HISTORYANDPHILIPPINECULTURE

HISTORYANDPHILIPPINECULTURE

THEPRESENTunsatisfactorystateofhistoricalstudiesamongusisoneofthe reasonswhywecannotdefineournationalcultureasclearlyandaccuratelyaswewould wish.Ourknowledgeofourpastcanonlybedescribedasspotty.Aboutcertainperiods andaspectsofitweknowagreatdeal;aboutotherperiodsandaspectshardlyanything. WehavepushedourresearchesintotheminutestdetailsofRizal'slifetoalmost incrediblelengths;butsodecisiveadevelopmentinoureconomicandsocialhistoryas theTobaccoMonopolyremains,asfarasourunderstandingofitisconcerned,wherethe lastSpanishpublicistsofthenineteenthcenturyleftit.Andsothroughout:between smallclearingsofintensivecultivation,swarmingwiththesiswritersandSunday magazineessayists,lielargetractsofalmostpathlessjungle,where(toadaptawell knownmalapropism)theeyeofthehistorianhasneversetfoot. Stillwedoknowenough,atleastaboutthegrandlinesofourhistoricaldevelopment, toventurecertainverybroadgeneralizationsaboutournationalculture.First,itisquite obviousthatourcultureismadeupofmanyelementsofwidelydifferentprovenance. Archaeologicalremains,linguisticanalysisandthefindingsofanthropologistsconfirm theindicationsinourmeagerdocumentationthattheearliestpeoplesoftheseislands wereconsiderablyinfluencedbytheculturesoftheHinduizedempiresofSoutheastAsia andtheirMuslimsuccessorstates.TheSpanishinfluenceisofcourseplainforalltosee, inourreligion,ourlegalsystem,oursocialinstitutions,ourliterature,artandmusic.Of theAngloSaxoninfluenceweneedmerelynotethatEnglishthemediumofinstruction inourschoolsandtheordinarylanguageofsocialintercourseforoverhalfacentury hasbeenthevehicleofideasdistinctiveofthecultureoftheEnglishspeakingpeoples, nottheleastimportantofwhicharethoseideasofdemocraticgovernmentwhichwehave incorporatedintotheConstitutionofourRepublic. Ournationalculture,then,didnotdevelop,asdidthecultureoftheChinese,in isolation,bythecultivationandelaborationofresourcesforthemostpartautochthonous. Rather,theoriginalcapitalwithwhichwebeankeptbeingaddedtofrommanysources outsideourborders,fromfarandnear,fromEuropeaswellasAsia.Inthis,our

The Background of Nationalism 1965

By Horacio de la Costa, S.J.

HISTORYANDPHILIPPINECULTURE

experienceisroughlyanalogoustothatofotherislandpeoplessimilarlylocated,suchas theancientGreeksand,inmorerecenttimes,theBritish. Thesecondisthis:thatourculturalborrowingsfromabroaddidnotlongremainin theiroriginalstateamongus.Theywerenotmerelydepositedoneontopoftheotherlike successivelayersofsediment,eachremainingperfectlydistinctfromandunaffectedby theothers.Toputitquitesimply,theseintrusiveculturesdidnotonlydosomethingtous, wedidsomethingtothem.Weassimilatedthem,changing,asalllivingbeingsdo,what wasoriginallyforeignsubstanceintoourown.Admittedly,therateanddegreeof assimilationvariedconsiderably,butthatassimilationtookplacecannotbequestioned. Totakeoneexample.Thehistoryofartisstillinitsinfancyinthiscountry;yeteven thesmallamountofresearchthathasbeendoneinthisvastfieldissufficienttoindicate thattheSpanisharchitectureofourcolonialchurchesisSpanishonlyintheirinitial inspiration.TheSpanishmissionarieswhoplannedanddirectedtheirconstructionhad perforceemployedChineseornativeartisans,andthesenamelesscraftsmeninfusedinto whattheybuiltsomethingoftheirown,whetheritbeastructuralline,oradecorative motif,oramoreintangiblestylepervadingthewhole.Theresultissomethingwhichis notquiteSpanish,norquiteChinese,norquiteSoutheastAsian,butanintegrationat varyinglevelsofallthreestyleswhichcanonlybecalledFilipino. Again,whatcouldbemoreFilipinothanthekundiman?Yetmusicologiststellusthat ifby"Filipino"youmeanstrictlyindigenousthenthekundimancanhardlybecalledsuch becauseofthestrongSpanishelementswhichitcontains.YetitisobviouslynotSpanish either.Whatthenshallwecallit?ItiseitherFilipinooritisnothing.Andsowithother productsofournationalculture:thecorrido,themoromoro,thetownfiestaandother manifestationsoffolkCatholicism,thenovelsofRizalaswellastheshortstoriesofour contemporarywritersinEnglish;theyareclearlyderivative,butequallyclearlythey arenotmerelysuch.Avitalandvigorousculture,ourown,hastakenwhatwasinthe beginningaforeignformormodelandtransformeditintosomethingnotfound elsewhere;something,inshort,Filipino.Wearethusledtotheconclusionthatwhileour nationalculturehasdevelopedbytheadditionofforeignelements,thishasnotbeena processofmereaccretion,butoneofintussusception,ofassimilationintoaliving organismwithaformandspiritofitsown. Athirdgeneralizationisinorder.Thepiecemealprocessbywhichtheseislandswere peopled,thevaryingpatternsofourtradewithneighboringlands,andthegreateror
The Background of Nationalism 1965 By Horacio de la Costa, S.J.

HISTORYANDPHILIPPINECULTURE

lesserdegreeofpenetrationeffectedbytheSpanishandAmericancolonialsystemsall theseaspectsofourhistorysuggestthatwhileitispossibletospeakofanationalculture commontothePhilippinesasawhole,wemustexpectsignificanthorizontalandvertical variations.Thishistoricalhintisconfirmedbythecontemporarystudiesofsociologists andanthropologists,whoarebeginningtospelloutforustheconcretedifferences betweenhighlandandlowlandculture,betweenthekinshipandvaluesystemsofurban andruralcommunities,betweenthewayamemberoftheQuezonCityLions'Cluband thewayatenantfarmerofBarrioGacao,Leyte,sizesuptheuniverse. Thus,anexaminationofthebroadlinesofourhistoricaldevelopmentasweknowit todaysuggeststhreegeneralizations:first,thatfromtheveryearliesttimestothepresent theseislandshavebeensubjectedtoanalmostcontinualstreamofculturalinfluences fromwithout;secondly,thatFilipinosreactedtotheseinfluencesnotbyrejectingthemor simplyimitatingthembutbyassimilatingthem,moreorlesssuccessfully,intotheir culturalheritage;thirdly,thatthisprocessofacculturationvariedhorizontally,from regiontoregion,andvertically,fromclasstoclass,resultinginsignificantdifferences withinarecognizablycommonculture.Ifthesegeneralizationsaresound,anumberof importantpracticalconclusionsfollow.Oneisthatournationalcultureisvastlymore complexthanwouldappearatfirstglance.Itiscomplexnotonlybecauseofthe multiplicityofitscomponents,notonlybecauseofthediversityoforiginofthese components,butalsobecauseofthevarietyanddelicacyoftheirarticulationwitheach otherandwiththewhole. Oncethiscomplexityisappreciated,itwillreadilyberealizedthattoattemptto distinguishwhatisindigenousfromwhatisforeigninourcultureisanextremelyrisky undertaking.For,aswehaveseen,thereishardlyanyaspectofitthathasnotbeen stimulatedormodifiedoraffectedinsomewaybyexternalfactors;lookedatfromthis angle,itwouldbealmosttruetosaythatournationalcultureisawhollyforeignculture. Ontheotherhand,thereishardlyanyexternalfactorimpingingonourculturewhichwe havenotcoloredbyourattitudesandshapedtoourpurposes;andinthissense,itwould beperfectlytruetosaythatthereisnothingforeignaboutourculture.Howcanwehope tosortoutelementssoinextricablyintertwinedintosuchoversimplifiedcategoriesas "foreign"and"indigenous?" Butnotonlyistheundertakingrisky,itisalsopointless.Forifouraimistoarriveata definitionofwhatFilipinocultureis,itiscertainlynotbysuchaprocessofselectionthat weshallarriveatit.Thebasicconfusionhereistomake"national"synonymouswith
The Background of Nationalism 1965 By Horacio de la Costa, S.J.

HISTORYANDPHILIPPINECULTURE

"indigenous."Nothingcouldbemorearbitrary.Forournationalcultureisnotwhatwe hadinthebeginning,itiswhatwehavetoday.Andwhatwehavetodayisnotwhatwe hadtobeginwith,itisalsowhatwehavemadeourown.Itisthistotalityandonlythis totality,withallitsdiversityofpartsandcomplexityofstructure,thatwehaveanyright tocallthecultureoftheFilipinos. Thisisaboutasmuchashistoryinitspresentstateofdevelopmentamonguscantell usaboutourculture.Canittellusanythingmore?Undoubtedlyitcan,butonlyifwe clearawaycertainmisconceptionsandtakecertainpositivemeasures. Inthefirstplace,wemustgetridoftheideathatthetaskwhichfacesthehistorian todayismerelyataskofreinterpretationofinterpretingcorrectlywhathispredecessors interpretedwrongly.ItissometimessaidthatthetroublewithPhilippinehistoryisthatit waswrittenfirstbyforeignersSpaniardsorAmericansandthenbyFilipinoswho adopteduncriticallytheirforeignpointofview.TouseatermwhichProfessor TregonningoftheUniversityofSingaporeappliestothehistoryofhisownregion, Philippinehistoryisalmostexclusively"Europocentric,"andthisiswhatiswrongwith it.Itoughttobe"Filipinocentric,"andthepresentjoboftheFilipinohistorianistomake itso;toreinterpretitfromtheFilipinopointofviewratherthanfromtheSpanishorthe American. Thereisagreatdealtobesaidforthisopinion.Itassumes,however,thatthe materialsaretheretobeinterpreted;'Vthatallormostoftheevidencerelevanttothe mainphasesofourhistoricaldevelopmenthasbeensubmitted,andthatitisnowmerelya questionofrevisingtheconstructionthathasbeenplacedupontheevidence.Idonot believethisiscorrect.Itseemstomethatonmanyimportanteventsandfeaturesofour historytheusableevidenceiswoefullyfragmentaryandincomplete.Letmestressthe term"usable."Itisnotthattheevidenceisnonexistent.Itexists,inlargequantitiesand multipleforms,inarchivesbothhereandabroad,andeveninpublishedworksofevery description.Butitsimplyhasnotbeengatheredandpiecedtogetherinsuchawayasto beusableevidence,capableofbeingstudiedinitsentiretyandthusprovideasolidbasis ofaccountsthatshallbefactualandnotmerelyconjectural. Imentionedearlieroneoutstandingexampleofthisfromoureconomichistory:the TobaccoMonopoly.Hereisaninstitutionwhoseinfluencenotonlyonoureconomicbut alsoonoursocialandpoliticaldevelopmentcanhardlybeexaggerated.Itisthereforeof thehighestimportancethatweshouldhaveanobjectiveandimpartialaccountofit.We
The Background of Nationalism 1965 By Horacio de la Costa, S.J.

HISTORYANDPHILIPPINECULTURE

mayhavereasontosuspectthattheearlieraccountsofthisinstitutionwere hispanocentric(whichwouldnotbesurprising,seeingtheywerewrittenbySpanish historians),andthatbeinghispanocentric,theyeitherdisregardaltogetherordolessthan justicetocertainaspectsofourculturaldevelopmentwhichareofsupremeinteresttous asFilipinos.Wemusttherefore"reinterpret"thehistoryoftheTobaccoMonopoly;but Low?Wecannotdososimplyonthebasisoftheevidenceadducedinthehispanocentric histories,forifourassumptionofbiasiscorrect,thisevidencehasbeenselectedto supportahispanocentricthesis.Whatwemustdoistofindoutwhetheranyadditional evidenceexistswhichwillwarrantarevisionofthatthesis.Inotherwords,wecannot reinterpretourhistorywithoutenlargingitsfactualbase.Revisioncannotbeginwith revision:itmustbeginwithresearch. Thus,aFilipinowhowishestowriteonthehistoryofhiscountry,butisunableor unwillingtodobasicresearchinthesources,hasreallyonlytwoalternativesopento him.HecansimplysummarizeorparaphraseorrenderinEnglishwhattheearlier Spanishhistoriescontain;inwhichcasehewillbeperpetuatingtheeuropocentricview aboutwhichthereissuchwidespreaddissatisfactiontoday.Ore1sehecanreactagainst thiseuropocentrismandattempttorewriteourhistoryfromaFilipinopointofview;in whichcasehewillsoondiscoverthatmuchofwhathewritesispureconjecture,sincehe doesnotpossessthefactualmaterialwithwhichtodocumentwhathewishestosayabout Filipinoculture.Letmerepeatthatthisisnotbecausethismaterialdoesnotexist.Itdoes. Butwemustnotexpectittomaterializeoutofthinair,orbehandedtousonasilver platter.Wemustgooutandgetit.Wemustdoresearch. Anothermistakewhichweoughttoavoidislimitingtheareaofourhistoricalinterest andthescopeofourinvestigationsforreasonswhicharelargelyemotionalorsimply irrelevant.Ithasbeensuggested,forinstance,thatournationalhistoryoughttobeginin themiddleofthenineteenthcentury,becausethatiswhenwebegintohaveanational consciousnessandhencewhenwebegintobeanation.Thusweneednotconcern ourselveswithwhathappenedtoFilipinos,orwhatFilipinosdid,beforethatperiod.Itis alsoallegedinsupportofthisviewthatthehistoryoftheseislandspriortothebirthof thenationalistmovementisnotreallythehistoryofthePhilippinesbutthehistoryof SpainortheSpanishEmpire,thatistosay,thehistoryofthehandfulofSpanishofficials, colonistsandclergymenwhomanagedtoimposetheirdominationhereandtoretainit foramatterofthreecenturies.Now,theirdoingsmaypossiblybeofabsorbinginterestto

The Background of Nationalism 1965

By Horacio de la Costa, S.J.

HISTORYANDPHILIPPINECULTURE

aSpanishhistorian,butwhatpossibleclaimcantheyhavetotheattentionoftheFilipino historian? Itseemstomethatthisviewdoesmorehonortothesturdynationalismofits proponentsthanitdoestotheirunderstandingofthenatureofthehistoricalprocess.Even ifweweretoconcedethatthehistoryofthePhilippinesbegins,oroughttobegin,when thePhilippinesbegantobeanation,itshouldbeobviousthatwecannotevenbeginto understandthePhilippinesasanationunlesswefirstunderstanditasacolony.Thefirst questionwehavetoaskabouttheRevolutioniswhythereshouldhavebeenaRevolution inthefirst,place;andthatisaquestionwecannotanswerwithoutaprettythorough graspoftheentirespanofourSpanishcolonialhistory.Andsurelyitisoversimplifying mattersconsiderablytosaythatthehistoryofourSpanishperiodismerelythehistoryof theSpaniardswholivedinthePhilippinesduringthatperiod.Thatmaybethe hispanocentricwayoflookingatit,whichmanyfeeltodaytobenolongeradequate,ifit everwas;butitissurelyacuriouswayofremedyingtheinadequacybysimplyignoring theperiodaltogether. ThefactisthatmuchofwhathappenedduringtheRevolution,andmuchofwhatis happeningeventoday,cannotbecompletelyunderstoodwithoutreferencetoourpast, andoftentoourremotepast.Therootsthatmaintainapeculiarlystubbornsortoflifein manyofourdistinctivelyPhilippinesocialinstitutionsgoveryfarbackindeed.Ifthenwe wanthistorytomakeitspropercontributiontotheunderstandingofourculture,wemust setnoarbitrarylimitstotherangeofhistoricalresearch,butpermitthehistorianto wanderhappilyaboutthelargeandveryuntidylumberroomwhichishispeculiar domain. Lastly,itisimportantthatweaskthehistorianquestions:butwemustnottellhim whatanswerstogive.Wemustpermithimtoanswerforhimself,insistingonlythathe supporthisanswerwithevidence.Anepigramwhichhasbeengivencurrencylatelyhere isoneofBenedettoCroce'stotheeffectthat"allhistoryiscontemporaryhistory."I supposethismeansthateverygenerationinterpretshistoryaccordingtoitsownattitudes andneeds.Takeninthissense,simplyasthestatementofafact,itistrueenough.Butif itistakenasaninsightintothenatureofhistory;ifitisimpliedthathistoricaltruth changesfromonegenerationtoanother,andthateachgenerationmakesitsown historicaltruth,thenIdonotthinkthestatementmakesanysense.Historical interpretationmayvaryfromonegenerationtoanother,buttheverynotionof interpretationimpliesthatthereissomethingtheretointerpret,someirreducible
The Background of Nationalism 1965 By Horacio de la Costa, S.J.

HISTORYANDPHILIPPINECULTURE substratumoffactwhichiscapableofbeingvariouslyunderstoodbutwhichitself remainsinvariable.

Inshort,historyhasindeedsomethingtosaytous,butwemustnotexpectittosay whatweplease.Ithasatruthofitsownwhichisobjectiveandextramental.Wecannot inventthistruth;wemustdiscoverit. Thisbringsustoourthirdandlastquestion:Whatmustwedotoextractfromhistory theadditionalinformationthatweneedforagreaterunderstandingofournational culture?Ouranswertothisquestioncanbedirectandbrief,becauseitfollowslogically fromouranswertothepreviousquestion. Whatmustwedo?Historiansmustdoresearchintotheentirerangeofourhistoric past;andtheymustdothisresearchinanobjectiveanddispassionatespirit,notreading answersintotherecordbutderivinganswersfromit.Thoseofuswhoarenothistorians butwhoareinterestedinhavinghistoriansdotheirjobshouldprovidethemwiththe toolstodoit. Towardsthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury,nationalismwasatthefloodinEurope justasitistodayinAsia.Inthefieldofhistoricalstudiesitresultedinthekindof nationalhistoryboastful,rhetorical,jingoistic,irresponsiblewhichisnotunknown amongusandwhichisbringingthenoblesentimentofnationalismintodisrepute.Such booksaretodayforgotten,andarebestforgotten.Butithadanothereffectalso.It inspiredindividualscholarsandsocietiesofscholarstoundertake,withthecordial cooperationofgovernmentsandpublicspiritedcitizens,theslow,patient,infinitely laboriousworkofpublishingtheauthentichistoricalrecordsoftheirrespectivecountries. Andas,overtheyears,thesesuperblyeditedvolumesfollowedeachotherinstately successiontheMonumentaGermaniaeHistoricainGermany,theRollsSeriesand CalendarofstatepapersinEngland,theCollectiondedocumentsineditssurl'histoirede France,theRerumitalicarumscriptores,andtheColecciondedocumentosineditospara lahistoriadeEspana,itbecameabundantlyclearthattherecanbenomoreenduring tributetothegreatnessofapeople,nostrongerstimulustoenlightenedpatriotism,no betterbasisforinternationalunderstandingthantopresentwithoutexaggerationor diminution,inalltheirlightsandshadows,heightsanddepths,theverysourcesofa nation'sculture. About90B.C.theillustriousChinesehistorianSsumaCh'iencompletedhis meticulousaccountoftheHanDynastyandbeganatraditionofofficialhistoriography
The Background of Nationalism 1965 By Horacio de la Costa, S.J.

HISTORYANDPHILIPPINECULTURE

whichtheChinesepeoplemaintainedunbrokenforwellnightwothousandyears.The traditionwasthateachdynastyuponitsaccessiontotheimperialthroneappointeda historicalcommissionandchargeditwiththetaskofwritingthehistoryofthepreceding dynastyfromthedocumentscarefullypreservedinthestatearchives.Aseachdynastic historywascompleted,itwaspublishedalongwithitspredecessors.Today,theTwenty FourDynasticHistoriesofChinasome900volumesinamoderneditionconstitutea monumenttoagreatcultureandtoagreattraditionofscholarshipunequalledanywhere elseintheworld. Thesetwoexamplesofhownationalismcanpromotethestudyofhistory,andhistory servethehighestpurposesofnationalism,willdoubtlesssuggestwhatweourselvesmay attemptinordertopreserve,toenrich,andabovealltounderstandourowncultural heritage.

The Background of Nationalism 1965

By Horacio de la Costa, S.J.