“History may have bias but it is based on fact, not opinion. Real History is about Truth, not lies, not fiction,” noted Philippine historian Ambeth Ocampo, in reaction to actress Ella Cruz’ comment in an interview where the actress brushed off past history as mere gossip.
Cruz plays Irene Marcos in the upcoming film ‘Maid in Malacañang,’ regarded by many as a propaganda and an attempt to whitewash the role of the Marcoses in Philippine politics.
Cruz’ dismissive view of Philippine history is seen by not a few opinion makers in the internet as a pitiable attempt to create some semblance of respectability to the historical characters that the film will be portraying.
Her controversial take on the matter, which I suspect was but a knee-jerk response to an equally controversial topic drew a ton of negative reactions from netizens, celebrities, and self-proclaimed opinion makers.
What is disturbing is that when Ocampo weighed in on the controversial remark that he too became the target of vicious attacks from pro-Marcos trolls.
The verbal assaults against the historian have been so vicious such that his attackers often resort to ad hominem argumentations devoid of any empirical and factual basis.
This kind of reasoning is contrived for no other reason than to destroy the reputation and character of the subject. This sort deserves no place in a civilized discourse, let alone in a democratic setting.
Let us examine Ocampo’s statement.
“History may have bias but it is based on fact, not opinion. Real History is about Truth, not lies, not fiction,” One cannot deny that an event or occurrence becomes part of history because there is universal assent that it really happened.
“Otherwise, it is reduced to tsismis and a myth or fiction without any factual basis. Can anyone honestly deny that once upon a time a president named Ferdinand Marcos Sr. became an autocrat who wielded dictatorial powers; that his family and cronies were accused of plunder; that they were booted out by the Filipino people in a revolution?”
Ocampo’s statement correcting the clearly mistaken assertion of Miss Cruz is a perfectly valid point.
But as to whether the presidency of Marcos was good or bad for the country, this is subject to interpretation, the answer depends who is talking impelled only by his own convictions, biases or pertinent personal or vicarious experiences.
Yet it is wrong to viciously attack Ocampo for saying that history may have bias.
Often interpretation of a historical event is tainted with lies and falsehood. If so, it ceases to become history but reduced to “fake news” which is reprehensible due to its pernicious effects to society. Historical distortion, if it gains widespread circulation and acceptance, will become the “ accepted truth”. It then becomes a venom that poisons the hearts of its believers like a gangrenous cancer.
Ambeth Ocampo is a noted Philippine historian with impeccable credentials. He has volumes of published books and papers to his credit, a long-time professor and a respected lecturer.
Before this unfortunate incident, no one dared accuse Ocampo of being a purveyor of fake news in his public presentations which as a noted scholar, I must say, are based on solid research and in-depth study of facts beforehand.
I’m not saying that the historian’s interpretation should be taken as gospel truth.
Admittedly, even experts differ on how to interpret historical facts.
What I’m saying is, we should learn to agree to disagree.
Being tolerant of people who may espouse contrary view, being civil and respectful to them through reasoned persuasion.
Historical events are often wrapped in lies, biases, prejudices, bigotry that have piled up in the course of time, one must slowly peel off these impurities to uncover historical truth based solely on unassailable and iron-clad evidence.
Reliable decisions about past events and identities require an exhaustive use of resources, a knowledgeable interpretation of the records, and a skilled correlation and evaluation of evidence. In the end, each of us will form our own judgment and interpretation of historical occurrences, including the Marcos years.
But to genuinely say that we read history with intellectual honesty, it imperative that our decision is not clouded by convenience, by prejudices or blind loyalty, or any other ill motive.
When Winston Churchill was asked in 1939 about the possible action of Russia, he was quoted as saying “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”
Like Russia in the eyes of the great statesman Churchill, fail safe way to see the Marcos era, or any historical event for that matter, is to judge and decide with national interest foremost on our minds.
Prof. Ambeth, who I claim as a colleague in Ateneo de Manila University and as a good friend, once said that “History does not repeat itself. Its people who repeat it. But we blame history because we do not want to blame ourselves.”
If we allow this attacks on this esteemed historian to continue and we do not come together to defend this truth warrior, we only have ourselves to blame for the kind of country we will leave to future generations.
Website: tonylavina.com Facebook page:
deantonylavs Twitter: tonylavs
