Two days ago, on July 26, the Philippines celebrated with great pomp and circumstance the birthday of the first Supremo of the Katipunan, Deodato Arellano. Of course we all know his story. Born in Bulacan, Bulacan in 1844; Educated at the Ateneo de Manila in bookkeeping; Married to the sister (Hilaria) of famed propagandist Marcelo H del Pilar. He was one of those workers upon which revolutions are built: He was active in La Propaganda, helping del Pilar with fighting for political reforms in the Philippines. La Propaganda did not last long. But, its mission was to raise funds to support Propagandists abroad in Spain, while at the same time disseminating their works in the Philippine colony. With the failure of La Propaganda, Jose Rizal organized La Liga; where Arellano was elected Secretary. That disbanded as well after Rizal's exile to Dapitan on July 7.
On the same day, the Katipunan was founded with Arellano as its first President. The revolutionary minded organization of the Katipunan took place at 72 Azcarraga Street, in Don Deodato Arellano's home. Fancy that.
Other men who were there included Andres Bonifacio, Valentin Diaz, and Teodoro Plata. When Arellano was replaced as President, Roman Basa was elected in his place. Bonifacio in fact was the third President of the Katipunan. There is one another intriguing note: Like the rest Arellano was a Mason. And of course, as well all know, the Masonic Order is definitely a grassroots organization that only sought out the most downtrodden members of society for acceptance into the Order.
We all know this story right? Right? Yeah…right.
Sarcasm aside, this is not the Katipunan that we commonly know. The one that we popularly know erroneously paints a far different picture of the make up of the organization and its membership. Running through the list of those early leaders, even the location of the home where it was founded, demonstrates that the Katipunan was far from a `masa' organization at the onset. Much like the hero mostly commonly associated with it: Andres Bonifacio. They were all professionals, middle managers in modern parlance; who were reasonably well educated and held positions of trust in various established business houses.
Men like Arellano and Basa are little known for what, I suspect, is a simple reason: They are concrete links between the reform movements abroad and in the Philippines and the revolution. Not to mention they create an image of an organization with some affluence and education attached to it. These are links and perceptions that have been almost forcefully managed out of our histories; primarily because they do not fit the preferred narrative of the Katipunan and Bonifacio being exclusively of the `masa.' They make a lie out of popular history (which really is not that hard to do by any means). Oh, and they also hint at the deep familial relationships that were at play in the reform and revolution movements. For some unfathomable reason some of our historians have this sort of perverse fascination with the odd idea that the Philippine revolution spontaneously sprang out of nowhere at the end of the 19th century. They work very hard to disassociate the revolution from the evolution of thought and the formation of a Philippine idea that came before. They refuse to connect familial relationships to the transmission of reformist and eventually revolutionary philosophies. As if it is a bad thing that families became involved in trying to free the Philippines from imperial ownership. These are the perils of histories written by historians who are so rigidly ideologically bound that they are practically wearing blinders. Well, in fact, they are.
There have been some intrepid historians who have tried to create a more accurate image of Philippine revolutionary history. One historian, Jim Richardson, has accomplished what is likely the most exhaustive studies of the history and organizational and membership makeup of the Katipunan. One aspect was delving into the income of various members of the Katipunan and comparing it to the standard salary rates of actual uneducated laborers (i.e. the real proletariat).
It is fairly obvious that Deodato Arellano was reasonably affluent. Roman Basa, who took over the Presidency of the Katipunan after Arellano, earned approximately 50 pesos a month; Bonifacio made approximately 20 pesos a month from his position as a trusted warehouse clerk, an income that he augmented through the creating and selling of walking canes and paper fans. The fact is that almost all of members of the Katipunan made or earned in excess of the median wage. As a matter of fact only one member of the Katipunan could be considered a `laborer.' More often than not, laborers make up the majority of a proletariat; yet, in terms of members, the Katipunan did not quite represent them.
Consider this, among the membership "…there is not a single servant, nor a single sailor, launderer, seamstress or coachman, and yet these modes of employment each occupied thousands. These were the people who truly had to scrape by on the most meager wages ,and these were the people, together with the unfortunates who had no regular means of livelihood, who truly belonged to the `lower stratum.' (Richardson). To put wages in perspective, seamstresses earned about 5 pesos a month, servants and laborers 5-10 pesos a month. The most `affluent' of the bunch were sailors, who made around 12 pesos a month.
The Katipunan was far from comprised of impoverished members of the lowest stratum of Philippine society. Instead, it was formed by educated men of some social standing and economic means.
While this may seem like an attack on the Katipunan, it is not. Let me be clear, you do not have to be of a certain socio-economic strata to fight for equal rights for all, including the `poor.' It instead is a critique of the completely erroneous image of that organization that has been perpetuated and foisted upon us by gross leftist influenced propaganda masquerading as history. The truth is that revolution is preceded by intellectual and economic enlightenment. Those reformist efforts created the necessary awareness and awakening that launched a revolution. Revolution, successful ones at that, are not built on a moment of frenzied mindless `passion' that is too often confused with patriotism. Men like Bonifacio, Arellano, Basa et al may not in fact have been of the `masa.' They were too educated, too successful within the context of the period to be so. Yet, they fought for them. They believed in them. They dreamed of a better Philippines for all Filipinos regardless of social class.
Just like the reformists did; just like men like Aguinaldo and Pardo de Tavera did. What some historians have tried to do is delineate our history along forced class lines: If you were rich, you were not a patriot. If you were poor, you were. Their chosen totems, the Katipunan and Bonifacio, in fact bely that untenable line of historical thinking.
At the same time, we have essentially undermined what it means to create a nation; the process that has to be undertaken and the sheer magnitude of cooperation across all socio-economic strata that is necessary. By twisting our history as we have, we have eliminated the very foundation upon which we can build our country. We have essentially excised out the patriotic and nationalist dreams and sentiments of any except the `downtrodden huddled masses.' An error that has to be remedied soon, else our history will remain what it is today: The lurid fantastical tales created from the imaginations of deluded leftist historian's. These fantasies create contentious misunderstandings which inevitably disassociate the Filipino from his past and his country. A situation that weakens the very fabric of our nation and makes it incredibly difficult to build a shared cohesive future.
It is long past time to rescue and re-understand our heroes and their organizations. We can start with Rizal, we must continue with Bonifacio, the Katipunan, Aguinaldo, the Philippine Republic, and all those who were involved at every step of the way.
PS: Happy Belated Birthday Deodato Arellano. And thank you.
On the same day, the Katipunan was founded with Arellano as its first President. The revolutionary minded organization of the Katipunan took place at 72 Azcarraga Street, in Don Deodato Arellano's home. Fancy that.
Other men who were there included Andres Bonifacio, Valentin Diaz, and Teodoro Plata. When Arellano was replaced as President, Roman Basa was elected in his place. Bonifacio in fact was the third President of the Katipunan. There is one another intriguing note: Like the rest Arellano was a Mason. And of course, as well all know, the Masonic Order is definitely a grassroots organization that only sought out the most downtrodden members of society for acceptance into the Order.
We all know this story right? Right? Yeah…right.
Sarcasm aside, this is not the Katipunan that we commonly know. The one that we popularly know erroneously paints a far different picture of the make up of the organization and its membership. Running through the list of those early leaders, even the location of the home where it was founded, demonstrates that the Katipunan was far from a `masa' organization at the onset. Much like the hero mostly commonly associated with it: Andres Bonifacio. They were all professionals, middle managers in modern parlance; who were reasonably well educated and held positions of trust in various established business houses.
Men like Arellano and Basa are little known for what, I suspect, is a simple reason: They are concrete links between the reform movements abroad and in the Philippines and the revolution. Not to mention they create an image of an organization with some affluence and education attached to it. These are links and perceptions that have been almost forcefully managed out of our histories; primarily because they do not fit the preferred narrative of the Katipunan and Bonifacio being exclusively of the `masa.' They make a lie out of popular history (which really is not that hard to do by any means). Oh, and they also hint at the deep familial relationships that were at play in the reform and revolution movements. For some unfathomable reason some of our historians have this sort of perverse fascination with the odd idea that the Philippine revolution spontaneously sprang out of nowhere at the end of the 19th century. They work very hard to disassociate the revolution from the evolution of thought and the formation of a Philippine idea that came before. They refuse to connect familial relationships to the transmission of reformist and eventually revolutionary philosophies. As if it is a bad thing that families became involved in trying to free the Philippines from imperial ownership. These are the perils of histories written by historians who are so rigidly ideologically bound that they are practically wearing blinders. Well, in fact, they are.
There have been some intrepid historians who have tried to create a more accurate image of Philippine revolutionary history. One historian, Jim Richardson, has accomplished what is likely the most exhaustive studies of the history and organizational and membership makeup of the Katipunan. One aspect was delving into the income of various members of the Katipunan and comparing it to the standard salary rates of actual uneducated laborers (i.e. the real proletariat).
It is fairly obvious that Deodato Arellano was reasonably affluent. Roman Basa, who took over the Presidency of the Katipunan after Arellano, earned approximately 50 pesos a month; Bonifacio made approximately 20 pesos a month from his position as a trusted warehouse clerk, an income that he augmented through the creating and selling of walking canes and paper fans. The fact is that almost all of members of the Katipunan made or earned in excess of the median wage. As a matter of fact only one member of the Katipunan could be considered a `laborer.' More often than not, laborers make up the majority of a proletariat; yet, in terms of members, the Katipunan did not quite represent them.
Consider this, among the membership "…there is not a single servant, nor a single sailor, launderer, seamstress or coachman, and yet these modes of employment each occupied thousands. These were the people who truly had to scrape by on the most meager wages ,and these were the people, together with the unfortunates who had no regular means of livelihood, who truly belonged to the `lower stratum.' (Richardson). To put wages in perspective, seamstresses earned about 5 pesos a month, servants and laborers 5-10 pesos a month. The most `affluent' of the bunch were sailors, who made around 12 pesos a month.
The Katipunan was far from comprised of impoverished members of the lowest stratum of Philippine society. Instead, it was formed by educated men of some social standing and economic means.
While this may seem like an attack on the Katipunan, it is not. Let me be clear, you do not have to be of a certain socio-economic strata to fight for equal rights for all, including the `poor.' It instead is a critique of the completely erroneous image of that organization that has been perpetuated and foisted upon us by gross leftist influenced propaganda masquerading as history. The truth is that revolution is preceded by intellectual and economic enlightenment. Those reformist efforts created the necessary awareness and awakening that launched a revolution. Revolution, successful ones at that, are not built on a moment of frenzied mindless `passion' that is too often confused with patriotism. Men like Bonifacio, Arellano, Basa et al may not in fact have been of the `masa.' They were too educated, too successful within the context of the period to be so. Yet, they fought for them. They believed in them. They dreamed of a better Philippines for all Filipinos regardless of social class.
Just like the reformists did; just like men like Aguinaldo and Pardo de Tavera did. What some historians have tried to do is delineate our history along forced class lines: If you were rich, you were not a patriot. If you were poor, you were. Their chosen totems, the Katipunan and Bonifacio, in fact bely that untenable line of historical thinking.
At the same time, we have essentially undermined what it means to create a nation; the process that has to be undertaken and the sheer magnitude of cooperation across all socio-economic strata that is necessary. By twisting our history as we have, we have eliminated the very foundation upon which we can build our country. We have essentially excised out the patriotic and nationalist dreams and sentiments of any except the `downtrodden huddled masses.' An error that has to be remedied soon, else our history will remain what it is today: The lurid fantastical tales created from the imaginations of deluded leftist historian's. These fantasies create contentious misunderstandings which inevitably disassociate the Filipino from his past and his country. A situation that weakens the very fabric of our nation and makes it incredibly difficult to build a shared cohesive future.
It is long past time to rescue and re-understand our heroes and their organizations. We can start with Rizal, we must continue with Bonifacio, the Katipunan, Aguinaldo, the Philippine Republic, and all those who were involved at every step of the way.
PS: Happy Belated Birthday Deodato Arellano. And thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment