Abellanosa

Is there any sense if we limit the process of historical writing to simple identification and enumeration of details?

Thus, we should understand why the construction of the history of Marcos’regime cannot just be about the litany of the good things he did. While there is validity in the claim that Marcos achieved good things for this country, however, the writing of history about him cannot be limited to the enumeration of these projects. While it is true that the years of Marcos’ administration was not all about Martial Law, a responsible and honest historian cannot say we cannot and should not focus on the Martial Law years and the dictatorship of Marcos.

It is true that we should credit Marcos for the construction of bridges, the Heart Institute, the Cancer Institute, the Rice Institute, etc., but it would be intellectually dishonest and naïve to construct a narrative revolving around these merits. Primarily, the history of a country’s life cannot just be about its infrastructures.

Here’s more. Some if not many people were not arrested during Martial Law is true. That some people liked Martial Law, as claimed by a certain noted priest-jurist, is also true. But this cannot invalidate and cancel out from the equation the fact that many persons who were considered “enemies of the state” disappeared. One cannot say, therefore, in all honesty, that Marcos was a dictator and not a dictator at the same time. Neither can we say that in order to give justice to Marcos, we allow those who were not persecuted to speak of him as good, and as a matter of concession allow those who were persecuted to just describe him as evil. A person who murders one need not murder more people or everyone in order to be a murderer. Are we to get a hundred percent consensus that a leader was a dictator for us to have a full-proof historical conclusion that indeed he was?

We go back to the premise that History is connected to politics and politics to Ethics. The writing of history is based on our political affiliations, and our affiliations are rooted in our ethical convictions. Life, after all, is about making choices. An important question is: are we to allow all interpretations to prevail and have an equal footing in the political sphere? Are there no foundations on the basis of which we can speak of narratives that are acceptable as they are in harmony with what reason allows us to believe and accept as valid?

Someone said that we better read the writings of philosophers Jacques Derrida and Francois Lyotard. But I would like to ask him who suggested these names, why the choice for them? For sure he knows whether Derrida or Lyotard can lead us to something non-relative. I am also wondering if, based on his religious calling, he would be willing to apply the hermeneutical principles of either (thinkers) in the reading of the Gospels.

He who would argue that all we have are “constructs” can claim to be a historian, he may claim to be an astute philosopher or scholar of the law. But apparently, he denies “moral responsibility,” hopefully not because of pretensions of objectivity, brilliance nor plain assertion of scholarly novelty.

Those who write and speak kindly of dictators to the point of canonizing them must admit of their leanings to dictatorship. In fact, they must admit who they are writing for, and above all . . . who they are.