Paris and the hypocrisy of selective humanity

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

FILIPINO | "Jennifer"

Anak siya ng kanyang mga magulang. Kaibigan siya sa kanyang mga kabarkada at kakilala. Nais lamang niya makaraos nang may kakanin sa araw-araw. Marahil, minsan, sa kaibuturan ng kanyang kamulatan ay pinagsisihan niya ang mga kanyang piniling daan. Marahil, naghahanap rin siya ng kaunting pang-unawa at pagtanggap ng lipunan.

Subalit, hindi na mahalaga ang lahat ng ito ngayong patay ni si Jeffrey Laude, o “Jennifer”, sa mga nakakakilala sa kanya. Sa isang iglap, naglahong parang bula sa ating hinagap si Jennifer. Nawalan ng ulirat sa maruming tubig-inidorong sumulasok sa kanyang hininga dahil sa pagngudngod ni Joseph Scott Pemberton sa pagmumukha niya.

Ang tanging kasalanan niya: Dahil binabae siya

Ngunit hindi nagtatapos sa loob ng isang kubeta sa Lungsod ng Olongapo ang pagpatay kay Laude—ito ay isang krimen na patuloy na isinasagawa. Pagkat matapos siyang tanggalan ng buhay at puri sa kamay ng isang banyaga, heto’t tangan ng nakararami sa ating lipunan ang patalim, inuundayan ng saksak ang dangal at pagkatao ng isang namayapa.

Nakapandidiri. Nakasusuka. Ngunit di nakapagtataka. Pagkat hanggang ngayon, ang lipunang ito na ginupo ng kanser ay patuloy na sumisira sa kanyang sariling mga kababayan; humahawa, kumakalat, gaya ng walang lunas naEbola.

Sa isang lipunang nabubuhay sa tsismis, intriga, at kathang isip, asahan na ang pagkutya at panghuhusga sa biktima kaysa sa may-salà. Sa isang lipunang hibang sa banyagang impluwensiya, na mas pipilahan pa ang pagbubukas ng una’t bagong sangay ng H&M o ang pagrampa ng mga babaeng modelong tinaling parang aso, hindi nga naman katawag-tawag na kriminal ang isang puting Kano tulad ni Pemberton.

Si Pemberton ang kumakatawan nga naman sa ating kaligtasan laban sa ating mga kaaway, kaligtasang hatid ng EDCA at ng Amerika. Wala tayong kalaban-laban kapag sinalakay tayo ng Pulang Tsina at sakupin ang ating mgaisla.

Walang ring kalaban-laban si Laude nang i-ngudngod sa inidoro ng puting banyaga. Subalit sa nakararaming Pilipino, hindi naman na ito mahalaga.

Bakit nga naman natin pag-aaksayahan ng panahon ang isang binabaeng mababa ang lipad? Kinalakal niya ang sariling katawan sa mga kalalakihan nang lingid sa kaalaman ng kanyang Aleman na katipan. Isa siyang haliparot. Isa siyang kawatan. Isa siyang salawahan. Dapat lamang sa kanya’y kamatayan!

Kristiyanong sambayanan! Walang dungis o kapintasan! Sige’t ipukol niyo ang bato sa binabaeng mangangalunya!

Bayan kong may kanser, ganito tayo nabubuhay. Umiinog tayo sa nagpapatuloy na nakaraan. Oo’t wala nang mga prayle. Kayumanggi na ang simbahan at pamahalaan. Subalit nakagapos pa rin tayo sa mga dating mananakop at ang mga alipin ng kahapon ang siya namang mga mapang-alipusta ng kasalukuyan.

Ito ba ang tadhana natin? Ang ating tunay na sadlak? Mahigit isandaang taon ng kalayaan, sinayang pagkat walang bait sa sariling kapakanan.

Ngunit marahil, kumpara sa nakararaming Pilipino, mas mapalad pa rin si Laude, pagkat payapa na ang kalooban niya. Habang binubulabog pa rin ang galit at suklam ang puso ng mga kumukutya sa pagkatao at kasarian niya. Mahimbing ka Jennifer, pagkat sa langit ay di ramdam ang masidhing init ng impyernong lipunang ito.

Gaya ni Jennifer Laude, anak ka ng iyong mga magulang. Kaibigan ka ng iyong mga kabarkada at kakilala. Nais mo lamang na makaraos nang may kakanin sa araw-araw. Marahil, minsan sa kaibuturan ng iyong kamulatan ay naghahanap ka rin ng kaunting pang-unawa at pagtanggap ng lipunan—ng kaunting katarungan sa buhay.

Nakikiisa ang The Social Scientist sa pambansang panawagan para makamit ni Jennifer Laude ang hustisya at kabuuang pagtanggap ng lipunang Pilipino sa mga LGBT. #JusticeforJenniferLaude

Photos courtesy of SocialAlerts.com and BeechwoodCross.blogspot.com

OPINION | Of ladies and gentlemen (chivalry must die!)

This story is so hot right now it’s like a jam-packed jeepney.

On Wednesday night, Top Gear Philippines posted on their Facebook page a photo of two female students piggybacking on a public utility jeepney (PUJ) in an unidentified street somewhere in Metro Manila. Top Gear Philippines captioned it as “Is Chivalry Dead?”

Upon its release, netizens were quick to pounce on the story, with most comments decrying the “death” of chivalry and the lack of “gentlemen” inside that jeep. Some have channeled traditional family values in the issue, by saying, “Would you let your mother, wife, or sister experience this?” Others have even resorted to homophobic remarks, calling the men inside the jeep, “gay”, or labeling male supporters of gender equality, as “more female the women.”

But there are those who saw empowerment in the photo. Several netizens cheered the subjects for doing what men can do. Some said it shouldn’t be uncommon to see scenes like this as we are living in the era of gender equality and women empowerment.

The uproar from the photo points to very obvious reasons.

The two subjects wore all-white uniforms composed of a blouse and skirt; one was wearing a pair of flats, the other, leather shoes. The fact that the photo exists obviously says that the driver had allowed the women to piggyback on the jeepney and that they willing did so. Since the two women were blocking the view from inside the jeepney, it cannot be said if there were other passengers in the jeep, whether men or women.

Being a conservative, traditional, quasi-patriarchal, quasi-matriarchal society, a large demographic of Filipinos would definitely decry this situation upon seeing even just the uniforms. Despite the possibility that these women have acted willingly, the initial response is that anyone wearing a skirt shouldn't be put through this kind of situation. For them, a woman should be innocent, prim, proper, elegant, poised, and demure—the archetypal Maria Clara.

Consequently, our society believes that men are like Crisostomo Ibarra: dashing, handsome, courteous, polite, respectful, and honorable—a chivalrous gentleman. As such, they must do all women a favor by giving up their seats inside public transportation, opening and holding doors for them, holding bags and umbrellas for them, among others, and be rewarded with “pogi points” for doing so.

With these rewards, it isn’t hard to see why this won’t be seen as sexism.

But it is sexism for the mere fact that being a gentleman ingratiates men to women, thereby, entitling themselves to a woman’s approval, desire, and love, while deducing that women cannot do such services for themselves. Perpetrating chivalry is to define women as needy, frail, incapable, and lacking in power.

With this reasoning, I do not see anything wrong with women piggybacking on jeepneys and men refusing to give up their seats to strong, equally capable women (if there were indeed men inside the jeepney).

In this era of gender equality and women empowerment, chivalry, as a male construct, must die. Men do not have a monopoly of strength and endurance, and therefore, do not have a monopoly of being courteous, polite, and respectful. And women do not have a monopoly of being at the receiving end of such noble actions. Chivalrous acts must be done by everyone to everyone, but most especially to the elderly, PWDs, pregnant women, children, and those suffering from physical pain, regardless of sex/gender.

In the end, what should be decried instead in this photo is the shabby state of public transportation in the Philippines. Nobody should be left to with just the choice of piggybacking on jeepneys, buses, and trains, whether men or women. We all deserve a safe, comfortable, and decent ride, which should have been Top Gear Philippines’ slant and caption.

Postscript: Top Gear Philippines responded to netizens with a comment, which says:

The catch here is: "We are 100 percent for gender equality, but we will definitely give up our seat for a lady. It's not being sexist. It's not implying that a woman is weak or that she needs to be helped at all times. It just feels right."

Talk about being selfless and self-serving at the same time! 

With that argument, if anyone from Top Gear Philippines, or even "chivalrous" men, were inside that jeep, these women wouldn't be hanging outside in the first place, which obviously proves that they chose to do it because they can. Such comments give us a glimpse of the understanding (and acceptance) Top Gear Philippines has of gender equality.

In a gender fair world, you need not offer your seat to a lady to feel right, nor feel guilty about not giving up your seat, because there is no harm done.

SOCIETY | Caught in the act of helping

Should we put on the spotlight people who commit good deeds?

This is the question that came to my mind in lieu of recent events. For the past two weeks, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge has been making the rounds of news programs and the Internet. Yesterday, I covered The Philippine STAR’s awarding of aid to 28 individuals and groups it featured on its 28 Stories of Giving anniversary campaign.

On my way home from SM North EDSA after the STAR event, I took a passenger van, a Toyota Hiace Grandia with foldable jump seats and a removable stool, which you can place between the normal seats and jump seat so it can comfortably sit four people on the third and last rows.

I was seated on one end of the third row. When the passengers beside me have alighted at their destination, I took the liberty to remove the stool and place it on the empty seat beside so that the people at the last row could easily alight from the vehicle.

After doing this, it dawned on me: What if we thanked and honored every person who committed even small acts of kindness? You know, just tell that random person, “Hey, thanks! You’re my hero!” just others who have witnessed the act can emulate it in the future.

This kind of recognition is, in fact, being done already. When I attended the Social Media Day celebrations at the Samsung Hall of the SM Aura  Premier in Taguig City last June, I met Tim Humangit, founder of the social media enterprise, “Hero of D Day.”

What “Hero of D Day” basically does is it crowd sources stories of small acts of heroism and kindness--a random person helping the elderly cross the street, giving spare food to the homeless, returning lost items to its owners, and so on. I felt it is a good advocacy, especially in a time of too much negativity in social media. It’s a good addition to the growing number of good news that’s been proliferating on the Internet and it does make one have hope in humanity.

That is until the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge went viral.

Pouring a bucket of iced water on yourself to raise awareness and funds for a debilitating disease and getting it all on video isn’t a bad idea initially. But if everybody’s doing it just to get attention for themselves, it does give you doubts about these people’s true intentions.

Which brings me back to my question: Should we put on the spotlight people who commit good deeds?

If we’re keen on helping others and not keen on drawing attention to ourselves, then we should shun whatever form of attention placed on its by others, especially the media. We must keep in mind that we are helping others to feel good and not to look good. Let me elaborate the difference.

If you help the elderly cross the street, you’re doing it because not doing so won’t make you feel good. You’ll worry that something unfortunate might happen to that person. The same thing goes to giving spare food to the homeless. You know what it feels like to be hungry for a very long time, you must understand what these vagrants are going through as well. It doesn’t make you feel good that other people are suffering while you are living comfortably.

Those who help to look good would do good deeds to draw attention to themselves. It’s a classic act in the book of public relations. They want to be known for helping others; they want their names or brand to be tied to the act of lending a helping hand. That’s why when the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge went viral, fame-hungry pop stars and politicians trying to mend their damaged image were quick to catch the trend.

But how about those foundations and non-government organizations engaged in truly helping others? If they advertise their good deeds, does that mean they are doing it just to draw attention to themselves i.e. to attract more donors and members to their organization or is it to inspire others to do the same, sort of a “pay-it-forward” mechanism?

The tendency is to see such as a way to inspire others to do the same. But isn’t the act itself already inspirational that it no longer necessitates advertisement?

It could be argued that advertising such good deeds can inspire a bigger audience. But arguing so is to assume that the bigger audience does not have the ability to discern and perform good deeds. It is to assume that humans in general are incapable of doing good and need to be provided a stimulus in the form of an advertisement just to act.

Take the case of those donors donating anonymously to various causes, or those Secret Santas who would leave gifts to orphanages and homeless shelters. They help without drawing attention to themselves. And yet their actions still inspire others to do the same.

You see, in a time when everyone has become rather individualistic than social--using headphones to prevent you from hearing other people’s music, voices, or noise, movies you can watch alone in your mobile phone, even silent concerts where participants wear headphones--even the act of helping others involves an individualistic motive of getting rewards, such as attention, fame, a better image, or material rewards. 

No longer is helping about empathizing with other people’s plight, putting yourself in other people’s shoes, and feeling good about how good the welfare of others have been. Have we successfully evolved and transcended the focus of our existence from inside going out? Not yet. But I have hope that humanity can still do so.

OPINION | Aquino's combative stance breeds more Noytards

By now, you’ve noticed how onion-skinned President Benigno S. Aquino III is. He has become alarmingly combative of his critics, as if he’s in a shooting rampage in a target range. And the list of individuals and institutions he has attacked is growing longer each week, including TV broadcasters, corrupt senators, former justices, a New York-based newspaper, and even an independent, co-equal branch of government. 

If he continues this combative stance, it might even become the only legacy he leaves behind. “The Complaining President”, we might read in textbooks in the future, for being such whiner, like a slacking, blue-collar worker complaining to his “Boss” when his indolence is pointed out. 

The proliferation of Noytards

I don’t worry at all if this is what he leaves behind. What I am more worried about is his loyalists, these so-called “Noytards”, are becoming more like him each day. If PNoy was a god, then he had created these clones in his “image.” 

These imbeciles loiter the hallways of social media, bullying or picking a fight against any netizen expressing their disgust or disapproval of Aquino. To be fair, there are a lot of imbecile anti-PNoys out there who disapprove without knowing exactly what to disapprove of and why. But these imbecile pro-PNoys do not discriminate their targets; they attack anyone, even those with reasonable grounds for dissent.

Take the case of one Noytard who came lingering in my blog’s Facebook page the other day.

He responded to my comments regarding a piece of news about Aquino’s comments regarding the passage of the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill (APDB). He is questioning if I had taken Aquino out of context when I opined how shameless the President is for questioning the scrutiny politicians like him could get once the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill. 

Let us take another look at what PNoy said in the article:

"Ang hirap nga nito 'yung kawawa na rin kaming mga pulitiko kung tutuusin," Aquino said. "Kapag pulitiko ka dapat bawasan 'yung karapatan mo, dapat mas mataas 'yung scrutiny sa'yo, 'di ba? 'Pag papanatili ng magandang pangalan, 'pag sa pulitiko ka, mali [ang] dynasty," he added. (Source: PNoy on anti-dynasty law: “Kawawa kami”)

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Why is this statement shameless? Because the President is using a defensive tone and wording in favor of politicians like him when it comes to public scrutiny of their actions. He described politicians like him as, "kawawa" (pitiful) once their right or "karapatan" are limited by the potential passage of APDB.

What made his statement even more defensive is what succeeded the aforementioned quote, which did not come out in the Philippine STAR article, but in a GMA News Online article:

Pero kunwari, sa medicine, magretire ang doktor mo. Doktor ang anak niya. Una mong susubukin ang anak niya," he added.

If the President is really committed to reform, he wouldn't use examples like this one. If a doctor retires, even if the successor child is a doctor, you wouldn't want to be treated by that person if you don't know his or her professional track record, right? Some apples fall far from the tree, just as the current president has exhibited in refusing to certify APDB as urgent and allowing it to linger in a Congress dominated by political dynasties. Aquino's actions are as doubtful as the bill's passage in the House of Representatives.

The intolerance of others' opinion

Back to the Noytard: Perhaps he has limited understanding of contextualization, that's why he was shameless enough to question if I interpreted Aquino's statements correctly. He also accused me of being "subjective" in my opinion for calling the President shameless and not true to his word. This is despite the fact that both the Philippine STAR and GMA News Online noted PNoy's apparent defense of politician's rights.

This Noytard must have been unaware that as we look at facts from different realities, there can be no single, comprehensive, and correct interpretation of a statement. Subjectivity is the very nature of opinions, and while opinions are informed by facts, I have not failed to state such facts.

As his comments are already offensive and bordering towards personal, I opted to delete them and ban the user from my Facebook page. Instead of stopping, he resorted to attacking my blog in his timeline.

This is just one evidence that Aquino is breeding netizens as shameless as him. When he is banned for his inappropriate actions on Facebook, this imbecile netizen calls me an enemy of democracy, even as he himself bastardized democracy by opting to silence my opinions.

Opinions as hallmarks of democracy

What every Noytard and even President Aquino has to realize is that in a true democracy, opinions are crucial and tolerated, regardless if they're positive or negative. It is a feedback mechanism from which the government can draw ideas for improvement of performance.

Tolerance means allowing something, such as a belief, to exist even though we dislike or disagree with it. Tolerance does not mean never disagreeing with anybody. The word implies disagreement. True tolerance means allowing differing views to coexist without necessarily agreeing with them or claiming that all views are true.

But if a President has the nerve to dismiss criticisms, it should be worth questioning if he is indeed listening to his "bosses." In a true democracy, a president is humble enough to admit mistakes and lapses committed, instead of stubbornly defending policies that have been declared unconstitutional and making excuses for his allies and political party.

With the number of netizens adopting Aquino's combative stance growing each day, having second thoughts on posting one's opinions is now becoming a grim reality. This kind of intolerance is a form of bullying and dictatorship, as it pushes one's opinions down another's throat and proclaims a sense of infallibility among those imposing their frame of mind.

Hence, a reminder to my readers: it is your choice to visit and read my opinions in this blog. You are free to disagree and express your disagreement to my opinion as long as you maintain your decency in expressing so. In a tolerant world, there are no negative or positive opinions, just opinions.

FILIPINO | Paano natin nakalimutan si Marcos?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” ang sabi ng Espanyol na manunulat at pilosopo na si George Santayana.

Ang kasabihang ito ay tila nagbabadya ng katuparan sa ating lipunan ngayon. Sa dami ng mga taong tila nakalimot na sa ating pinagdaanan mahigit 40 taon na ang nakakaraan, malamang ay makakakita na naman tayo ng isang Ferdinand Marcos sa Malacañang.

Sa mga dumanas ng kaliputan sa ilalim ng Batas Militar, para bang kahapon lamang nang maganap ang mga karumal-dumal na pagpatay, ang walang habas na paniniil, at ang mala-kamay na bakal na pagpigil sa ating kalayaan matapos ang ika-23 ng Setyembre, 1972 (Nilagdaan ni Marcos ang Proklamasyon Blg. 1081 noong ika-21 ng Setyembre).

Subalit sa tinaguriang Facebook Generation—mga Pilipinong ipinanganak matapos ang rehimen at rebolusyon—ang mga pighati, sakripisyo, at pag-aalay ng buhay na ito ay tila wala nang saysay sa kanila.

Bakit nga ba tayo humantong sa ganito? Paanong nakalimutan ng bagong henerasyon ang ating mga ipinaglaban sa kabila ng taunang paggunita dito? Ano ang maaari nating gawin upang di tuluyang magkatotoo ang mga salita ni George Santayana sa ating panahon?

Ang pagkalimot ay nakasulat na sa kasaysayan

Ang kasaysayan ay puno ng mga pangyayari na kung saan tila ba nakalimot ang isang bansa o lipunan sa kanilang ipinaglaban ilang taon o dekada ang lumipas matapos ang pangyayari.

Isang halimbawa ay ang Rebolusyong Pranses mula 1789 hanggang 1799. Sa loob ng sampung taong panahon na ito, pinatalsik ng lipunang Pranses ang kanilang hari na si Louis XVI at nagtatag ng isang malayang republika na kumikilala sa karapatang pantao.

Subalit, ang kaguluhang dala ng tinaguriang Reign of Terror mula 1793 hanggang 1794 ay nagdulot ng pagkakawatak-watak ng republika at ang pagluklok ng mga Pranses sa isang panibagong hari, si Napoleon Bonaparte.

Isa pang magandang halimbawa ay ang Una at Ikalawang Digmaang Pandaigdig (1914-1918 at 1939-1945). Matapos matalo ang Imperyong Aleman at mga alyado nito laban sa pinagsamang pwersa ng Amerika, Britanya, Italya, at Pransya noong 1918, tila nakalimot ang mga Aleman sa mga aral ng digmaan.

Sa loob lamang ng 15 taon ay nailuklok naman sa pinakamataas na pwesto ng Alemanya ang diktador na si Adolf Hitler na nagdala sa daigdig sa isang panibagong digmaan.

Tila ba di makakalimutan ng mundo ang malagim na Final Solution ni Hitler, isang sistematikong programa ng paglipol sa milyun-milyong Hudyo, Gypsies, at mga Komunista, at hanggang ngayon ay isa sa pinakamalagim na bahagi ng kasaysayan ng daigdig.

Ngunit matapos ang Ikalawang Digmaang pandaigdig, sumulpot sa Alemanya noong dekada 50 at 60 ang mga Nachgeborenen o mga Alemang ipinanganak matapos ang digmaan.

Sa kabila ng masalimuot na kasaysayan ng kanilang bansa, nahirapan ang bagong henerasyong ito na makamit ang Vergangenheitsbewältigung o ang proseso ng pagtanggap sa kanilang nakaraan. Maraming kabataang Aleman ang tila di batid ang mga ginawa ng rehimeng Nazi, habang ang iba pa’y pinuri at binigyang pugay ito (ipinakita sa atin ito ng aklat ni Bernhard Schlink na The Reader).

Ang lipunang Pilipino sa ilalim ng makabagong henerasyon ay nakararanas din ng kabiguang matanggap ang kanilang nakaraan. Kaya di nakapagtatakang marami sa kanila ang hindi alam ang saysay ng Batas Militar at ng Rebolusyon sa EDSA.

Marami sa kanila ang aktibo pa nga sa pagpuri at pag-idolo kay Marcos at sa mga ginawa niya sa kabila ng malagim na resulta nito.

Paano tayo humantong sa ganito?

Ang mundo ay higit nang nababalot sa impormasyon. Ang Information Age ay nagdulot ng pag-usbong ng mga makabagong midyum kung saan ang impormasyon ay madaling likhain at palaganapin.

Sa halip na mga aklat at pahayagan, ang tangan ng mga kabataan ngayon ay ang Internet: isang alkansya ng kaalaman sa dulo ng ating mga daliri.

At dahil sa dali ng paglikha at pagpapalaganap ng impormasyon sa Internet, naging pagkakataon ito sa mga loyalista ni Marcos upang magpakalat ng mga kasinungalingan at iretoke ang imahe ni Marcos.

Isang Marcos na taga-pagligtas ng demokrasya laban sa komunismo. Isang Marcos na nagpaangat sa Pilipinas upang maging pinakamatatag na ekonomiya noong panahon niya.

Sa kasamaang palad, madaling maniwala ang bagong henerasyon, nang walang pagsusuri sa pinagmulan ng impormasyon at sa katotohanan sa likod nito.

Ang sitwasyong ito ay lalo pang pinalala ng ating masalimuot na sistema ng edukasyon sa bansa. Dahil sa pagbibigay-diin sa mga paksang gaya ng Matematika, Ingles, at Siyensya, napabayaan at di nabigyan ng sapat na pansin ang pagtuturo ng kasaysayan.

Ang mga pangunahing subject na ito ay may mas mahabang oras ng pagtuturo at mas malaking unit sa pagmamarka. Kadalasan pa nga’y nabibigyang diin din ito ng mga kaakibat na elective subjects.

Ang kasaysayan ng Pilipino ay naibaba bilang isang minor subject at itinuturo na lamang ng tatlong beses (minsang pa nga’y isang beses) sa isang linggo, sa loob lamang ng 40 minuto hanggang isang oras.

Dahil kulang ang oras, sa pagtatapos ng taong pampaaralan, ang pagtalakay sa kasaysayan ay kadalasang umaabot lamang sa panahon ng mga Amerikano o ng mga Hapon. Ang panahon ng Ikatlong Republika, Martial Law, at Rebolusyong EDSA ay mga pahina sa mga aklat na di man lang nabubuklat.

Hindi rin itinuturo ang kasaysayan batay sa mga pangunahing batis o primary sources. Hindi tuloy nalalaman ng mga mag-aaral kung paano magsuri ng mga batayan ng impormasyon, kung totoo ba ito o may kinikilingan. Walang matinong pagsasanay ang mga mag-aaral sa historyograpiya.

Kaya naman paniniwalaan ng mga kabataan ngayon ang anumang maganda tungkol kay Marcos, basta't nasa Internet ito.

Malaking balakid din ang pagkakaroon ng mga gurong walang tamang pagkakaunawa sa kasaysayan. Sa Ilocos Region at sa lalawigan ng Leyte, may mga gurong itinuturo ang Martial Law at Rebolusyong EDSA ng taliwas sa sinasabi ng kasaysayan.

Paano maaalala ng bagong henerasyon ang malagim na bahagi ng ating kasaysayan kung heto’t ang mga natuturo sa kanila ay mga loyalista ni Marcos na handang baluktitin ang mga pangyayari sa nakaraan?

Ang pag-aaral ng kasaysayan ay tungkol na lamang sa pagmemorya ng mga pangalan, pangyayari, mga pook, at petsa. Hindi na ito tungkol sa pagsusuri ng mga dahilan, ng pagtitimbang sa mga pagkilos ng mga grupo at indibidwal.

Sa kasalukuyang K to 12 Curriculum, higit na naibaba ang estado ng pagtuturo ng kasaysayan. Ang pagtuturo ng kasaysayan ng Pilipinas ay ibinaba na lamang sa Grade 5 at 6: mga baitang ng mga mag-aaral na wala pang kakayahan na malalimang suriin ang mga pangyayari sa nakaraan.

Sa madaling sabi, sa K to 12 Curriculum, tila ang kasaysayan ay nawalan ng saysay.

Nakalimutan nating magbantay

Subalit, kung may pinakamalaking dahilan upang makalimot ang bagong henerasyon tungkol kay Marcos, ito ay ang kalagayan ng bansa natin ngayon.

Apatnapung taon mula nang ideklara ang Batas Militar at halos tatlumpung taon mula nang maibalik ang demokrasya noong Rebolusyong EDSA, nananatili ang mga suliranin na kinaharap natin noon at siyang rason ng bagong henerasyon ngayon upang ikarangal ang palalong si Marcos.

Kahirapan. Kawalan ng oportunidad. Tatsulok na lipunan. Kriminalidad. Katiwalian. Political Dynasties. Padrino System. Ang maruming pulitikang ipinakilala sa atin ni Marcos ay nagpapatuloy sa kabila ng panunumbalik ng demokrasya.

Ito ay sumasalamin sa kabiguan ng ating lipunan na matutunan ang mga aral ng Batas Militar at EDSA. Inakala natin na sa pagpapalit ng administrasyon nagtatapos ang laban.

Nagkamali tayo ng akala. Hindi natin pinanatili ang pagbabago. Bagkus, hinayaan natin na ang halimbawang ipinakita ni Marcos ay magpunla sa puso ng ating mga lider at higit pang lumaganap hanggang sa ang buong sistema ay maging halos permanente na.

Hindi natin tinuruan ang bagong henerasyon na maging mapanuri, magmatyag, at magbantay. Hinayaan natin silang lumaki sa layaw, gawin ang mga walang kapararakang bagay, at maging bulag sa kanilang nakaraan.

Nabigo tayong magbantay. Nanumbalik tayo sa ating mga trabaho, sa ating tahimik na buhay.

Pagpapanatili ng pagbabago

Hindi pa naman huli ang lahat upang labanan ang mawalakang amnesia na ito sa ating bansa. Kung talagang gusto ay may paraan at may mga grupo at indibidwal na sumasabay sa nagbabagong panahon upang patuloy na ituro ang mga aral ng nakaraan.

Suportahan natin sila. Makibahagi tayo sa pagpapaalala at pagpapalaganap ng katotohanan. Palaganapin ninyo ang pahayag na ito, sa inyong mga kaibigan, kakilala, lalong lalo na sa kabataan. 

At higit sa lahat, kumilos tayo upang makamit ng ating bansa ang pangarap nito na maalis ang kahirapan at kawalan ng oportunidad, sa pamamagitan ng patuloy paglaban sa katiwalian at maling gawain, nang naaayon sa katotohanan, katwiran, at katibayan.

Pagkat habang nananatili ang mga suliraning nagmula pa sa rehimeng Marcos, mananatiling siyang buhay bilang isang bayani sa mga mang-mang at walang muwang. Huwag ninyong hayaan na magpunla at mabuhay si Marcos sa puso nating lahat.

Sabi nga ni George Santayana: 

“Ang pag-unlad ay di lamang pagbabago; ito ay nakasalalay sa pagpapanatili ng pagbabago. Kung ang pagbabago ay tiyak, walang daan o sinuman na kailangan pang baguhin; at kung hindi mananatili sa atin ang alaala, gaya sa malulupit na tao, ang kawalan ng muwang ay habambuhay.”

Mga batayang batis:
Kennedy, Emmet (1989). A Cultural History of the French Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Evans, Richard J. (2003). The Coming of the Third Reich. New York; Toronto: Penguin.

Herf, Jeffrey. (1997) Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bonner, Raymond (1987). Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy. New York: Times Books.

Seagrave, Sterling (1988): The Marcos Dynasty, Harper Collins