Knowing little they say is dangerous but having the full conviction to claim that "Lapu-Lapu is a Tausug!" is no less than becoming an enemy of history and the state.
It is demoralizing how a supposed revolutionary technology is currently used as a transmitter of malignant sickness. Social media became a haven for lies and malicious propaganda aimed at blurring the distinction between what is factual and what is not. Our known history and heritage were not spared. Historical accounts and narratives that were weaved with our nationalists' and renowned historians' sweat and blood are being torn apart, part by part, by historical revisionisms and deliberate distortions.
Mr. Emmanuel Caliwan of the High School Philippine History Movement was right when he said that we are in the midst of an information warfare. However, as a Political Science scholar, I would argue that this is not just about the truth and falsity of information anymore. The current trend of distortions and revisionisms are manifestations of clashing political motives and interests.
The claim that "Lapu-Lapu is a Tausug" does not stop at the validity of the claim whether he is indeed a hero hailing from Mindanao. A more in-depth insight into the matter would assess the statement's implication on society's current underlying structures and realize that the subject is political.
In Hague and Harrop's book in Comparative Politics, they see the study of structures (Structuralism) as mainly historical, as historical accounts and narratives help shape social relations over time which eventually create these social structures.
Hence, in a Structuralist point of view, a simple revision on Lapu-Lapu's ethnicity and heritage would subsequently mean a full or partial reconstruction of the social structures of the past— the Tausug's (Islam) involvement in the early Spanish conquest and its implication on the present— to reinforce the narrative of a "hero from the south." This analysis boils down to a simple conjecture, Lapu-Lapu's heritage is politicized.
Moreover, this politicization is unwarranted, critical, and precarious on so many levels.
First, this political narrative is proven to be false based on historical evidence. Dr. Jobers Bersales, the University of San Carlos Museum director and a renowned historian, debunked the claim that Lapu-Lapu is a Tausug. Dr. Bersales cited Tausug's reputation and Pigafetta's account as proof that the claim is meritless.
Second, the source of this unsupported claim that became viral on social media came from none other than a Philippine Senator. A high-ranking official who immerses himself in conspiracy theories without bothering to consult legitimate historical sources is an unbecoming sight and is telling of the kind of administration we currently have.
Third, this case of historical revisionism is used as a political weapon to buttress the legitimacy of Duterte's administration, creating the narrative of resentment that the southern people are for so long neglected. But lo' and behold here are the Dutertes, our modern-day Lapu-Lapus!
Nevertheless, if historical revisionism is a political act, it follows that it can also be undone through political means. Creating and strengthening institutions such as state-sanctioned historical facilities, reinstituting Philippine History as a dedicated subject in the Basic Education Curriculum, and legislation of corrective laws penalizing attempts to alter factual and significant historical accounts will incentivize the rightful study of history and deter any revisionisms and distortions.
However, one might argue that this attempt to combat historical revisions is highly policing and would be inimical to the spirit of plurality and tolerance we have as a democratic country. Yet again, this argument goes back to the perils of absolute relativism.
Unless we become willing victims of so-called "subjective truths," we should not allow ourselves to be devoured by insecurities and ignorance hiding underneath the guise of being "democratic."
For it is better to admit that we know little of history, as this entails a humble submission to the intricacies of our rich culture and heritage. It shows one's desire to be involved in the relentless pursuit of truth and what is right. Contrastingly, a proud and stubborn mind hell-bent on weaponizing history to their cause should both be met with intellectual finesse and bruteness of political will!
Comments