<div class="image-550">
<img src="https://cdn.kahimyang.com/resources-11/demonizing-marcos-sm.webp" alt="Demonizing Marcos" loading="lazy" />
<div>
(Demonizing Marcos, Photo credit: The Manila Times, October 8, 2021)
</div>
</div>

Former senator Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. was interviewed by actress, host and YouTuber Toni Gonzaga for her channel "Toni Talks" last September 13, 2021. Gonzaga is a celebrity casually interviewing popular personalities. She is not Stephen Sackur. She is not even Korina Sanchez or Jessica Soho.


As expected, Marcos was asked about his father, the late strongman Ferdinand Sr., triggering howls of protest from the anti-Marcos camp about how martial law history was being "revised." I can't go into the clumsy misappropriation of the term "historical revisionism" being bandied around by these wet hens, but I promise to devote time for a discussion of it in a future column. However, I was aghast to note that some trained historians were among the chorus of indignant protests. It made me wonder whether there is a serious deficiency in the study of historiography in the country right now.


Why else would trained historians be outraged by Marcos' reminiscences of the past when they should be familiar with this phenomenon by now as active historians? Reminiscences, as a rule, are frequently inaccurate primarily because primary sources or participants in the event which is the subject of memory often have a vested interest in a certain narrative that they want to believe is true. This is why historians are trained not to rely entirely on the reminiscences of primary sources. They are taught to look for corroborating evidence before accepting the contents of memory as a historical fact.

Marcos is not the first or last primary source to have a skewed memory of the past. For the impartial historian, there is nothing extraordinary here.


Certain historians went into wet hen mode, however, because of personal partisan political interests against the Marcoses. Of course, historians are political animals, too. However, it is still disconcerting to witness fellow historians let their political leanings affect their professional responsibilities.


The larger tragedy here is that these historians have been responsible for the emergence of historiographic endogamy concerning the martial law era as a topic of historical inquiry. These historians have banded together to act as gatekeepers of historical factoids and guardians of certain narratives for purely partisan political reasons.


Whenever martial law as a subject of discussion or inquiry crops up, these historians buckle down to make sure the following dogma remain unperturbed: 
<ol>
<li>
Marcos declared martial law to maintain his grip on power; 
</li>
<li>
The martial law era was typified by wholesale human rights violations and corruption; 
</li>
<li>
The conjugal dictatorship of Marcos and wife Imelda ruined the country's future for decades to come.
</li>
</ol>

No factoid, no matter how trivial, should ever be allowed to see the light of day if it contradicts any of the orthodoxy enumerated above. No other thesis nailed on any church door should be given any credence, especially if even a small part of it paints the Marcoses in a positive light.


It is being framed as an epic struggle between the sanctity of their historical orthodoxy and the "lies" spewed by heretics.


Consequently, the martial law era has become one of the most underdeveloped topics in Philippine history. It has fallen prey to historiographic endogamy. The atmosphere is similar to the dogma and zealotry of the medieval Inquisition period.


Don't talk about the flourishing of the arts during this period except to say it was an extravagant distraction to the nation's suffering under a repressive regime.


Don't dare laud the contribution of the monumental "Tadhana" project to Philippine historiography without calling the University of the Philippines historians who were involved - including my professor Zeus Salazar - Marcos lapdogs. Just say that the project served to feed the strongman's hydrocephalic delusions of grandeur.


Don't even dream of blaming the country's economic struggles on the global economic slowdown, the oil crisis or the flawed Washington Consensus prescriptions that our Western-trained economic managers and technocrats blindly embraced. The only acceptable explanation why the Philippines became the "Basket Case of Asia" is Marcosian plunder.


No one should even question that or, God forbid, do research to test whether that causal explanation actually holds water.


Do that and risk being burned alive at the stake. Or be branded, stigmatized and damned for eternity as a "Marcos apologist."




I personally think it is because of partisan political interests and the immense shadow this has cast on historians. Networks of anti-Marcos forces are comfortably and immovably perched in positions of power and influence in key places, effectively discouraging, intimidating and muffling the independent historian.


Anti-Marcos forces dominate key institutions within the academe in the Philippines. They are also seated in positions that have frequent and intimate intercourse with the academe. Consequently, the independent historian has to think about matters like access to grants, fellowships, research projects and other necessary tools for academic advancement because being labeled a "Marcos apologist" is like having a huge anchor weighing them down.


Even if one is considered the foremost expert in a particular field within the discipline of history - or any academic discipline for that matter - one will still be consistently and systematically bypassed, disregarded or overlooked for certain academic opportunities.


"That person is a Marcos apologist."


End of discussion.


No historian in their right mind would ever venture to be involved in anything that might be construed by the gods of the academic Mount Olympus as favorable to the Marcoses. That would be tantamount to academic suicide.


They have to. It is a matter of academic survival.


The Filipino historian does not toe the official line for self-advancement. But they generally don't see the point of needlessly making such a powerful, organized and networked enemy. This especially makes sense if they are neutral or not favorably inclined toward the Marcoses for one reason or another to begin with.


Filipino historians with integrity would never distort history just to be in the good graces of the gods of Mount Olympus. That is why the Solomonic resolution is to simply avoid martial law as a topic of historical inquiry altogether. It's similar to abstinence during Holy Week, only that it has been more like 35 years (since 1986) of continued abstinence.


This is the primary cause of historiographic endogamy related to martial law as a topic of historical inquiry. Historians avoid it like the plague.


Martial law is like the disease referred to in Noli Me Tangere. Nobody wants to come near it. More wretchedly for the country, no modern-day Jose Rizal has the guts to face the wrath of the gods of Mount Olympus and write an impartial history of martial law. Because an impartial history of martial law favors the Marcoses.

Why the martial law era is one of the most underdeveloped topics in Philippine history