The Basis of Our National History 1, INTRODUCTION \ \ 7e are only as great as the history we write. In a nutshell, this sums up the value of history to any people, any nation. This fact also 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,The Basis of Our National History 13 II. THe CoLoniat 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.14 The Muslim South and Beyond IIL. 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The Basis of Our National History 15 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16 The Muslim South and Beyond 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. Concusion 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 is 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.