The Basis of Our National History

I. INTRODUCTION

We are as great as try to stay people, any nation. This fact also

Te are only as great as the history we write. In a nutshell, this sums

up confronts us with the most serious challenge from the past that we have not yet fully comprehended
and yet has cried increasingly for liberation from colonial bondage. Undoubtedly, this requires (1) the
reconstruction of our national past and (2) the rewriting of the history that presents it. The first involves
reading about the past from the numerous works, reports, observations, etc. of those who came to the
archipelago in various periods of our history and wrote about what they saw or heard. This also includes
the many traces and remains of our significant past that Nature in its mystery has preserved in our land
and in the memories of our traditional societies.

But the second-rewriting our history-is more urgent because it is the basis of our search for identity and
direction as a nation. It is the blueprint of what the future of this country ought to be. Reconstruction
and rewriting are distinct but interdependent. They cannot be done without sources, without basis.
There is no such thing as history by speculation or creativity. Our national history must have
unquestionable basis in solid evidences of our evolution as land, people, and living reality not in isolation
but in dynamic interaction with other worlds and realities. There are therefore three clear bases of our
national history: (a) The Colonial Sources, (b) The Indigenous Traditions, and (c) An Ideological
Framework.

II. THE COLONIAL SOURCES

Whatever were the shortfalls or shortcomings of colonialism, it created psychologically or otherwise

certain things we call institutions that we cannot ignore as a people in the process of becoming what we
hope to be. For instance, by the very nature of its centralizing processes in every aspect of colonial life,
from economic to religious activities, from physical to spiritual endeavors, colonialism structurally
provided the foundation of an archipelago unity vital to the formation of the twin concept of nationalism
and Filipinism. It clarified the outline of territorial integrity involving the Philippines and achieved the
recognition of the then international community. Conversely, it also opened the vistas and consciousness
of the native inhabitants, regardless of ethnic diversities, to the basic commonalities that bound them all
to what they always regarded as their ancient homelands. In particular, as demonstrated in the
spontaneous revolts against colonial intrusion from Luzon to Mindanao and Sulu, from the sixteenth to
the nineteenth century, the native sense and love for liberty and independence were obvious. The
feeling of freedom was never absent in everything that concerned them. They did not even have a word
for liberty, freedom, or independence as it is understood in Western culture because liberty was never
an issue of life. It was as basic to their lives as Nature itself. It is still so today.

Without the colonial sources created by all kinds of people serving colonial rule especially members of
the colonial bureaucracy and religious orders, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
reconstruct and rewrite half a millennium of our deep past. It would be unlikely that an empirically
reconstructed national past can be produced. What is only needed to insure that the historical
perspective, recreated for the benefit of national interest and goals, is objectively achieved and to
develop the appropriate methodology from relevant disciplines of knowledge resulting in either inter or
multi-disciplinary approach to national history. Undoubtedly, historians, who have by necessity or
orientation become social scientists, have already taken the step in this direction. This fulfills the hope
we have for a truly national history of our making ironically made possible by a basis provided by
colonialism.

III. THE INDIGENOUS TRADITION

It is clear from the extent of bias found in colonial sources that the "colonial basis" alone cannot fully
reconstruct the national history we desire. The basis in indigenous traditions must be developed to deal
with the prejudices that we expurgate from colonial sources. It is not enough to delineate the objective
data from the biases in colonial sources. It is also and equally necessary to explain away or to neutralize
the biases with the empirical data found in the various traditions of the islands-traditions that represent
the only unmistakable evidences of Filipino "civilization" or national culture evolving in the archipelago.
In other words, the biases of colonial historiography must be eliminated by a reasonable substitution
from traditional data or a reinterpretation of the same in the perspective of indigenous culture. Without
the empirical or scientific use of traditions, historical reconstruction becomes speculative and, at best,
apologetic.

What does this scientific or empirical use of data from traditions mean and imply? There are three steps
that are imperative in this regard. First is the systematic collecting of traditional data from our various
ethnolinguistic traditions, from Batanes to Tawi-Tawi. Oral history and its essential research aids and
accessories are the usual tools. The interview of existing informants, primary and secondary, becomes
the focus of local methodology. The second step that follows collection is the classification of the oral
traditions into certain natural categories arising from the structures and functions of the traditions not
derived from predetermined models which have been conveniently used by fly-by-night cultural
researchers, enthusiasts, and adventurers. It is important to derive the natural categories to insure that
an indigenous perspective logically emerges from the sources whether or not one uses structural and/or
functional analysis in the understanding of cultures. Then, third is the comparative evaluation of
collected oral historical data with existing and similar data already acquired and preserved in folkloric
collections, publications, and institutions in the country and outside. This comparative dimension is
important in identifying the similarities and differences in and between traditions. It cannot be ignored
that this comparative dimension of the basis of national history is vital to national aspirations. And yet,
this dimension has yet to be explored by those involved in the study of traditions, including the
historians.

IV. AN IDEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Perhaps, ultimately, more important than even the data of history, not necessarily independent of them,
is the ideological approach to national history. It is this perspective that serves as a criterion for
classifying in one meaningful way the various histories written on the Philippines by foreign as well as
national writers or historians. It is one way of understanding the general structure of Philippine
historiography. In short, Philippine history can be classified into two types: one type is largely or mainly
descriptive making use of the powerful and popular art of narration or storytelling and the other type is
largely, if not mainly, conceptual and interpretative making use of tools of analysis more or less accepted,
at least, by intellectuals as either empirical or scientific.
While the two types of histories have generated continuing debates among historians and readers of
history, there is a growing belief that the two can be reconciled, that the descriptive and conceptual
approaches to history can be effectively integrated to produce a very good history that appeals to both
audiences. Usually used for such integration are the concepts of Filipinism and nationalism, two words
that have become the least common denominators of the various national histories, especially those
authored by Filipinos. Unfortunately, the fundamental problem that has remained in dealing with the
two concepts is the ideological ambiguity associated with the two concepts simply because there has
been no clear, coherent, and unifying presentation of what is involved in the two concepts. What has
been forcefully articulated and elaborated in more ways than one is the association of the two concepts
with certain objectives, thus: nationalism is linked to national unity and interests and Filipinism is usually
associated with certain ethnic identities. Until the present, we have not yet put into the concepts the
ideological components that we can weld together into a powerful framework able to bring the many
ethnolinguistic groups in the archipelago in a common endeavor to shape the national future regardless
of ethnic differences. It is in this search for ideological basis that the historical discipline can contribute a
lot because ideologies are alienably rooted in historical experiences and patterns.

Ideology for a developing nation like the Philippines must or can only proceed from a full understanding
of the process forming the natural confines of an archipelago like the Philippines. The democratic model
of ideology, Philippine-style, is more like the capitalist framework of American liberal democracy
practically adopted with only superficial changes and, therefore, often in conflict with traditional
frameworks. In other words, our urgent theoretical concern is to look for the elusive components of a
national ideology that has remained in the womb of national consciousness and has yet to be born and
grow as the beginning of a truly Filipino community. Radical ideological models, also from external
ideological sources, have been pursued, by determined elements for almost four decades but the result
is not polarization but fragmentation of the country into many ethnonationalistic, warlordistic, and
separatist parties demanding distinct identities, relevance, and the absence of a unifying ideology is the
imperative of forming it is also apparent.

V. CONCLUSION

It is clear from the nature of Philippine historiography that the reconstruction of a truly national history
is dependent largely on colonial and non-indigenous sources, a great percentage of which are biased. It
thus needs the proper use of traditional sources that have historical value. Consequently, what is initially
important and preliminary to the writing of national history is the formation of the appropriate
methodology to deal with the basic sources of Philippine history. It is this methodology that has yet to be
concretely developed applicable to both colonial sources and indigenous traditions. But more urgent
than even the sources are the ideological framework that can be the unifying structure for a Filipino
national history. Without this ideological dimension, at best, the national history that we can produce is
an ethno or sectoral history that pretends to be Filipino and national.
What is the main point?
The main point is that the rewriting of national history is urgent and necessary for the search for identity
and direction as a nation.

What do the colonial sources emphasize?

The colonial sources mentioned in the text are the institutions and structures created during colonialism
that have shaped the Philippines' national identity and territorial integrity. These sources include the
centralizing processes, economic and religious activities, and the recognition of the Philippines by the
international community. The native inhabitants also demonstrated a sense of liberty and independence
in their resistance against colonial intrusion. Without these colonial sources, it would be difficult to
reconstruct and rewrite the deep past of the Philippines. However, it is acknowledged that colonial
sources have biases and limitations in fully reconstructing a national history.

What does Indigenous Tradition emphasize?

Indigenous Tradition is one of the three clear bases of our national history, along with Colonial Sources
and an Ideological Framework. It mentions that Indigenous Tradition includes the traces and remains of
our significant past preserved in our land and in the memories of our traditional societies. It also
emphasizes the need to develop a methodology to properly utilize traditional sources in the
reconstruction of national history.

What does the ideological framework emphasize?

There has been no clear, coherent, and unifying presentation of the ideological framework associated
with the concepts of nationalism and Filipinism. It states that the ideological components of these
concepts need to be developed to bring the ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines together in a
common endeavor. The text also suggests that the historical discipline can contribute to the
development of an ideological basis, as ideologies are rooted in historical experiences and patterns.
Additionally, the text mentions that the absence of a unifying ideology has led to fragmentation and the
demand for distinct identities. Therefore, the text emphasizes the importance of developing a unifying
ideological framework for the Philippines.

What does the conclusion emphasize?

That the reconstruction of a truly national history in the Philippines relies heavily on colonial and non-
indigenous sources, which are often biased. It emphasizes the need for the proper use of traditional
sources with historical value and the development of a methodology applicable to both colonial sources
and indigenous traditions. Additionally, it highlights the importance of an ideological framework that can
serve as a unifying structure for Filipino national history. Without this framework, the national history
produced may be an ethno or sectoral history that only pretends to be Filipino and national. The
conclusion also mentions the significance of the ideological approach to national history, which serves as
a criterion for classifying different histories written on the Philippines. It distinguishes between
descriptive histories that rely on narration or storytelling and conceptual and interpretative histories that
use empirical or scientific analysis.