The Forming of a Filipino: On Nationalism, History, and Today

A more thorough read on Philippine Nationalism from my previous article.

In the 19th century, the final cultural factor that has been involved in the inclination towards nationalism was the interest in the Filipino past; Rizal, in the preface to his edition of Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas by Antonio de Morga, indicates the process of dwelling in our historical narratives as that of seeking the foundation for nationalism (Schumacher 1991, 22). By this, he willed to emphasize the importance of history and heritage in creating such national consciousness among our countrymen. Of the many extensive expressions for nationalism from the past years, when compared to the present, the question — is the youth less patriotic/nationalistic today? — sums the tone of nationalism for some today, as one might ponder how nationalism is best perceived and harnessed in present times without the challenge of thrusting such aliens of colonization. In this paper, I ought to dwell on the yesterdays of nationalism and its precepted recognition and relevance today.

Personally, for someone who did not have many exciting History lessons from Hekasi in elementary, or AP and Filipino in high school, I feel quite embarrassed that I actually had little to no significant recollection of our history as a Filipino. I had no prior knowledge of the pre-colonial Philippines, and I’m a bit reluctant to say that I had not even deeply understood why Rizal was our national hero, I just knew that he died because of his novels — but had not questioned why it gave a toll on his life and what his nationalistic ideas meant in his time. Nor did I really care for what the Katipunans fought for or what made the revolution revolutionary. When asked about what had made us Filipinos, I’d probably have no sure answer as there was not even a proper reminiscing that we were once Indios. To ponder more than those was a loss to me while growing up. History to me then was all facts, memorization of names and dates, and I had no regard of its bearing for constituting a nation today. Not until I took HUMSS in Senior High school had I gained interest, read, and understood our history as a narrative. What’s unfortunate is that those conditions, I believe, are still confronted by many of our youth today.

Very often, when we say that we identify ourselves as Filipino, or that we uphold nationalism, one might mean nothing more than simply affectionate feelings for the country, citizenship of belonging to a geographical location, obedience and loyalty to the government, or maybe a dying sacrifice — and to some, it stops there. Horacio de la Costa (1965, 1–2), in his essay, The Background of Nationalism, subjects this kind of nationalism as just a natural tendency, for everyone is, of course, moved to love his land and people for which he sustains his well-being and potentialities as a human; he further presents that this common implication of nationalism is just not enough, for nationalism is more than a sentiment and a feeling — but also a concept of what the nation is, what it values, and embodies to value.

Generally, without determining the rationale to consider someone to be a nationalistic individual, the notion of constructing what nationhood is can be much more difficult. Not only by constantly facing the inevitable globalization and the world-connected media can finding the spirit of being a Filipino challenging today, but I think, speaking as a Bikolana, regionalism especially holds truer boundaries as we are indeed a nation of islands consisting of diverse social, religious and ethnic differences — and due to this, it is understandable for someone to associate himself first of his respective region, sometimes even to the extent of stern regionalistic outlooks. My mother, who visited Cebu in 2017, told me how she had to constantly tell the vendors that she speaks Tagalog/Filipino but is from Bicol, as most of them scoff about Tagalog speakers (Mañilenos usually), some of them also hate speaking in Tagalog/Filipino, when she asked why, majority of them would say that it’s because they belittle provinces and pride in being superior, discriminate how they speak, and generally because the Tagalogs are of different people and land. In talks of federalism, my Bikolano relatives, without proper regard to its potential repercussions, regularly accepted it, for they would always embrace the remark of kanya-kanya na lang. It’s all a bit surprising, for one cannot expect neighbors of the same identity and land to be in such casual regard of being asunder.

In Ernest Renan’s (1882) lecture-essay, What is a Nation, he pointed that the essence of a nation not only lies in its individual members having many things in common but also of them forgetting many things, that all of them should have forgotten many things — the implication of forgetting in this passage has to do with the shared requirement of setting aside individual origin and differences. This means, for our many islands, to form a communal sentiment of endearing a level of national consciousness. While this flattens the pre-requisite stance for nationhood, how then can a nation be conceptualized? To Anderson (1983), being a nation constitutes an imagined community, perhaps of Bikolanos, Ilocanos, Cebuanos, Davaoeños, etc., to perceive themselves, despite being estranged to one another, as part of one national identity — Filipinos.

But, really, how can one even think of the nation’s good today, when much of what’s happening in the present, in both our personal lives and the society, discourage the youth from kindling their being a Filipino. In Twitter, there’s a viral tweet that says — the Filipino urge to migrate (@adalinvia, January 4, 2022) because seeing the COVID cases increase once again, or looking at the surge of Marcos’ followers despite the history, or the far-fetched likelihood of having face-to-face again — indeed, it’s all so disheartening, and it does make one question his commitment to love and stay, and be Filipino for his nation. Sometimes, my friends and I would discuss why it’s easy for a Filipino to shed his skin and leave. We would factor from one of the possibilities that this might connect to one being disassociated to his history, in this case, perhaps of the birth of being a Filipino, of nationalism, its cost, and how we came to be.

I do think there is a blandness, or rather, a lacking to the proper instilling and recognizing of nationalism, especially in education. My brother, currently in 10th grade, would always sarcastically rant if his unknowingness of our national ulam lessen his being a Filipino, as their recurring lessons of national identity had always been equated with having our own national flag, flower, tree, and costume. As there might be, to the youth, little to none living recurrence and relevance of how nationalism can be regarded, I do think, therefore, that it is of paramount importance to see it first from the perspective of its history — how an Indio came to be a Filipino.

By the understanding of our country’s totality of experiences, struggles and accomplishments, trials and tribulations, can we acquire such components of nationalism — of people advancing toward their capacity and sharing a firm belief of the brilliant extent of our race. It is in the duty and necessity of finding the past, as deemed by Claro M. Recto, to be in complete oneness with the men who made our history, be in line with their deeds, thoughts, and honorable lives, can we acquire nationalistic principles — for nationalism grows by a sense of history (ELComblus 2019). Well, again, for someone yet to know more about the Philippines’ history in college, the twofold distinction between the reformists and revolutionists was really new to me, and it is saddening not to have learned about it in my previous education. With this, I really hope that the birth of national consciousness, the importance of Rizal and Bonifacio’s (or the 19th century generally!) expression for nationalism, is narratively and analytically taught more in history classes.

Moreover, in pondering about the significance of connecting Philippine nationalism to the 19thcentury revolution, we must primarily discern that the living has the responsibility in commemorating and recalling those who have passed on, for their deaths have made possible the emergence of our society — it is in this essence that we’ll acknowledge that the nation’s soul indeed resides in those that have died for its sake (Renan 1882). Not only by memory to name, but perhaps in the narratable learning of the Illustrados who carried out the hopes of reforming the circumstances of the Philippines by peaceful means, the revolutionists bore upon by the armed masses or the many unnamed men in history who carried out such glory. Without understanding that milieu, one can scarcely understand their enduring importance to Filipino nationhood nor the relevance of their nationalistic ideals today.

In my opinion, we can’t really blame Nadine Lustre’s controversial remark of her learning History for six years as a waste of time because even I can attest that my Filipino-history lessons in high school were dull, redundant, and hollow — and for that, one can say it was meaningless and a waste. We haven’t even tried to read Noli and El Fili; my teacher just used to play this morbid and dry Adobe Flash Player animation of the novels, not even explaining the significance of the characters and scenes. The funny thing is that she wouldn’t even bother students (or even herself) sleeping on that lesson. Months of learning (in my case, not really) about Noli and El Fili, or the Katipunan, the American colonization, the conjugal dictatorship of the Marcoses, yet it still seemed that it was not taught as a useable past. Sadly, even some of my high school classmates have only ever retained the memory of Sisa’s insanity in the whole narrative of those brief history lessons. Visiting the past with the eyes of a visitor, as Renato Constantino (1975) would say, much information was learned, but attitudes never developed. The need to venerate historical people in the minds of the youth to enhance our awareness of citizenship and belonging to the people, and provoke an individual sense of national kinship (Ramones 2008) is already lost early in education. When students leave the classrooms, there is no reliving of heroes and history as critical components of our axis for nationalism. On revering Rizal, for example, as not just a factual and trivialized person — enumerate the siblings of Rizal, the lovers and where he met them, perhaps even his favorite letter in the alphabet — but more in understanding why and what he sought for the country — a people proud of its past and free, working towards its future, and united in their ideals (Schumacher 1991, 34). I wish these were my first takeaways of him in high school. Other than nationalism being centered on the great men (mostly of central Luzon), I think there are few to almost no representations of local heroes, perhaps from the provinces of Visayas or Mindanao, even Bicol. As a Bikolana myself, I don’t really recall any highlighted local heroes in my Filipino/AP-History lessons; I may even funnily presume and admit that maybe majority of the locals here would know Miss Universe Bikolana candidates by heart, but none of such heroes. Perhaps including the narratives out of the locales might also be a significant imposition in establishing the goal for webbing our islands under the umbrella of Filipino nationalism.

The history and role of the common people in the 1896 revolution must also be well emphasized in class; that the hailing of the Katipunan was a historic initiative of the masses. That although the reformists have inspired it, the masses produced and paved the way for complete nationhood. One’s usual first thoughts on the people of the revolution and the Katipunan might firstly stray on known names and not much prominence on the role of the mid to lower classes in its success. In Agoncillo’s Revolt of the Masses, he described that the masses in the revolution harnessed in their wit, the willpower to enthrone strong convictions for success and pervaded the readiness to die for a cause (Aguilar 2020, 156). In that light of knowing, one might revere in the inherent capacity of the mass, in its surge and stirred form, their immense attribution for a nationalistic cause.

The genesis of nationalism in the Philippines as a movement of people uncertain about their identity, shaken by inferiority, and wary of their place in colonial society, therefore, must be highlighted more in a much rather profound sense, for our generation of today to adhere a recognition of the cost of claiming the motherland, all the more be conscious of the servitude which our ancestors have suffered and accomplished — perhaps of even seeing the act of revolution, as the highest in our hierarchy of which one has expressed nationalism. Of the awakening of our nationalism as an emotional outlet for one’s bitterness under imprudent foreign rule, and its nature to be defensive to keep a people’s culture, prosperity, freedom, dignity, and independence (Agoncillo 1974).

Upon all this, the student might beg the question: so what? Generally, it makes us thoroughly understand that nationalism deems unity as our imperative for national progress. Under one common ground, nationalism has proven that it can overcome societal, religious, class, and political differences within a nation, and lead us to make a ripple for growth. In looking back, perhaps we would be able to right our education with hopes that it would not, as what Constantino (1966, 35) would say, produce an archaic mass who only know how to take care of themselves, but citizens that have nationalistic goals and are conscious of its nationhood. It puts us in a state of collective consciousness which gears its people for betterment and the common good. As Recto once again acclaims it — nationalism sets people’s hearts and minds to have the boldness in correcting the wrongs of their past and concur changes that place its people’s lives in their own forging (ELComblus 2019).

R.G. Collingwood writes that by looking at the past to see what man had done, can he, therefore, see what he can do (AgeofSage.org n.d.). It is in acknowledging nationalism in the past, as byproducts of struggle, can we then grasp ways it may also deliver in contemporary times. Without the sentiment for anti-colonialism in contrast to the past years, what then can nationalism do today? I think Horacio de la Costa (1965, 9) have explained it adequately in his essay, he writes that nationalism is a power for it can harness passive energies and passions, drive and achieve things beyond the bounds of potentialities, and rouse unquestionable loyalty; So, as it is a power, it is sensible then, not to ignore it but to channel it in the means of constructive ends. Thereby, nationalism today must be seen and weighted, not just as a virtue or as a fact — not just simply knowing our national animal, or that of tattooing Baybayin, standing straight in line during morning assemblies, high GWA in mandatory NSTP subjects, or taking pride from a foreigner’s pretentious validation — but a habit of our will to act and envision the ideal motherland and life for which every Filipino deserves. This assertion must create spaces for discourse and activism, constructive dissent, advocacies, exercising of suffrage, voting for decent candidates, educational initiatives, etc., which are tools for changing and reforming our society. It must not be concealed and stagnant in homes, academe, or in a person’s head, for it must be communicated and winded on precepts of what we aspire and hope our nation to be in the future. Such entailing of hope associates our instilling of both nationalistic ideas and sentiments, for which our hearts would finally set on seeing the becoming of the Philippines as a much worthy and better country someday.

— Final Paper from my lovely history class, 2021.

References:

AgeofSage.org. n.d. “R. G. Collingwood — Idea of History.” R. G. Collingwood Idea of History. Accessed January 10. https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/r_g_collingwood_history.html.

Agoncillo, Teodoro. 1974. “Filipino Nationalism: 1872–1970, Part 1.” Scribd. https://www.scribd.com/doc/23548202/Filipino-Nationalism-1872-to1970-Part-1-by-Teodoro-A-Agoncillo.

Aguilar, Filomeno. 2020. “What Made the Masses Revolutionary: Ignorance, Character, and Class in Teodoro Agoncillo’s The Revolt of the Masses.” Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints, 156. https://archium.ateneo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=history-faculty-pubs

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. “Imagined Communities.” Oxford Reference. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095958187.

Constantino, Renato, and Letizia R. Constantino. 1975. The Philippines: a past revisited. Quezon City: Tala Pub. Services.

Constantino, Renato. 1966. The miseducation of the Filipino. Journal of Contemporary Asia. 35. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472337085390031

De la Costa, Horacio. 1965. “Background of Nationalism.” Chapter. In The Background of Nationalism and Other Essays, 1–2, 9. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House. https://www.scribd.com/document/516991948/De-La-Costa-H-Background-of-Nationalism-and-Other-Essays

ELComblus. 2019. “Nationalism by Claro M. Recto.” ELCOMBLUS. November. https://www.elcomblus.com/nationalism-by-claro-m-recto/.

Ramones, Richard John. 2008. “Philippine Nationalism: An Analysis of the Development of Philippine National Identity.” Dissertation. Rutgers College. https://history.rutgers.edu/docman-docs/undergraduate/honors-papers-2008/100-philippine-nationalism-an-analysis-of-the-development-of-philippine-national-identity/file

Renan, Ernest. 1882. “Qu’Est-Ce Qu’Une Nation? .” Translated by Ethan Rundell. UC Paris. March. http://ucparis.fr/files/9313/6549/9943/What_is_a_Nation.pdf.

Schumacher, John N. 1991. “Rizal in the Context of Nineteenth-Century Philippines — Chapter 2” Chapter. In The Making of a Nation: Essays on Nineteenth-Century Filipino Nationalism, 22, 38. Scribd. https://www.scribd.com/doc/135167190/John-N-Schumacher-S-J-Rizal-in-the-Context-of-Nineteenth-Century-Philippines.