PI 100 | Komentaryo (Heroes, Historians and the New Propaganda Movement)

Group 4: Balgos, Flores, Garcia, Onza, Villena

Heroes, Historians and the New Propaganda Movement primarily discusses the roots of
specific events occured in the 1950s that may have contributed to the “creation of the Philippine
consciousness” for the coming decades. Prior to the events that led to the conviction of several
Communist Party members in 1951, a speech by Elpidio Quirino in the same year aimed to instill
nationalism within the Filipinos through the study of our history and by emulating the philosophies
of our national heroes. Behind this speech, however, Lansang’s footprints can be found and his
agenda can be pointed out leaning towards devaluing the efforts and the essence of armed
struggle and rebellions in the role of nation-building; at our country’s independence, a need for a
new Propaganda Movement should be necessary to keep it afloat. On the other hand, De La
Costa, a Jesuit historian, would perceive that the Communist-Huk rebellions are brought about
by a power vacuum due to the decolonization of the country, and that to prevent its success, a
Church-led revolution of the mass would be needed.

Ileto reiterates an idea from the hegemony reading that the study of heroes plays a huge
role in developing a national identity. As such, it can be argued that those who are able to define
and shape a hero’s image over the masses holds the authority in building the nation, which
includes defining the concept of nationalism and dictating ideals that would influence the nation.
Nation-building should be close to the masses but instead, the process of nation-building is
mostly entrusted to the government, primarily with the leadership of a US-puppet Quirino in the
context of the reading. Unfortunately, our understanding of our heroes is superficial, mainly
because of colonial influence, which is why it is difficult for us to establish our national identity,
letting those in power find ease in twisting the heroes’ narratives for their personal interests.
Colonialism has been a major factor in losing our national identity as well as the real life and
works and of our heroes. As long as people are not able to access the “real” life and works of
our heroes, these heroes can be molded into something favorable by those in power to serve
their own interests.

The New Propaganda movement that Lansang instigated by installing intellectuals in the
government is mostly problematic since it doesn’t only show elitism but it also takes away the
revolution and the capability for nation-building from the masses. The New Propaganda
movement is similar to the propaganda movement during Rizal’s time wherein only the middle-
class and the rich have the access to quality education; having this system creates uncertainty
in the execution of a revolution since the middle-class holds the key to its success but they
always have the choice to join and give it to masses or give up the entire movement. Dela
Costa’s assertion that the Catholic Church should be the key in nation-building, as the reading
states that “Rizal’s nation was built upon a largely Roman Catholic community,” is also
problematic because of the nature of his assertion. For Dela Costa, the influence of the Catholic
Church should be used to combat the rising influence of communism in the country. Thus, the
Catholic Church pushed its influence to the education and politics sectors, where the Church
teach religion alongside with history and civics, and where the Church endorsed Magsaysay
and identified him as “one close to the masses.” Even though the Church plays a role in
influencing the masses and many see the Church battling the State, the Church is still used to
promote a form of nationalism that favors the State, and further, the US.

With this, is it problematic to establish a sense of national identity using our heroes? We
must take note that our understanding of our heroes is not the sole contributor in forming our
national identity, but it is one of the factors that has to be considered. Heroes have been used
as a tool to establish a national identity, but they were framed according to the ideas and
interests of those in power. To build a stronger national identity and self-confidence we must be
able to study thoroughly the history and make it a point to provide avenues for its learning to not
just the middle and upper class but everyone else so they can join in the discussions and
empower the masses.

Aside from our history we should look deeper at our current economic and political
struggles and be transparent about this to the masses so that everyone is empowered to decide
for the nation given all the problems its facing today. Lastly, we tie our reading back to the
balance of reform and revolution which we’ve seen worked back in 1896. Maybe this is what we
need now as a nation in order to bring down the likes of Duterte: a balance between intellectual
discourse and mass movement, banding together of the middle class and the masses, in order
to take down the ruling elite and the imperialists.