becoming vice president would not be a problem if he were assessed by his competencies and accomplishments as a national legislator and as a local government official. However, he is not only that. As Ferdinand Marcos’ son, he must have benefited from the $10-billion fortune that Transparency International accused his father of looting from the Philippine treasury. And what’s saddening is that he and his family have yet to return the ill-gotten wealth to the Filipino people and, most importantly, apologize to all the victims of martial law.

Unfortunately, this reality is completely misunderstood, and even forgiven or forgotten, by the large segment of the public that voted for Marcos Jr. in the May elections. Many attribute this sad scenario to history, to the teaching of history, and to the teachers themselves.

The accusation that teachers of history have not done enough to prevent the current generation’s ignorance of martial law is understandable. But it is unfair to state that not one teacher has done something to teach martial law and ensure among young people a critical understanding of its consequences. And to not talk about this problem in pedagogy is to miss a very big point in correcting the errors of our educational system.

In the last week of June, the Department of History of the University of the Philippines conducted a national seminar-workshop on the teaching of Philippine history. And the most striking takeaway from the event is that, indeed, the experience of martial law is one of the hardest history subjects, if not the hardest, to teach.

A variety of reasons could explain this. One, grade school and high school teachers might forego this part of the lesson as a convoluted calendar of activities has taken over the teaching of martial law. Second, a critical evaluation of the events during the Marcos era is superseded by the efficiency of memorization. Third, there is a great underappreciation by teachers of the potential of grade school and high school students to understand the complexities and the differing narratives of the whole martial law experience. Last, in the proposed pedagogy of involving films, pictures, quality textbooks, music, primary sources and other materials that would actively engage students in learning about the 20-year reign of Marcos, public schools are quite disadvantaged compared to private schools, primarily concerning access to adequate resources (internet, TV sets, projectors, etc.).

Of all the reasons stated, the biggest problem of teaching history lies in the biases of the teachers themselves. A number of the teachers who took part in the seminar-workshop held mostly positive views toward martial law and the Marcoses themselves. Even teacher-friends in social media have expressed support and historical nostalgia for the so-called “Marcos golden age.”  This is thoroughly unfortunate, not because these teachers hold positive attitudes toward the Marcoses, but because these views are backed by inaccurate or nonexistent facts.

If this issue is not addressed, our whole educational system may cultivate a vicious cycle of historical nostalgia that is premised on a noncritical appreciation of history. Thus, teachers of history from primary to tertiary level are advised to: expertly plan their activities; involve the faculties of compare and contrast in all levels of education; introduce incrementally the virtues of critical analysis in pedagogy; utilize available resources to enhance the learning process; and engage the idea that students can learn the hardest of subjects if teachers just try to teach them.

Most of all, as teachers of history, we must desist from imposing our brand of history on our students. Instead, we must let them learn history, let them critically analyze the facts, let them ask questions about events, and let them be guided by values that are nonnegotiable at all times, such as human rights and the abuse of power.

But all these prescriptions will prove futile if administrators, principals and school heads will continue to neglect the importance of history in the curricula. Adequate support and resources must be allocated to realize these prescriptions. Let’s start with providing internet connectivity to our teachers, to facilitate research and acquire primary sources. And from there, increments of reforms may be instituted by and from the teachers up to the leaders of the department itself.

May the teaching of history be only a peril of today, and may the future promise better historical pedagogy.

Pat Ray M. Dagapioso, 27, is a faculty member of the Mindanao State University at Naawan. He is currently working on his master’s degree in political science (major in global politics) at Ateneo de Manila University.