Rewriting Bonifacio and history
Today allow me to write about history in relation to Andres Bonifacio since it is his day, November 30. Bonifacio Day is one of only two national holidays that we observe in our country which is named after our heroes, the other one being Rizal Day on December 30 in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal.
A discussion of history is always a tricky matter. That is because people’s knowledge and perspective of what happened in the past will always be implied by their standpoint at the present.
For example, those who are discussing the legitimacy of government may likely pit Bonifacio’s revolutionary methods against Rizal’s ideas of peaceful reform. The concerns and vested interests of the present times tend to “posthumously recreate” a historical figure’s personality and reinterpret and recontextualize his role in our nation’s history.
The reinterpretation and recontextualization are also brought about by the discovery of new sources. As Jesuit historian Jose S. Arcilla suggests in his published essay “Who is Andres Bonifacio?” (Philippine Studies, Volume 45, 1997), historiography is an intellectual process, “a mental creation that is reined in by available sources—personal diaries, letters, memoirs, speeches, clothes, medals, official documents, etc.”
I had a rare opportunity to personally experience this enormous challenge of history writing several years ago when I was tasked to write the volume on the history of Catmon, Cebu, as part of the Cebu Provincial History Writing Project. Indeed, looking for sources of history and vetting their veracity require a great amount of skill, resources, and time. Luckily, the partnership between the Capitol and the University of San Carlos provided such lifeline factors for us writers to complete our work, albeit with a lot of patient prodding and sometimes “gentle warnings” from our editors.
But I’m sure many of us amateur history writers at that time also encountered a tight spot: How does one write about a historical fact that may be unflattering to some people at the present, especially to those in power? For example, I was told that the betrayal and assassination of Leon Kilat (Pantaleon Villegas) is still a sensitive topic among some families in the town of Kabkad (present day Carcar City) where the murder took place.
The historical narrative about Andres Bonifacio also tends to follow the same polemical path. What is definitely known is that Bonifacio founded a secret society called Katipunan which later rose in arms against the Spanish colonial government in the Philippines. But Bonifacio’s execution by General Emilio Aguinaldo’s men raised several questions about the political dynamics among the Filipino revolutionaries at that time, and also about the personality and character of our historical figures.
Arcilla revealed that in the aftermath of the revolution, there had been little writing about Bonifacio unlike in the case of Rizal whose image the new American colonizers had in their best interest to recontextualize as a scholar and advocate of peaceful reforms. “In contrast to the abundant literature that gave a clear picture of who Rizal was, even basic information about Bonifacio was lacking,” wrote Arcilla.
This historical gap between Bonifacio and Rizal reflects the challenge that to this day remains in Philippine historical literature. The same valid observation can also be made on the lack of prominence of heroes from the Visayas and Mindanao in our nation’s historical literature, especially in books that are read in our elementary and high schools.
But more than the historical figures, let me state Arcilla’s observation about our tendency to highlight the bravery and exploits of our national heroes while conveniently missing to analyze the social and political dynamics that defined those historical periods.
Said Arcilla: “Current writing has stressed the Spanish cruelty against Filipino bravery, forgetting that both Spaniards and Filipinos were both cruel and brave, for revolutions are times of instability, revealing both the worst and the best among the people.”
“The point is not to say whether there are Filipino heroes or not; rather, an attempt should be made to show what makes them heroic. Who is Andres Bonifacio? What external stimuli made him react the way he did? These are questions of fact that must be answered with facts, not fiction.”
Indeed, it is only by facing squarely and analyzing the socio-political and historical context where our national heroes played their role can we make history relevant to our present-day challenges and future direction.
- Latest
