Problematic interpretations of Philippine History PART I: Emilio Aguinaldo and the Controversies

BY ANDREW TALIDONG

History of the Philippines involves numerous events that affects the lives of many Filipinos. It involves how an inferior race, dubbed as "Indios" by the Spaniards, sought to create their own ideal nation free from colonial stint. Philippine history as it is presented in school, is filled with messages on patriotism and nation hood. Having a knowledge on a country's culture, heritage, and history is a starting point to have a healthy society. However, with how "romanticized" and poorly taught history is taught to the populace, few cracks have escaped the narrative of an "all brave" and "romanticized" revolutionary story of the Filipino people.

The "Hero" narrative and the 'Black and White' interpretation of history

Upon the death of Aguinaldo, Gen. Douglas MacArthur to the New York Times (1964) praised him as "the very incarnation of the Filipino desire for liberty and freedom, and his country owes him much." This sentiment was also shared by American president Lyndon B. Johnson stating that "his love of freedom and his devotion to country will continue to inspire his people." Due to Aguinaldo's contribution and being the first president of the Philippine president, he was dubbed a "hero".

The term "hero" is a very tricky one when used for a historical figure. The teaching of Filipino who contributed largely to society as "heroes" or "bayani" is embedded in early education academia. This affected many Filipinos, non-historians or not, to have a skewed perspective on what actually history is. From propaganda to expressed Filipino nation hood to serious textbooks in history, you can't escape the fact that Filipino historical figures are associated with the word "hero".

During the mid-20th century, Aguinaldo's controversial past began to resurfaced but was not talked about in proportion on what it is now in the 21st century. To summarize the controversy, here is a passage from Aguinaldo's Wikipedia article to better explain it:

"... he was also known to be somewhat controversial due to his alleged involvement in the deaths of the revolutionary leader Andrés Bonifacio and general Antonio Luna, and for his collaboration with the Empire of Japan during their occupation of the Philippines in World War II..."

Aguinaldo's controversies were later rediscovered thanks the popularity of the 2015 film Heneral Luna. It became a sensational hit in the Philippine movie industry. People, who held views of Aguinaldo's "hero" narrative, were taken aback by his portrayal as traitor for the country he so beloved. Another fact is the influence of social media that spread Aguinaldo's "bad guy" narrative like wildfire. As a result, it became a hot topic of debate among Filipino public in general. The debate of him being a hero got so severe, Aguinaldo was removed from the 5 peso coin and was replaced by Andres Bonifacio. Due to the resurgence of this narrative, Filipino politician Joseph Emilio Abaya criticized the film stating that Aguinaldo might have not killed Luna. Other decendants of Aguinaldo were not informed of the film and hated seeing how people debased the general's contribution to the Philippines. Of course, denialism is one of the first reaction to such a controversial claim by the film. Historians, on the other hand, stayed neutral to the topic.

Theatrical poster of the movie, "Heneral Luna" (2015)

In March 2022 to in an interview by GMA, historian Arius Raposas stated that if we define a "hero" as "being admired by many," then Aguinaldo "qualifies" as a hero. Raposas further noted that people, in general, should not "see heroes and villains black and white because everyone's human. They have their flaws." History is a very complex study and having a "one-size-fits-all" approach isn't going to help us understand the past better. Sure, we might use the "hero and villain" approach to have moral lessons for our day to day lives and a lesson to "not be a traitor for one's beloved land", but history isn't just used for that. People look into history to guide as studies for the present such as decision-making especially in politics and future strategies to compensate the shortcomings of the past.

Understanding the political dynamics during the late 1890s and early 1900s Philippines is crucial, not because Aguinaldo is an evil traitor or whatever, but because of the numerous factors such as political interests, atmosphere, and social condition of the event that we're trying to comprehend. Remember, the Philippines was still a young republic at the time and the cultural norms from the Spanish bureaucracy including corruption hasn't died down. I would also like to add the fact that it was wartime with the Americans (notably the Philippine American War) in the early 1900s, a need for a centralized government free from factionalism. We can't know for sure the motives of Aguinaldo as to why he assassinated Bonifacio and Luna, but we can appreciate how a young republic was established in the first place despite that it's not perfect.

To get back to my topic, Filipinos were unprepared for the distortion of the "hero" narrative. The effects of controversy wouldn't be as severe if public education has its fair share of teaching students the right mindset of handling such information. As in the words of the historian Ambeth Ocampo in his Q&A session of his lecture, "Icons of Philippine Independence: Stories in Artifacts" (2024): "What will you tell grade school students? Our educational system doesn’t create or teach critical thinking...".

References

* Garcellano, Liana (2024). "Reconsidering Emilio Aguinaldo through artifacts". VERA FILES

*Is Emilio Aguinaldo a true hero? Historian weighs in. GMA NEWS Online. Published March 22, 2022

*Emilio Aguinaldo. Wikipedia

*Heneral Luna. Wikipedia