‘Kupog-kupog’ historiography
TO paraphrase President Manuel Quezon: My loyalty to my historian-friends ends where my loyalty to history begins.
I got into an argument with fellow historians over Ferdinand Magellan’s arrival or discovery of the Philippines which they celebrated on social media on its anniversary on March 16, 2024. When confronted, they said there was no celebration.
This was a cop-out. What do you call repeated shares of the same content if not a celebration of it?
I once had a light banter with the great historian Zeus Salazar about his sharing of dubious content in his social media account. He said the act of sharing a certain content can mean many things: calling people’s attention to its existence or amusement with the content, etc.
What then could repeat shares of the same content mean?
Speaking of Salazar, he was foremost in my mind when I reacted violently to the celebration of Magellan and his role in Philippine history. Salazar endeavored to lead Philippine history precisely away from the narrative of Magellan. “Wala namang nagawa para sa Pilipinas si Magellan,” Salazar would thunder in our historiography class. “Namatay lang iyan sa Mactan!”
Some more aware of the historiographical pitfalls of the Magellan narrative try to sidestep the landmines by emphasizing — like a sleazy used car salesman — the downgrade from “discovery of,” to “arrival in,” the Philippines. Yet, all Magellan did was get caught in the complexity of Visayan politics and die as a consequence. His hastily formed alliance with Humabon in Cebu abruptly collapsed after his death. The Cebuanos subsequently poisoned the remaining members of his crew.
Magellan’s arrival is hailed by “kupog-kupog” (in Hiligaynon, kupog means to be in a mindless rush) historians as the onset of Christianity in the archipelago. To be sure, Christianity did not take root in the Philippines in 1521; that happened many decades later under the auspices of Miguel Lopez de Legazpi and successors.
These persistent kupog-kupog historians call attention to the existence of a Santo Niño icon from Magellan’s time as proof that Christianity survived after 1521. The icon is not sufficient proof that Christianity was practiced by the Cebuanos in the intervening years, as Legazpi’s reports adequately clarify.
Knowing the flimsy nature of Magellan’s contributions to the practice of Christianity in the country, his apologists proceed to highlight the role of 1521 in connecting the Philippines to global commerce and trade. Again, this is textbook kupog-kupog historiography. Philippine participation in global commerce and trade through the spice trade predates all of the
Europeans in Asia by centuries.
Not years or decades, but centuries.
Magellan’s importance in Philippine history has been dubiously and disingenuously inflated from colonial times and in the present by today’s self-interested kupog-kupog historiography.
What kind of impact did Magellan’s arrival have on the Philippines?
Answer: None!
Magellan’s arrival certainly led to more Spanish expeditions to the Philippines, all with varying degrees of failure until Legazpi’s turn. Clearly, however, the credit should go to Legazpi who succeeded in establishing a Spanish colonial foothold in parts of the archipelago, not the failures of Magellan.
Are we seeing something similar to the modern-day competitions where every participant gets a medal so that none feel like they lost even though they really, actually and objectively lost?
The story of Magellan — whether he discovered, or arrived in, the Philippines — is not a Filipino story. It is a Spanish story even though Magellan (Magalhaes) was actually born in Portugal. The use of “discovery” in the context of Philippine history is clearly dimwitted. Even worse for the narrative of Philippine history, however, is the greater focus on the actions of the “visitors” than the subject people themselves.
I do not see the history of the Middle East focusing on the overseas Filipino workers. Yet, kupog-kupog historiography wants Philippine history to focus on Magellan and the colonizers instead of the Filipinos.
Outside of kupog-kupog historiography, comprador historians decided that after the end of colonialism in the Philippines, they positioned themselves as heirs of the colonizers and perpetuated their historiographic legacy of rendering Filipinos peripheral to their own history.
More than just continuing the celebration of colonial-centric history, this kupog-kupog or comprador historiography as heir of colonial historiography regards the taumbayan now as they were treated in the days of the colonizers: with denigration and loathing. We see this every day with the belittling of Filipinos in general (as if they are not Filipinos themselves) for every imagined or real infraction — i.e., “wala talagang disiplina ang mga Pilipino,” “barumbado talaga ang mga Pilipino,” etc.
Thus, the fight against the celebration of Magellan goes beyond camaraderie among historians. It is not even entirely a patriotic act, as suggested by another kupog-kupog historian. It is simply a professional act by properly trained historians in the art of historiography against kupog-kupog or comprador scholarship.