ROTARY CLUB OF MANILA JOURNALISM AWARDS
2006 National Newspaper of the Year 2011 National Newspaper of the Year 2013 Business Newspaper of the Year 2017 Business Newspaper of the Year 2019 Business Newspaper of the Year
BusinessMirror
EJAP JOURNALISM AWARDS
BUSINESS NEWS SOURCE OF THE YEAR (2017, 2018)
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2018 BANTOG MEDIA AWARDS
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
DATA CHAMPION
A SECOND LOOK www.businessmirror.com.ph
A broader look at today’s business n
Sunday, March 21, 2021 Vol. 16 No. 161
P25.00 nationwide | 2 sections 12 pages | 7 DAYS A WEEK
AT THE ‘DISCOVERY’
OF THE PHILIPPINES IN 1521
MURAL showing the baptism of Rajah Humabon and his household by Fr. Pedro Valderrama (left) and the erection of a wooden cross on the shores of Cebu, at a chapel housing Magellan’s Cross, a Christian cross planted by Ferdinand Magellan upon arriving in Cebu on April 15, 1521, in Cebu City. NAMHWI KIM | DREAMSTIME.COM
F
By Joel C. Paredes* | Special to the BusinessMirror
ILIPINO historians no longer consider 1521 as the year the Philippines was “discovered” by Ferdinand Magellan. At most, Dr. Nilo Ocampo, a history professor at the University of the Philippines for 46 years, said it was just a “meeting”—or an “encounter”—with our people then, when the Spanish armada led by the Portuguese explorer landed on the Philippine archipelago in the search for the Moluccas—the spice islands. “Irrelevant” was how Dr. Zeus Salazar, a revered historian and anthropologist, described the event as the country marks the quincentennial of Magellan’s tragic voyage. When the Spaniards came to the Philippines, the local inhabitants had been exposed to foreign affinities, from the Arabs to our Asian neighbors, who had influenced them in trading, culture and religion. According to Salazar, “a great deal of what we now call our own has come from a common source,
a common civilization formerly shared with at least some of our fellow Asians (particularly the Malays and Indonesians)—i.e. , from our Austronesians or Malayo-Polynesian base-culture.” Their differing views from “traditional” historians were hardly surprising, considering that Salazar and Ocampo were part of the movement that began in the early ’70s among academic scholars and intellectuals who tried to correct approaches in Philippine historiography, making the study of historical writing nationalistic and more culturally sensitive. The late nationalist historian Renato Constantino once noted that those who had earlier documented our colonial past were, by training, “captives of Spanish and American historiography, both of which inevitably viewed Philippine
PESO EXCHANGE RATES n US 48.6730
history through the palm of their own prejudices.” In The Past Revisited, Constantino wrote that history is not merely a chronology of events nor is it just a story of heroes and great men. History, he said, is “a recorded struggle of people for every increasing freedom and for newer and higher realization of the human person.” But the struggle, he explained, is a “collective one” and as such “involves the mass of human beings who are therefore the motivators of change and of history.” Ocampo said it is time to look at our history “from the point of view of the Filipino people.” There is really a need to educate the Filipinos that our history began even before the Spaniards “discovered” the Philippines in 1521; followed by the colonial years and the period where the Filipinos became free, he said. “Yet until now, the framework of our history remains to be dominated by that of our colonizers,” Ocampo said. He deemed such orientation of history as partly to blame for the colonial mentality in a country that was built through the “dark days” of our history and the anticolonial struggle of its people. Ironically, Ocampo’s mentor,
the historian Salazar, didn’t even mention the events that happened in 1521 in the Kasaysayan ng Kapilipinuhan: Bagong Balangkas, where he divided into three periods the country’s history—the Pamayananan (500,000/250 BC-1588), Bayan (1588-1913) and Bansa (1913-present).
‘Pantayong Pananaw’
THIS approach in historiography, as shown in Salazar’s framework of Philippine history, was based on the “Pantayong Pananaw”—or “Bagong Kasaysayan” (New History) which he spearheaded before it evolved as a popular movement among nationalist academic scholars and intellectuals calling for an indigenous perspective in conducting historical enquiries. In an essay, Ateneo University history professor Aaron Rom O. Morlina explained Salazar’s “Pantayong Pananaw” or “PP”— “pantayo” simply means “from us-to-us” and connotes that the speaker communicates with an audience that is also part of the speaker community. It was a method espoused by historians led by Salazar, who acknowledged development of the nation based on the “internal in-
terconnectedness and linking of characteristics, values, knowledge wisdom, aspirations, practices, behavior and experiences.” The “pantayo” perspective, Salazar said, could be rooted in revolutionaries like Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto, who looked at the history and struggle of the Filipinos for independence from an internal perspective and use the Pilipino language to communicate. The problem, he said, was the nation that was formed by colonialism. There was the “pangkami” perspective (from-us-to-you), espoused by the Filipino “elite” who were seen in the generation of intellectuals educated in Spain during the time of Rizal and the propaganda movement. Then there is also the “pangkayo” (from-you-to us), the judgment made by “external agents upon one’s culture.” In this approach, Prof. Ramon Guillermo cited the need for a “talastasang bayan,” which is a “substantial dialogical circle” consisting of subjects within a community with a homogenous socio-politicocultural code. The “code” becomes the referent of analysis in historiography and other academic fields under the social sciences and the humanities.
Shattering the ‘myth’
“SO why [commemorate] 1521? If we want to celebrate the implant of Spanish power in the Philippines, it wasn’t there,” he said. “The Spaniards were there for a just a few weeks, and their leader, Magellan, was even killed by Lapulapu.” At that time, each “datu” like Lapulapu wielded power in their own turf since there was no concept of a nation then, though there were already sultanates in the South. Salazar suspected that Lapulapu killed Magellan simply because he wanted to get the Spanish galleon, although at that time the ships of Butuan were even bigger than the size of the vessels in the Spanish armada. Magellan, on the other hand, meddled in internal affairs of the island leaders, if only to impress King Humabon of Cebu and his newfound friends on how the Spaniards can discipline an arrogant local chieftain. “But how can we really celebrate, when our being a nation did not start there?” Salazar asked. Salazar also doubted that Christianity really began at the time of Magellan. The indigenous people he encountered on the Visayan islands Continued on A2
n JAPAN 0.4469 n UK 67.8112 n HK 6.2684 n CHINA 7.4812 n SINGAPORE 36.2258 n AUSTRALIA 37.7508 n EU 57.9987 n SAUDI ARABIA 12.9788
Source: BSP (March 19, 2021)