Nation Building and the Crafting of a Useable Past in the Philippines.
Wendy Hazard, Ph.D. University of Maine- Augusta Paper for the International Studies Association Meeting March 18, 2004 Crafting a Useable Past : History and the Search for National Identity In The Philippines Introduction As Joyce Appleby notes in her study of the uses of history, the important work of historians is to ?make connections with the past to illuminate the problems of the present and the potential of the future.? But she cautions, ?Even in a democracy, history always involves power and exclusion, for any history is always someone?s history, told by that someone from a particular point of view.? This paper examines the uses of history in the Philippines over the past century as it was enlisted to serve varying social and political agendas. It will focus on the history textbooks written for elementary and high school students , public monuments and the shrines of national heroes, and the centennial celebration of national independence. The Centennial Celebration On June 12, 1998 the Philippines celebrated the centennial of national independence. Centennial festivities were elaborate. New public monuments to honor Filipino heroes and martyrs of the struggle for independence were commissioned, old ones were refurbished, and the homes of the nation?s heroes were reverently rededicated as national ?shrines.? The government created the National Centennial Commission whose mission was an ambitious one: ?The achievement of national unity and birth of Filipinism ? the emerging ideology that recaptures the Filipino the Filipino spirit.? The objectives were clearly enumerated: Â·..ASA-To revive love of country and appreciation for true Filipino identity Â·..ASA-To relearn the values of our historic struggle and use them for future development Â·..ASA-To promote values essential for nation building Â·..ASA-To propel Filipinos to work for the overall well being of the nation. Since the 19th century, nations have used history and compelling national narratives to bind the ?mystic chords of memory? and build a sense of national cohesion among diverse populations. That the Philippine government should have wanted to celebrate its own nation?s story is understandable. The Philippines is a sprawling archipelago of over 7,000 islands, with a population of more than 80 million people, mostly Christian, but many Muslim, divided among 54 ethnic groups, each with its own language or dialect, and each with its own traditions and memories. The Philippines has never united its disparate parts in a way that would allow it to function as a modern nation state. The economy is weak, wealth is concentrated in the hands of few, millions of Filipinos live in desperate poverty, and decades of civil wars have destroyed countless lives and sapped the resources of the nation. Today, as in 1998, the Philippine Armed Forces are fighting two civil wars, one against New People?s Army (NPA) of the Communist Party of the Philippines, the other against the Bangsa Moro of the Islamic Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). Both are armed resistance movements that have their roots in local grievances, landlessness, human rights abuses, religious persecution and a lack of democracy, and they show no signs of abating. The organizers of the 1998 Centennial celebration had hoped to elicit the support of history and the re-telling of the story of its people?s struggle for independence after 300 years of Spanish rule to rekindle a spirit of nationalism that would transcend local, regional, family and ethnic loyalties, and shore up a shared sense of national identity. But the decision to mark the centennial of the 1898 revolution proved instead to be a contentious one. Even the date was problematic. The Philippines has celebrated independence three times in its history; from the Spanish in 1898, from the Japanese occupation in 1943, and when the Americans granted autonomy in 1946. Rather than providing a common sense of heritage, the government?s decision to mark June 12, 1998 as the officially designated date of independence reinvigorated passionate debates over the significance of 1898 - debates that dramatically underscored the contested interpretations of Filipino history. 1898 was, of course, the year that Filipino revolutionaries won the Philippines? independence from Spain, and established the new Philippine Republic. 1898 was also the year that U.S. forces invaded the islands in America?s first imperial adventure. In 1899, the US annexed the Philippines as its colony, and the Philippine-American war began ? a war that claimed the lives of thousands of Filipinos in over a decade of fighting, and brought an end to the Republic. So, in 1998, many Filipinos asked what it was that was being celebrated. Was it the birth of their Republic, the first Republic in Asia? Was it the sovereignty of the Filipino people, and the culmination of a people?s struggle against colonial rule - a struggle that the Philippines? national heroes, Dr. Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, Apolinario Mabini and Julian Miguel Malvar and countless others had died for? Or was the Centennial instead meant to convey, as some said, the story of proud, but gentle people who had endured great suffering, but who had ultimately benefited from the saving grace of Christianity, and from ?benevolent assimilation,? with the United States whose government had endowed the Philippines with a public school system, and had nurtured democratic governance so that the Philippines could emerge one day as an independent ?hybrid nation? that as one Philippine historian has written, ? was chosen for Christian missionary activity in Asia, and a unique destiny to become Asia?s bastion of democracy ?? 3 The nationalist historian, Renato Constantino, challenged the government?s decision to declare 1898 as the birth date of Philippine independence and decried the centennial celebrations. He argued that the very sovereignty that the celebration was supposed to commemorate had become instead its casualty. The decision to emphasize the Revolution against Spain, and to downplay the Philippine ?American war, Constantino maintained, ?was intended to project the U.S. as an ally and benefactor of the Filipinos, rather than the foe that had subverted Filipino independence, and perpetuated its status as a colonial appendage until 1946 when the Philippines was finally granted independence.? Many others agreed, insisting that the Philippines, still mired in poverty and dependent on U.S. foreign aid and military protection was yet to be free, and that the struggle continues against what they perceive as the Philippine government?s dependence on a neo-colonial relationship with the United States. ?Are we going to see that what we have is just the glitter, the appearance of national sovereignty, and we are in fact still under effective foreign domination which accounts for our worsening mass poverty? Then we therefore have to win freedom and would add, ?Kayadapat ipaglaban.? (?Let?s fight for it.?) Many of these critics had been active in the popular movement to oust Ferdinand Marcos in the 1980?s, and in the subsequent campaign to rid the Philippines of U.S. military bases. That the official centennial was marked at the same time that United States and Philippine governments were negotiating Visiting Forces Agreement, permitting the U.S. military forces to train and conduct operations in the Philippines, was not lost on them. Anxious, often contentious debates over history continue today in the media, in universities, and in public forum, evidence that the Centennial celebration of Philippine history did not heal deep divisions in Philippine society or inspire loyalty to the national government, or a sense of national belonging among its disparate people. History Textbooks The history textbooks approved by the State?s Department of Education for use in the public schools are the primary source from which students in the Philippines learn about the past. But the insistent emphasis of these books on a nationalist narrative intended to bolster a myth of national cohesion runs counter to political and cultural realities in the Philippines, fraught as they are with ethnic tension and class conflict. That these approved texts exclude, or minimalize the story of those who have never shared a common past, and whose current realities belie a story of a shared present is problematic. The writing of these history textbooks is, in itself is a revealing part of Philippine history that helps to explain their current emphasis and style. For almost half a century, Filipino students and their teachers learned about their nation?s past from textbooks written by American educators. In 1900, the United States had embarked on its first experiment in ?nation-building? in the Philippines. The creation of a new public education system, modeled on the American system, was to be a critical tool in that endeavor. As in the United States, history was a required subject, and the first authors of school history textbooks were Americans who had come of age in the United States at a time when patriotism, hero worship, and national pageantry had become a form of ?civic religion.?6 The history text books the Americans wrote for Filipino students boasted the United States? very special mission, a civilizing and modernizing mission that was different than that of any European imperialist power. The U.S. had not come to conquer, but to liberate the Philippines from Spanish rule, and then to educate and uplift the Filipino people, and to prepare them for independence and democratic government that would be theirs ? one day. The first history of the Philippines for school children was written in 1902 by Adeline Knapp, a ?Thomasite? - one of a thousand volunteer teachers who had come to the Philippines aboard the ship ?Thomas,? to teach in the new Filipino schools. Her book, she writes, was for the children, the first secular history, intended to bring a history of their land within their reach, for the first time. It traces Philippine history from Magellan?s discovery, until the arrival of the Americans. The second history text was written for teachers- in-training in 1904 by Philip Jeregen, a scholar from the University of Chicago, who had been enlisted to teach Philippine history in the Normal School in Manila. Both books are in English as American authorities had insisted that English would become the national language of the Philippines that would bind the disparate peoples of the archipelago with a common language and shared purpose and identity. Both textbooks justified the American mission, and the importance of U.S. colonial authority as a modernizing, uplifting force that would bind the all the disparate ethnic groups into one people. Knapp?s text is infused with the optimism of Progressive era reformers, replete with references to a history of Spanish misrule and to the benefits that would accrue to the Philippines from the American occupation. These benefits included a promise of independence once Filipinos had understood and embraced the same vision of national unity that the United States enjoyed. She explains, ?Spain did not bind the tribes together in a strong national life such as made the United States a great and powerful nation? The U.S. has been settled by people from many countries, but the different races have become one strong American people by reason of common interest in the good government of their country, and a common desire for its welfare. When the Filipino people have learned thus to stand together, a new day will dawn for the islands, when people all speak one language and when young and old can write that language, the country will be united an will begin to know something of the national life which other countries enjoy.? 7 After writing in some detail about the selfish, exploitative nature of Spanish rule, Knapp took pains also to dismiss most of the leaders of the Philippine revolution against Spain, some of whom were still actively combating American forces. They were, she wrote, ?tyrants,? ?brigands,? and ?dictators? whose selfish agenda would be the undoing of their people. Only Jose Rizal, the Philippines? martyred hero, whose execution by Spanish authorities had ignited the Philippine revolution in 1896 was spared this characterization. Though dead for over six years, Rizal was for Knapp a ?true Filipino hero,? who had he lived, would undoubtedly have welcomed the coming of the Americans. ?Had he lived, she wrote, ?he would have been glad to see this new day. He would have been glad to see school houses opening everywhere, for he knew that knowledge is power.?8 Conveniently omitted here, of course, was any mention of Rizal?s prescient warnings to his followers before his death about US intentions in the Philippines.9 In 2001, the US Embassy and the US Information Agency sponsored a centennial celebration of the Thomasites. In films and colloquia, the ?selfless dedication? and the important contributions that these young men and women had made to the Philippine education was extolled.9 Prescott Jeregen, influenced by the new work in the new fields of anthropology and ethnology, included a brief review of the cultures and traditions of the islands? ethnic groups. He then outlined the history of the Spanish conquest, subsequent European nation?s efforts to wrest control of the Philippines from Spain, and the Filipinos? final struggle for independence from Spain. Like Knapp, he concluded that the Filipinos were not ready for independence and needed both the guiding hand of U.S. authorities, and the protection provided by the US military forces. As he explained it, ?The best of all reasons why the U.S. did not assist the Filipinos to maintain and independent republic was because she knew that Filipinos were not ready for self-government....People of the same blood, language and religion are often torn apart by civil war. How could a people of a hundred different tongues, living on hundreds of islands remain at peace? Someday, Filipinos will all know the same language and possess the same education. Only then will they be able to unite as a strong, and defend themselves as an independent people.? 10 The Filipino Teachers? Manual, published in 1907, emphasized the same message, along with praise for America?s democratizing, nation-building endeavor . ?No strong, prosperous government has ever been built upon a foundation of ignorance and blind superstition?.Today, the son of the man who drives the carabao is given equal opportunity with the son of the rich man. Both these boys are learning to read, to write, to solve problems. When these boys have become strong, healthy men, understanding the true meaning of citizenship and knowing their duties as well as their rights, the teacher will look with joy upon the new nation that he has helped to create.?11 In recent years, a number of prominent Filipino scholars have recoiled from these texts for their emphasis on U.S. benevolence, their emasculation of Filipino national heroes, and their dismissive handling of the Filipinos long struggle for independence. The works of Renato Constantino, Teodore Agoncillo, and Renaldo Ileto, and Roland Simbulan among others, sought to redress some of the harm they felt was done by these histories, not only to the historical record, but to the confidence of the Filipino people and the cohesion of Philippine society. As Agoncillo writes, ? While once enjoying the benefits of America, the Filipino suffered a partial loss of their racial heritage, the ties that bind family have weakened, and the love of their language and culture has been replaced by the adoration of the American language and culture?and a persistence of the colonial mentality.? 12 In place of the lessons imparted by American textbook writers, these historians urge instead a nationalist history that emphasizes resistance instead of accommodation, and explores the dynamics of centuries of struggle against foreign domination and injustice. In their separate works, they have uncovered resistance movements that inspired rich and poor, literate and illiterate, Muslim and Christian Filipinos from ethnic groups throughout the Philippines to fight Spanish, American, and Japanese occupations of their islands. 13 It is in this history of resistance that these historians find a unifying theme in Filipino history, and what Joyce Appleby calls the ?connections? that illuminate the problems of the past and the potential of the future. Constantino writes, ?In the history of these struggles, we find laws of development which give us a better understanding of reality and which can guide us to higher forms of struggle for the people?s cause? Filipino resistance to colonial oppression must be the unifying thread of Philippine history. 14 The concerns of these historians, have clearly had some influence on the content of history textbooks used in the schools today. These texts now include brief capsule histories of the popular revolts during the Spanish and even the American periods. But the capsules, like the rest of the narratives appear as compilations of fragments of information, without a theoretical framework or conceptual guides. Instead, a common theme emerges from the authors? frequent references to the ?unique? character of the Philippines as a hybrid nation, a ?harmonious blend? one historian calls it, ?the result of a heritage acquired from Spain and America, and from ?our intelligent assimilation of Asian, Latin, European and American civilizations.? 15 Most continue to include positive references to the relatively beneficial legacies of both Spanish and American rule, as in: ?The Spanish taught the Filipinos how to become good Christians,? ?America?s greatest achievement was the introduction of the public school system,? and ?America?s greatest gift to us is democracy.? 16 So insistent are these texts on obliterating difference from the national narrative and emphasizing ?oneness? rather than difference that they leave little room for nuances of individual or regional character or heritage. An introductory paragraph of one fifth grade text is illustrative. ?Filipinos are a good people. They are patient, loving and thoughtful. They are fun loving and persevering. They are truthful and helpful. These qualities lead to progress.?17 A college text offers a further example. ?Throughout history, experienced abuses and brutalities. Perhaps of all the people, the Filipino is known to laugh off his miseries?Unlike the Chinese, Filipinos can be easily assimilated.?18 Lost in this kind of facile generalizing is an appreciation for ethnic and racial differences. Implicitly excluded is the large Chinese-Filipino community in the Philippines, and clearly absent is any acknowledgement of the privilege that some Filipinos have enjoyed at the expense of others. Their attempts to affirm students? respect for the legitimacy of the national government in Manila are always evident, as the conclusion to one of these demonstrates : ?The Philippine government is responsive to the needs of citizens. Its officials serve the people.? That the authors fail to provide any evidence to support this assertion is bad enough. That the assertion so blatantly contradicts the experience of millions of Filipino children living in isolated rural villages and in the fetid squatter shanties of Manila?s sprawling slums, undermines the credibility of the whole .19 Sonia Zaide?s Philippine History and Government is a popular high school text used by social studies teachers throughout the Philippines Her college text, The Philippines a Unique Nation is also widely used.20 Zaide, a self-described ?Christian historian,? writes with an unapologetic Christian bias, and a kind of patriotic fervor that challenges the scholarship of historians like Constantino and Agoncillo. Their ?nationalistic perspective of a nation without destiny or dignity,? she writes, ? breeds only bitterness,?. Instead, she argues, ?There is much more to Philippine history than the story of the oppression of our people by foreigners, and much to learn from and appreciate in the contributions brought by the Spanish and the Americans. ?Our mixed heritage makes the Filipinos a unique nation, and places them in a highly privileged position in world affairs.? Most importantly, ?God loves the Philippines??.and ?selected? the Philippines to be a ?Christian missionary country to spread the Gospel to Asia.?21 She provides no citation here. The example, however, of how important and triumphant the legacy of this Christian, democratic heritage has been for the Philippines was manifest in what she calls ?The Great Christian Revival? of the 1980?s that led to the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship by Corazon Aquino, the ?devoutly Christian wife of a Christian martyr,? supported by the hierarchy and faithful followers of the Catholic church.22 The lesson she imparts is clear enough. The ?victory? was (Christian) God-ordained. Filipino Muslims might well conclude from the narratives of Zaide?s texts that their historically marginalized position, while perhaps unfortunate, is just that, marginalized. A final troubling feature common to all the texts mentioned here is their failure to discuss or analyze the power that the Catholic Church has exercised in the Philippines for hundreds of years. While this may be an inherited feature from the American model that insisted on teaching ?secular history? in schools, rather than the ?religious? narratives of the Spanish era, the fact is that the Catholic church in the Philippines openly exerts its power and influence on virtually every aspect of politics and culture in the nation. Not to include a discussion of the church?s history, or an analytical consideration of its power is in itself evidence of the controlling influence that the institution continues to enjoy. Language in Textbooks All of the history texts reviewed here are written in English, and it is important to note here, that the controversy over whether to teach core subjects in English or Filipino, the officially designated ?national? language of the Philippines,(* Filipino is a based heavily on Tagalog, the language of the majority ethnic group in the Philippines.) is as contentious in the Philippines as debates over interpretations of the nation?s history. While bi-lingual proficiency is touted by some, particularly in the business community, as giving Filipino workers a competitive edge in the global market, many others believe that teaching the sciences and the humanities in English creates an unnecessary impediment to comprehension and critical thinking, fosters a colonial mentality, and privileges the children of the educated elite. The Philippine Constitution designated Filipino as the national language in 1946, and bi-lingual education was established as official policy for the nation?s schools in 1987. In January, 2003, however, President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered the Education Secretary to restore English as the ?primary medium of instruction? to reverse the decline of English literacy. Even some her staunchest critics in the Philippine Senate praised her decision, including members of ethnic groups who do not speak Tagalog and who had long felt that designating Filipino as the national language was inherently discriminatory.23 Many educators, including Dr.Josefina Cortez, former President of The University of the East in Manila remain unconvinced.24 Public Monuments Public monuments and memorials are also a means to convey stories and lessons from the past. In the Philippines, as in other countries, these memorials honor selected heroes. The National Centennial Commission funded the construction of a number of large statues that now stand in the intersections of major roads in Manila, and in provincial capitals. The newer ones all appear to convey images of a muscular militancy that belie the characterization of Filipinos found in many textbook sources of Filipinos as a gentle, patient, forbearing people. (SLIDES). Some of these statues honor regional heroes like the Sultan Kundarat, a Muslim leader of Maguindanao and the Moro insurgency against Spain in the 17th century. Another particularly dramatic one of Gabriela Silang, the leader of an Ilocano insurgency in the 18th century, honors the courage and militancy of women fighters. Most, however, like the powerful rendering of Andres Bonifacio leading his followers to war, are iconic renderings of masculine power. ..ASA-There are also a number of ?national shrines? in different parts of the Philippines that are devoted to the memory of Dr. Jose Rizal, and other leaders of revolution. Unlike the militant imagery of the newer statues, the shrines honor a different ideal type ?one of courageous suffering, sacrifice and martyrdom that has special resonance in this mostly Catholic country. A nightly ?sound and light show? in Manila?s Luneta Park, tells the story of Rizal?s execution that honors the memory of his martyrdom. His nearby shrine in the old walled city of Manila includes selections of his writings, articles of clothing, furniture, and a bone fragment. All are designated as ?relics.? The historian and journalist, Ambeth Ocampo has been critical of the tendency to sanctify Rizal and others, as in his view, it both undermines their complexity and discourages research and critical thinking. 25. But this, and other shrines to Rizal remain the most popular sites for tourists and school groups. Looking Ahead Less than two months after President Macapagal-Arroyo made the decision to restore the primacy of English language instruction, she became embroiled in angry debates over the decision to allow US troops to engage in joint ?war games? in Sulu province with the Philippines Armed Forces against a small band of Islamic guerilla fighters known as Abu Sayyaf. The U.S. had targeted Abu Sayyaf in the ? War against Terror? as agents of an international Islamic terrorist conspiracy. A popular uproar ensued. Demonstrators blocked the streets around the U.S. Embassy and newspapers of all political persuasions denounced Arroyo?s decision as a violation of Philippine sovereignty. Headlines read, ?Those Who Forget the Past Are Bound to Repeat It,? and faded photographs from the archives appeared on front pages showing US soldiers, and the bodies of over 600 Moro men women and children killed a massacre ordered by General ?Black Jack? Pershing in Sulu Province in 1906.26 The Arroyo government and the Bush Administration ultimately cancelled plans for the joint ?training exercises.? But this brief episode, and the controversies it engendered are a potent reminders that ?the lessons of history? are disputed, and are always reflections of current social and political realities. The Philippine government?s insistence on reading a story of national cohesion into the past that obscures or marginalizes differences and assumes a common vision for the present and the future remains as problematic as its close ties with the United States. In 2000, UNESCO commissioned a study of Filipino history and social studies textbooks. Recognizing that in a poor country with ?cash-strapped schools? that these books are the principle source of information, the authors of the UNESCO report had hoped to find in them evidence of lessons that would encourage critical thought, and an effort to analyze the roots of economic poverty, civil unrest and chronic violence that afflict the Philippines today. What they found instead left them ?far from optimistic.? Of particular concern was the ?lack of an appropriate theoretical framework for the preparation of textbooks, a haphazard free market style of book preparation and marketing?, and the authors? failure to encourage critical thought and ?a lack of disciplined understanding of the subject they write about.? 27 There are, however, some hopeful signs that historians in the Philippines are making what Appleby and Hunt refer to as those ?connections with the past that illuminate the problems of the present and the potential of the future.? A recent addition to Filipino textbook literature is A History of the Filipino People For High Schools. Written in 2001 by Paul Dumol and Ernesto Grio, this text has been praised by leading Filipino scholars, including John Schumacher, Professor of History at Loyola School of Theology, who recommends that it be used in schools where ?history is taken seriously, and not simply as part of vaguely defined social studies.? Unlike the other texts discussed above, Dumol and Grio provide selected primary sources and bibliographic references at the end of each chapter, along with suggestions for research and class activities that ask students to engage in critical analysis of issues in the preceding text. These include: the imperial policies of Spain and the United States; racism, economic discrimination, the causes and strengths and weaknesses of the 1896-1898 Revolution, the problems that came with independence, the roots of Communist inspired peasant insurgencies, and the Muslim claims for Mindinao?s autonomy. The authors encourage an historical perspective in addressing these issues, and make the relevance of the past both clear and accessible.28 There is evidence, too that historians, archeologists and anthropologists, working on government-sponsored programs, are increasingly committed to exploring and celebrating the cultural roots and diversity of the many ethnic groups in the country. The National Museum of the Pilipino People in Manila is an important example. Exhibits there display the arts and artifacts from all periods of Philippine history and include archeological findings from prehistoric settlements, a detailed display of recovered artifacts from a sunken Spanish galleon, evidence of the influence of Chinese trade and culture, along with contemporary painting, sculpture and fine examples of tribal art. Together, they reflect a new and refreshing focus, without a hegemonic agenda, or heavy emphasis on the primacy of one ethnicity or religion over others. The Cultural Center of the Philippines has also become a showplace, not only for Manila-based artists and performers, but also for the work of traditional performance artists from all parts of the Philippines. In recent years, the Cultural Center has sent ethno-musicologists into the countryside to observe local festivals, find talented musicians and storytellers from diverse ethnic and religious groups, and provide them the means and technology to record their stories and their music, and to travel to Manila to perform at the Cultural Center. The work of the Philippine National Historical Society (PNHS) is also noteworthy. A voluntary professional organization devoted to the study of Philippine local and national history, it has directed its attention and its limited funds to presenting and publishing research with a local or regional focus. Since 1978, PNHS has convened annual conferences that have been held all over the archipelago. Each has had a theme that draws attention to the region where the conference is held. Themes have included, ?Focus on Palawan Studies?; ?The Bangsa Moro and the Filipino Christian?; and The Muslim Filipinos in Philippine History.?29 To date, however, there is little evidence that the results of this research, or the scholarship that has informed the exhibits in the National Museum have had much influence on the ways in which history is taught in most Philippine schools. In time, they may, for they have the potential of providing Filipinos with a new narrative of inclusion that will embrace cultural and ethnic diversity and see all of the citizens as equal members of the national community, and guaranteed the same civil, religious, cultural and political rights. A focus on difference and diversity that empowers minority groups may, of course, risk widespread, militant demands for local autonomy that lead to a state of anarchy that afflicts many post-colonial states in Africa and Asia. Much depends on the degree to which political reforms can insure a commitment to democracy, and economic reform can bring a measure of prosperity and provide hope to millions of Filipinos now living in poverty. This is beyond the ability of those who write history and craft nationalist narratives, but they may contribute to an arena in which a new national paradigm can emerge. End Notes 1 Joyce Appleby and Lynn Hunt, Telling the Truth About History (New York, ww Norton, 1995) p25 2.Philippine National Centennial Commission Handbook, 1998 3 Sonia Zaide, The Philippines: A Unique Nation (Quezon City: All Nations Publishing,1999) 4 Roland Simbulan, ?Renato Constantino: Centennial Scholar? (www.boondocket.com/centennial/sctexts/simbulan99b.html) 5 Ed Aurelio Reyes, ?The Centennial Year Is On? (http:www.tribo./org/history/centennial.html) 6 Michael Kammen, Mystic Chords of Memory, (New York, Alfred Knopf, 1991) p.205 7.Adeline Knapp, The Story of the Philippines. (New York: Silver, Burdett and Company, 1902) pp. 44-45 8. Ibid, pp. 243 9. http://www.thomasites100.org/Thomas_home.html 10. Prescott Jeregen, A Short History Of The Philippines for Use In Elementary Schools (Manila:Van Buskirk, Crook and Co., 1907) 11. The Filipino Teachers Manual:Philippine Education Series (New York, World Book Co., 1907) p.226 12.Teodoro Agoncillo, A History of the Filipino People. 8th Edition (Quezon City: Gerotech Publishing, 1990) 13. Renato Constantino, The Philippines A Past Revisited,(Manila, 1975) and Teodore Agoncillo, The Revolt Of The Masses 14. Renato Constantino, Ibid. p.11 15. Sonia Zaide, op.cit, p. 26 16.Leticia Nerona, People, Places and Events in the Philippines, (Quezon City: SIBS Publishing, 2000) p. 139 17. Myrna Carpio, Ampara Sunga, My Country, My People (Quezon City: Rex Books, 1998) p 59 18. Rogelio Maguigad, Estrelitta Muhi, Brief History of the Filipino People, (Manila, Libro Filipino Enterprises) p 13 19.Letica Nerons, opcit, p 145 20. From interviews I conducted with social studies teachers in Manila, Bicol and Leyte, Zaide?s book is second most widely used in high schools, after Agoncillo?s A History of the Filipino People. 21. Zaide, op. cit. pp. 2-3 22. Zaide, pp 174-175 23.Josefina Cortes, Exploration in the Theory and Practise of Education 1965-1993 (Manila: University of Philippines Press) pp. 229-233 24. From my interview with Dr. Cortes, March 2, 2003 25.From my interview with Ambeth Ocampo, February, 20, 2003 (Ocampo is author of Rizal Without the Overcoat) 26. Manila Times, January 30, 2003. p.1 27. Florentino Hormedo and Virginia Miraleo (eds), The Social and Human Sciences in Philippine Education (UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines, 2000) 28. Paul Dumol with Ernest Grio, A History of the Filipino People for High Schools (Manila: Sinag-Tila, Inc.) 29. Towards a National History of the Philippines: Local History in the Context of National History. (Philippine National Historical Society Program ?23rd National Conference on Local and National History) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]