Let’s talk about Imelda

To be completely blind about certain truths is one thing. Blame it on naiveté or stupidity or just laziness. But to choose to ignore the realities that history has revealed to us is another thing.

I used to go out with this guy who was generally nice, a little bit awkward and sometimes tried too hard. One time he wanted to keep the conversation flowing so he decided to steer it into something I guess was heftier. “What do you think about President Marcos? I thought that he was actually a good president,” he said with naiveté (or stupidity).

“No,” I replied curtly and laughed. He prodded for my opinion, but still with an ignorant look that I didn’t really find cute. “Because he was a dictator, a lot of people were killed under his regime, a lot of money stolen, and he took away our freedom. Didn’t they teach you that in school?” I really wondered. He shrugged, (hopefully) a little bit embarrassed, and said he didn’t know, but it’s what his father said, and then he changed the subject. I remember thinking that we would never work out, because how can you not have your own opinion of things at 20-something years old, opinions you didn’t just borrow from your dad?

That’s the interesting thing about the new generation. Do they think for themselves? Or are they just completely unaware? That’s really what makes this whole Imelda hullaballoo irksome, what with the flak arising from the Ateneo students taking selfies with her flashing the “V” sign; and a fashion media arm claiming that Imelda “saved Philippine fashion.” It’s the fear that maybe we, the kids these days, are not as critical as we should be, that we are satisfied with projections and shallow truths as long as it’s pretty and doesn’t hurt anybody. There is no great push to touch on the realities attached to them, or the implications that they have.

Let’s talk about Imelda. Let’s talk about her projection. As in all of the filtered, posed, beautiful, Photoshopped, semi-staged stuff you see on Instagram. Projection. From the roots of her perfect up-do to her iconic terno, her chicness — so put-together and fasyon, a maven of culture and art. Everyone who was close to her would speak of her kindness, her motherliness. Of course all of these things probably have basis in truth, but just as much truth as any projection would.

“I am allergic to ugliness,” Imelda would say. It is true, she could only handle hearing good things about herself. She was materialistic; she unapologetically enjoyed extravagant living. She bought real estate in New York, buildings across Manhattan, a house for her daughter while she studied in New Jersey, a seaside estate in Long Island with a boat dock and a helipad. A sickeningly opulent lifestyle — while, back in Manila, everything was controlled under Ferdinand Marcos’ rule.

She always needed to have her way. When the Beatles came to Manila in 1966, they denied Imelda’s invitation for a command performance at Malacañang Palace. Offended, it is known that she made sure that on the day they left, goons physically roughed them up — kicked, spat and punched at them as they walked from the airport to the plane. It is reported that band members swore never to return to the country, and they never did.

Yes, we can credit her for building the Cultural Center of the Philippines, the Folk Arts Theatre, the Metropolitan Museum and the Manila Film Center. It is also her we can hold responsible for the accident in the Manila Film Center, when, because it was a rushed job being done around the clock, the scaffolding in the upper floor collapsed, burying workers that were rumored to be more than a hundred in the cement. But the Film Center was set to open, and they need to get the job done, so they proceeded to pour the cement over the bodies of the men.

“Why does everything have to be attached to social issues and not be taken simply as it is?” someone asked me upon seeing Imelda being called a style icon by a leading fashion magazine, and I truly wonder if this is an okay mindset. Let’s ask ourselves: why does everything have to have deeper meaning? You mean, why do we have to be smart about it when we can just ignore all the bad vibes stuff? Is it because it’s just fashion? But fashion is smarter than that. And I think “saved fashion” is a very broad statement to attribute to Imelda. I don’t think Philippine fashion today would be headless chickens without her.

To be completely blind about certain truths, like my former date, is one thing. Blame it on naiveté or stupidity or just laziness. But to choose not to be critical about things, to choose to ignore the realities that history has revealed for us, even if it’s just a selfie or a fashion column, is another thing. And if this is a Millennial state of mind, should we worry?