LESSON 5

PAGBUBUO NG PAMBANSANG
KAMALAYAN (1872-1913)

Salazar, Z. A. “A Legacy of the Propaganda: The Tripartite View of

Philippine History ”
Nasa Z. A. Salazar (ed.), The Ethnic Dimension: Papers on
Philippine Culture, History and Psychology, 107-126. Cologne:
Counseling Center for Filipinos, 1983.
 REPORTERS

Arenas, Maria Camyl

Cabrera, Paloma
Gala, Franzine
Martinez, Armalyn Joy
Pizarra, Maria Gellen
Ramos, Janne
Rodulfo, Jofer
 A LEGACY OF THE
PROPAGANDA:
THE TRIPARTITE VIEW
OF PHILIPPINE HISTORY
By Z. A. Salazar
The broad division of most national histories in the Third
World into: pre colonial, colonial and post-colonial has its
equivalent in Philippine historiography and
consciousness.
 THE INDIGENOUS AND THE
SPANISH VIEWS
An indigenous sense of history scarce regard for the past
as history
History=Past
Unlike the French histoire meaning is "inquiry" or
"knowledge“

Kasaysayan comes from saysay which means both "to

relate in detail and to explain"
Kasaysayan is also "explanation", "significance" or
"relevance"
For our ancestors had a sense of the eternal recurrence of
natural and human phenomena: day and night, the
seasons, seed and plant, the cycle of life and death, the
passing and coming of generations, youth and age, planting
and harvesting, war and peace with neighboring barangays.

A new direction was thus being imposed upon the lives and
acts of Filipinos and that direction was understood and
explained in the categories of a foreign historical
consciousness.
THE TRIPARTITE VIEW OF PHILIPPINE
HISTORY

This was the task of the Filipino thinkers of the

Propaganda and Revolution. What they brought into.
Being was a tripartite view of Philippine history which,
essentially, would consist of the revision of the two part
Spanish philosophy of history and the addition of a third
epoch. The propagandists and the revolutionist differed
however in some of the finer points, primarily with
regards to the role of Spain in the third epoch .
PROPAGANDISTS
On the whole, the propagandist were quite prepared to concede
some positive role for Spain in the Philippines history which,
however, they now considered different somehow from simply
that of “Spain in the Philippines”.

Jaena would admit that, “though slow and too late in those
Islands,” the march of civilization had introduced “profound
transcendental changes in social and economic life, converting
what three centuries ago were simply settlements into towns
today with a certain measure of culture and enlightenment “. If
for this reason alone, however, the Filipinos should not be
denied the innate intellectual and cultural capacity for progress.
In a letter to Rizal from Barcelona in the same year, he
confided that “nothing can be expected from Spain nor from
its Government, that if the Philippines wishes to enjoy rights
and liberties, she herself much work for her redemption”

Thirteen days later, he (Jaena) would recommend to Rizal his

Asociación Filipina of Hong Kong, whose members should be
pure and genuine Filipinos, “so that our purposes may be
realized.”

Above all, Rizal should prevent “Kastilas and foreigners from

joining the Asociación as members.” Right and liberties, as
well as independence, Filipinas “must win with her blood.” For
independence she could obtain “only through a revolution.”
Marcelo H. Del Pillar’s conception of Philippine history was
not too different from that of Jaena. It however accepted the
Spanish view of Philippine cultural inferiority at the advent of
Spain which, in its civilizing mission, was a mother to
daughter Filipinas.
A social institution is fecund only as long as it responds to
the necessities of progress which become evident in a
particular evolution of society.
From the moment its interest become incompatible with
the unfolding of progress, the institution loses its efficacy,
dies out, expires, and there is no human power capable
of reestablishing its force against the currents of social
evolution.
An accelerated development was evident in the Philippines
by the middle of the nineteenth century, with the opening of
the Suez Canal.
In fact, del Pilar would agree with Fray S. Font and the
Dominican P. Ruiz in the view that the Philippines in their
time had made more progress since the opening of the
Suez Canal than during the three preceding centuries of
Spanish colonial rule.
 Be that as it may, the Filipinos were prevented from freeing
themselves from the rule of the friar. The archipelago, because of
its very situation and wealth, cannot remain isolated from "the
progress of other countries and neighboring colonies."

The day is not far when the Filipino will realize her "great destiny in
the Far East" and inevitably find herself "adjacent to the civilization
of the world." That was the future that del Pilar saw for his country,
"according to the law of history." All Spain had to do was "dispense
her justice according to the needs of the country, provide the
demanded reforms, combine Spanish-Filipino interests" and there
would be progress for both colony and metropolis. The third phase
in the history of the Philippines will be a period of progress,
preferably a common future in the Motherland.
 If this does not happen, however, the Philippines will free
itself "at the cost of much bloodshed and crime, after mortal
combat, assassinations, fires, military killings, famine, misery,
etc. no noted "any lasting domination exercised by one
people over others, of different races, of different usages and
customs, of opposites.
 March 16, 1565
The SANDUGO was a blood compact, performed in the
island of Bohol in the Philippines, between the Spanish
explorer Miguel López de Legazpi and Datu Sikatuna the
chieftain of Bohol on March 16, 1565, to seal their friendship
as part of the tribal tradition.
This gesture supposedly signified peace and friendship
between the foreigners and the natives of Bohol.
 DENTRO DE CIEN ANOS

Filipinas Dentro de Cinaos are Rizal's

predictions for how the Philippines would be in
the future. works, and we can see how, owing
to these people and their efforts, we are now
attaining independence and enjoying our own
freedom.

“The Philippines a Century Hence” is an essay

written by Philippine national hero Jose Rizal
to forecast the future of the country within a
hundred years. Rizal felt that it was time to
remind Spain that the circumstances that
ushered in the French Revolution could have a
telling effect for her in the Philippines.
The third period in Philippine history would therefore be
an era of progress, preferably in a common future with
the Mother Country. Beyond this, Del Pilar did not find it
necessary to be more precise. It was Rizal who tried to
peer into the future in his Filipinos dentro de cien anos.
His Preferred scenario, according to him, was of course
the assimilation of the Filipinos into the Spanish nation,
where they would enjoy "egalitarian laws and free and
liberal reforms."
Nonetheless, Rizal recognized the potential
dangers to such a fledgling republic, which had to
be strong to be able to protect itself from the
powers which, in his view, included not only the
traditional colonialists of the area but likewise
Japan, Russia, and the United States of America.
Fortunately, he thought, there would not be any
real threat from any of them, except probably
America, if one were to judge from the geopolitical
situation in the late 1880's. Nonetheless, Rizal also
knew that Philippines would very likely "depend
with fierce courage the liberty secured at the price
of so much blood and sacrifice.
Rizal must have therefore felt that the "hundred years" did not
necessarily mean a full century. It was, as the French would
say a "clause de style“. In This sense, El Filibusterismo (1891)
should not be take as a novel against revolution but rather as a
treatise on how it should not be carried out, considering the
defects that Rizal recognized only to well in his countrymen.

 In the first place, a revolution could never be, as Simoun's

prime motivation was, a matter of personal vengeance. It
was the awakening or reawakening of a people civic virtue,
to common consciousness. It could not be the
conspirational work of a single man with a few hirelings.
 Secondly, since it could only be the handywork of all
Filipinos, there had to be true unity of will among them. But
barely a year earlier, in Sobre la Indolencia de los Filipinos,
Rizal had noted that a man in the Philippines was, "only an
individual;...not a member of national. "
 And yet, El Filibusterismo deals really with the
necessity of revolution, as Jaena recognized,
despite its cryptic vagueness. At least one passage
in it, in fact, gives the death blow to all hopes for
reconciliation with Spain

 That Simoun's thought were those of Rizal is clear

enough. On July 27, 1888, Rizal wrote to Ponce
that the day that all Filipinos thought like Plaridel
and "Like us, that day we shall have accomplished
our arduous mission, which is the formation of the
Filipino nation." On 20 July 1890.
 One Filipino nation resulting from the unification of all the native (Malay)
ethnic groups by a major one among them was much better than all of
them being absorbed by the Spanish nation.

 A new nation had to be formed shichy, in the final analysis, would have
to be separate and independent from that of Spain.

 For Rizal, the third epoch in the Philippine history would also be one of
incipient nationhood, of nationality evolving out of ethnic diversity.

 For Filipinas, it was in fact a period of decline, which culminated in the

'social cancer' describe 'faithfully and ruthlessly' in Noli Me Tangere.

 This decay was the result of the Spanish conquest and subsequent
misgovernment.
Spanish rapacity too discouraged Filipino incentive. After
reducing many Filipinos to slavery and forced labor, the
encomenderos “made the rest sell them their products at
an insignificant price or for nothing or cheated them with
false measures.”

Rizal was more specific about the decadence of Filipinas

under Spain in his notes to chapter eight of Morga’s
Sucesos. Commenting on Morga’s observation that the
Filipinos of the early seventeenth century had “forgotten
much of farming and the raising of fowls, cattle, and
cotton, and weaving of cloth, which they used to do in the
days of their paganism"
Dedicated to the Filipinos, the book was in fact conceived
as complementary to the Noli’s description of “the actual
condition of our country".

The shadow of the civilization of our ancestors,” in order to

awaken in them “the consciousness of our past” by
rectifying “what has been falsified and calumniated.”

Rizal was thus rehabilitating the first period of Philippine

history.
 Marcelo Hilario del Pilar y
Gatmaitán

 Born in August 30, 1850

 Bulakan, Bulacan, Captaincy General

of the Philippines, Spanish Empire

 Commonly known as Marcelo H. del

Pilar and also known by his pen name
Pláridel,was a Filipino writer, lawyer,
journalist, and freemason. Del Pilar,
along with José Rizal and Graciano
López Jaena, became known as the
leaders of the Reform Movement in
Spain
Author Pre - Colonial Post - Colonial
Colonial
Del Pilar Filipinas had Encomendero Friars must go.
inferior s first charged Revolution has
civilization. with civilizing advantage of
Blood mission. Then being surgical.
compact friars, who But liberal
made in establish reform better.
order for frailocracia Integration of
"mother" and hamper autonomous
Spain to progress, Filipinas with
civilize and which is Spain.
Christianize inevitable
"daughter" (Suez Canal).
Filipinas.
Graciano Lopez Jaena

 He was born on December 18,

1856

 A most notable hero and genius of

the Philippines. The pride of Jaro,
Iloilo, he won the admiration of the
Spaniards and Europeans.
 Author Pre- Colonial Colonial Post- Colonial

Lopez- Jaena Ambivalent Filipino Elimination of

view. One capacity for friar rule. At
moment, progress first
Filipinas impeded by assimilationist,
thought to be in "monastic Jaena favored
"primitive supremacy." Revolution,
state." Then as Progress due freedom won
having a to Filipinos with blood of
civilization, a alone and to Filipinas
degree of external forces
enlightenment
Jose P. Rizal (1861-1896)

 Born in Calamba Laguna on

June 19, 1861.

 Founded La Liga Filipina

 Executed on Bagumbayan field

on Dec. 30,1896.
Author Pre- Colonial Colonial Post -
Colonial
Rizal -Filipinas had a Decay and Release of
civilization of her retrogression creative
own and was under Spanish forces of the
progressing, rule. Civic race with
armed with her virtues lost. attainment of
own capacities Vices have freedom.
and virtues. taken over. Probably
Social cancer in through
late 19th century Revolution.
Tactically,
through
Reforms.
 CONCLUDING STATEMENT

 The western definition of history and indigenous

perception of what history or kasaysayan is.
 The Spaniards brought in a two-part historical
consciousness and the broader archipelagic
frame of reference.
 The three propagandists during the Spanish
Colonial Period.
 The Three Tripartite views of Philippine History
according to Marcelo H Del Pilar, Graciano
Lopez Jaena and Dr, Jose P. Rizal.
THANK YOU!