Monday, January 23, 2012

SPLIT-LEVEL CHRISTIANITY by Fr.Jaime Bulatao,S.J. (1966) - Part 2 of 2


"Many Filipinos are what I call Sunday-religious, that is they go to church every Sunday, take in confession and communion, but the rest of the week they bribe and do corrupt deeds..." - Dr. Pura Santillan-Castrence


PART 2 OF 2:

Hi All,

Fr. Bulatao, S.J.'s essay is a synthesis of Christian/Catholic theology and social science thus expectedly with a Christian spin in it, especially on this Part 2 of 2; posted here in its entirety for consistency, that is, as he has originally written it.

However, I personally think and believe that [personal and social] ethics and morality do NOT necessarily emanate only out of having a religion or being a believer in a "God" (for us: the monotheistic Christian God as traditionally or Biblically understood or other). 

There are atheists, agnostics, pagans, non-Christians and what have you who were/are more ethical/moral and unselfishly act for social justice than those who are self-proclaimed or supposedly religious Christians of various shades: Catholics, mainline Protestants, Pentecostals or Evangelicals.

In short, I believe in the possibility of a Godless morality, though I admit that it is much more difficult to attain. With religion that stresses fear of supernatural justice or retribution, then believers will tend to follow what they think or are taught as God's (or gods') will.

- BERT



To see Part 1, Click to open/read --->: Split-level Christianity, Part 1 of 2



It's been almost 40 years ago when at 19, I first read this enlightening essay on "split-level" Christianity by Fr. Jaime Bulatao, S.J.. Given the interest on Filipino ethical/moral values, I am posting it here.

Fast forward today, I find that the given situational samples in the essay were quite "simple" and "mild." In fact, I find them almost laughable compared to the excessiveness and gravity that characterize "split-leveling" in current times. 


Anyway, the bottom line is that "split-leveling" by a self-proclaimed Christian is to be unChristian (vis-a-vis what I understand as being Christian from my years of Catholic upbringing).

As to the Catholic Church, it is amusing, at best, to wonder why the Catholic Church, despite its dominant influence in the homeland, seems to have failed to instill what it always claim to develop: "the whole person," alluding to the so-called "higher needs" such as those theorized under Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs”.

Given the prevailing social conditions in our so-called only Christian country in Asia, they only demonstrate that the church, despite its proclamation of being the "church of/for the Poor," has consistently and continually failed in its mission to teach and lead the Filipino Christians to live its social teachings.

[BTW, comparatively speaking I would qualify that there are Christians, i.e. American Protestant variety (AP), more specifically Pentecostal/Evangelical Protestants, who can not be expected to care or act for social justice issues as their essential belief system does not put value on social works; since for APs: "personal salvation" depended SOLELY on absolute faith in Jesus (i.e. good works do not count.]

Has our Catholic Church in the homeland been stressing something else
 than addressing our present social realities, of our illiterate, ignorant and impoverished majority? How come Filipino Catholicism is more concerned about its religious liturgy and tradition and personal piety than its proclaimed concern/message of social justice? 

Such attitude and behavior have only made our homeland Christianity an effective and efficient nurturer of hypocrisy among its hierarchy and followers.

Fr. Bulatao's essay, though written almost two generations ago, is still very relevant in gaining knowledge and understanding of our Filipino selves and maybe even lead to changes to better ourselves in terms of acting for social justice -- not towards empty religiosity-- and a better homeland society for most, if not all, subsequent generations


initially posted only that part which exemplified "split-leveling" and labeled Part 1. However I have noted that the subject matter has been/is very popular among visitors. I now include hereunder Part 2, which deals with Catholic theology and social science/psychology to explain the "why" behind split-leveling and "how" it can be overcome, and with practical emphasis on the role of priest/minister as a facilitator/role model in inculcating authentic Christian/Catholic social morality in actual living/real life.


I guess the popularity of the postings on Filipino values stems from our desire for:  learning, deeper understanding and finding solutions to the continuing national predicaments being inflicted on the lives of past and present generations of the native Filipino majority, appreciating and realizing that a significant part of the problem is ourselves (us Filipinos).  I think and believe that  many of our national problems are created and/or heightened, knowingly or unknowingly, by our so-called Filipino Norm of Morality.


Let us hope and  work for, in our own little way at the very least, this realization to come sooner (as it is almost too late), and recognize the need for changes in our Filipino traits and values:  to employ the positive and dampen the negative potentials in our Filipino Value System, and appreciate the less selfish or higher need for a strong sense of national community which we desperately miss, expressed in terms of national unity, i.e. nationalism; the sine qua non for national progress, that is, the attainment of the common good.

-Bert


*********************************************



Continuation as Part 2 of 2:


Why unconscious
Why is the incongruence of the two levels not felt? A probable reason is the nature of the top level, namely its conceptual quality. It works merely in the realm of symbols, not of existential reality. Hence their is a feeling of unrealism about it. In Dr. Jocano's example, the respondent when challenged on the incongruity of his having agreed with the pastor on Sunday and his actual behavior during the week said: " That is what he (the pastor) has to say." 

There is a feeling that the authority figure is only saying what he says out of a sense of obligation, not because things are so. Only two contrary experiences can bring about awareness of the problem. As long as one side remains on the level of concept, the problem is not felt. The incongruence remains unconscious.


Another way of looking at the same thing is to say that perhaps the culture lacks actual models in whom the split has been overcome. In their absence, society takes the split for granted as if it expected that people would always be so. Thus schoolchildren in Manila are taught not to cross the street while they see a red light facing them, but they take for granted that no one need follow such seemingly arbitrary rules, which apply to cars but not to pedestrians. 

Only when adults have learned to wait for the light to turn green before crossing the street --only then will the schoolchildren become conscious of the incongruity of running across a street while the red light is on, becaue by then they will have models within society who will teach them what the abstract school atmosphere cannot teach. But as long as incongruence is taken for granted as normal, it will remain unconscious.


Reason for the Separation of the Two Levels
Why do the two levels remain separate? Modern psychology may give the answer. "Learning is specific to a situation." One learns a response to a particular stimulus, and does not give the same response to another stimulus unless the second stimulus is experienced as similar to the first. So too, where one set of responses, namely the top level is learned within a second setting, and the other set of responses, the lower level, is learned in a street and home setting, and as long as these two settings are dissimilar, the two responses will remain specific to their own milieu.


Now, the setting of the Christian authority figure, especially the foreign missionary, is often quite different from the setting of home and street. Let us look once more into the concept of distance, not now as the consequence of split-level, but as an outstanding cause, for we seem to be concerned here with one of those deep vicious circles of a social institution. The distance between the authority figure and the home-and-street setting sets up two different stimuli-response systems, which create the split-level in the individual which in turn creates more social distance.


"Distance"
What is this "distance" which the priest after ordination or other christian authority  figure (nun, brother,minister, etc.) maintains from the milieu? First is the intellectual distance. The priest was brought up as an abstract, conceptual system of philosophy and theology which "jelled," reached its systemic form, in 13th century Europe. Undoubtedly, the system itself reached great depths of insight (e.g. Analogy of Being, God as Pure Act), but is large part had lost contact with the living stream of knowledge, especially the empirical sciences and modern arts.


Many seminarians learn their philosophy by rote. Only a few acquire real insight, and even these find difficulty in translating what they learned in Latin into everyday vocabulary. A sad sight to see is that of a priest subiendo mas alla, using the language and concepts he learned in the seminary and gaining blank stares from a captive congregation.


But even this intellectual gap could have been bridged if the priests had emotional ties with his congregation which would have permitted him to "take the role of the other." put himself in their place, and talk to them in the meaningful terms of their milieu. But the priest is either a foreigner,an outsider or a Filipino who was removed from his natural habitat at 11 or 12 and brought up in isolation from it. His emotional ties are for the most part restricted to his family. he lacks the emotional experiences to identify with non-relatives to successfully "take their role" within his imagination. he has to maintain emotional distance from them.


Perhaps it is this intellectual and emotional distance which is in part responsible for the phenomenon noted above (cf. the incident on the bus) of an ambivalent attitude towards the priest. There is simultaneously a deep reverence for him as well as a semiconscious or even unconscious rejection of him. The culture which the priest rejected in turn rejects him. From the culture's viewpoint, he is not "one of us," not a member of the "kami." 


Hence the attitude towards him is one of ambivalence, one must please and placate him and at the same time one must find someway to be oneself, to express one's real drives and needs. Hence one puts him at a distance so that one can lead one's life at a deeper level without too much interference.


HOMEOSTASIS
As in most cases of enduring social phenomena, there is a homeostatic balance in society which keeps split-level Christianity going, a sort of vicious circle of mutually reinforcing stimuli. In this case, the pushing away of the Christian authority figure tends to bring about the failure of Christianity to pervade the mass. On the other hand, the failure of Christianity to pervade the mass results in the pushing away of the Christian authority figures. The authority figures pushes the "sinful" mass (the "world') away from himself (Noli me Tangere). In turn the mass, being distant from the sanctifying influence of the authority figure, remains "sinful."


Undoubtedly, the term "sinful" must not be taken in its absolute, theological sense. perhaps "pagan" is a more fitting word. Perhaps it is more of the uncomfortable feeling such as that contained in the malicious, raucous laughter of the uncouth young men in a mob or in the eerie music of gongs coming from a Buddhist temple. But in any case, there is a gap between this pagan or sinful mutual pushing away of each other, a gap which reflects in the social area the split-level which is found in the individual.


Authorization Method of Instruction
Such is the distance producing mechanism within the society. This mechanism in turn sets up other self-reinforcing mechanisms, of which we shall look at only one;: the authoritarian method of instruction.


Since such a distance exists between  teacher and taught, since the teacher is brought up on a fopreign, abstract set of concepts, and since he lacks the experiential knowledge which could permit him to translate the concepts in terms of experienced reality, his only recourse is to have his students learn these concepts by rote. Furthermore, since the students have not experienced many of these concepts within their own culture, the concepts for them degenerate into mere words, to be memorized and given back to pleas the teacher. 

And since the teachers themselves, because of the distance-making mechanism, have not experienced the full realities of their students' culture, they are further hindered from translating the concepts they possess into terms which will be meaningful to the students. They can not hold dialogue. They can only impose authority.



Thus there appears the upper of the split-levels in the mind of the student, a level of concepts and words, interesting enough as bits of erudition but lacking the explosive power, the driving force of the "archetypes" of one's own culture. Thus it becomes possible to hold certain truths in the abstract, to look upon oneself as a Catholic rather than as an Aglipayan or an Iglesia ni Kristo and at the same time simultaneously be thinking and doing things objectively inconsistent with the abstract principles, and in the concrete behaving very much the same as the Aglipayan or Iglesias!


Hence, students can agree in class that bribery is wrong and after class pay the policeman a five-peso bill to be let-off a speeding charge (five pesos is the accepted fine for students, one or two pesos for jeepney drivers.) Girls can promise their sodality mistress never to wear jeans, but outside the school nonchalantly wear somewhat less than jeans. An objective listener, hearing such inconsistencies, might say that sometimes the abstract doctrine is wrong, sometimes the students are wrong, and sometimes the teachers are wrong


But in any case, there is an obvious lack of integrity. What is needed is some inner process of growth by which a man can reject principles which he really believes to be stupid or on the other hand subject his thinking and behavior to principles which eh really sees to be valid.


Summary: The Ego as Politician
Thus it can be seen that split-leveling is the way the Filipino learns to handle the opposing pressures of two distinct groups holding different values. He has to  please both groups. Like a politician in the provinces who has to entertain simultaneously a group of mestizos and a group of local farmers and solves his dilemma by placing the mestizos in the sala on the top floor and the farmers downstairs, so the Filipino pressured by two opposing value systems solves his dilemma by keeping them apart and by simply ignoring the inconsistencies.


His is an unconscious mechanism. The educational system itself conspires to keep the contradictions unconscious since the individual is rarely forced to think out his two systems, one in terms of the other. All he is asked to do is to give rote answers, to give what his teacher expects him to answer. At this task he is adept. Rarely is he placed in a situation such as in a class under a non-authoritarian teacher or in an ongoing discussion group where he is allowed to really be himself, so that in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom, supported by like-minded friends, he can reflect into his real feelings and reconcile them with his abstract principles.


One might as a social scientist end this paper her. But as a Christian, one may venture another question: what can be done about split-level Christianity? Can we indicate some broad lines leading to its solution? The fact that Filipinos hold on to both levels is indicative that there is some value in both. One cannot now act as the missionaries of old, who burned everything pagan as though it were from the devil.  Perhaps rather, by allowing more interplay between the two levels we can come up with something new, which will be fully Christian and fully Filipino at the same time.


This interplay might well take the form of a dialogue between the two groups represented by the levels. On the social level the Christian authority figure must be closer to his people. On the individual level, the Christian system of thought and behavior must be allowed to sink into and pervade the whole man. While it is admitted by all that some kind of religious education is needed to obtain this end, it also seems fairly obvious that something more than the old type of authoritarian, stereotyped instruction, is badly needed


Increasing the conceptual pressure merely increases the resistance in the hearer. Like the wind in the fable which tried tr remove the man's coat by blowing and succeeded only in making the man wrap his coat tighter around himself, so also the torrent of words, meaningless to the 20th century listener, the stronger the resistance to it and the wider the gap between the teacher and the student, between the Christian thought-and-behavior system and the thing called "life."


Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical, "Ecclesiam Suam," outlines a possible solution. Pope Paul says, "When the Church distinguishes itself from human nature, it does not oppose itself to it, but rather unites itself to it...The Church should enter into a dialogue with the world in which it exists and labors." Dialogue then is the keyword in the Christianization of Modern Man. By contrast to the Latinized, authoritarian, ethnocentric teaching of old, its characteristics according to Paul VI are: clearness, meekness, an attitude of welcoming the trust of the interlocutor, an esteem for the psychological and moral circumstances of the listener. 


The Pope describes how this dialogue is to be be carried on:
"And before speaking, it is necessary to listen, not only to a man's voice, but to his heart. A man must first be understood, and where he merits it, agreed with. In the very act of trying to make ourselves pastors, fathers and teachers of men, we must make ourselves their brothers,. The spirit of dialogue is friendship and, even more, service."
Here then is a possible line of action to close the gap between the Christian authority figure and the common mass, namely friendship, brotherhood and listening attitude.


Apostolate of Participation
To prepare the social context for such as dialogue, there may be much to be gained from a distinct form of the Apostolate whose specific aim is to bridge the distance between men of the Church and an unchristian world. The priest has to take the initiative. Relying on his common humanity, he has to work with men on the common task s of everyday temporal living, of developing the community's material and personnel resources on welfare organizations.

He has to sit on committees whose organizational structure is secular and built by seculars, and in which he has no power except what is given him by the democratic organization. he thus sits with his equals and participates in their life. He learns and he teaches, he gives and he takes. His apostolate may thus be called the Apostolate of participation, the participation of the clergy in the life of the laity.


Such an Apostolate of Participation will mean a willingness to give up much of the "power" which historical and cultural evolution after Constantine has vested in the churchman (Congar, 1964). The priest may have to shed certain symbols, such as the religious habit, which set him apart and give him a privileged status. In turn, he gains acceptance among men, as a member of mankind, not as a guest. 


As Paul VI says,
"The world can not be saved from the outside. As the Word of God became man, so must a man to a certain degree identify himself with the forms of life of those to whom he wishes to bring the message of Christ.  Without invoking privileges which would but widen the separation, without employing unintelligible terminology, he must share the common way of life --provided that it is human and honorable --especially of the most humble if he wishes to be listened to and understood." (Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam.)


Incarnation versus Split-Level
There must  first come about a change of attitude in those who are the culture's authority figures. They must reflect in their own lives the model of the first teacher.


Christ was incarnated, took flesh as a man among men. The priest must not be afraid to be a man among men. One must not thank God that he or she is not like the rest of men. In the Gospel the one who did so was the Pharisee. "Taking flesh" means being with one's own time and place, speaking its idiom, wearing its dress, weeping with it, and, by one's presence, sanctifying it.


References
Bulatao, J. "A Social-Psychological View of the Philippine Church," 1965. In The Encounter. Braganza,J. (Manila, Catholic Trade School, 1965)


Congar, Yves,O.P. "Power and poverty in the Church". (Trans. Jennifer Nicholas) Baltimore, Helicon, 1964.


Jocano,F.L. "Conversion and the Patterning of Christian Experience in Malitbog, Central Panay, Philippines" (Philippine Sociological Review, 1965, 13, 96-119).








"Beware of the yeast of Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops." (Luke 12, NRSV)

**********************************


***********************************************************
PLEASE DONATE CORE SUBJECT BOOKS TO OUR HOMELAND (i.e. your hometown public schools, alma mater, etc.). Those books that you and/or your children do not need or want; or buy books from your local library during its cheap Book Sales. It is a small sacrifice. Also, cargo/door-to-door shipment is best. [clean up your closets or garage - donate books.THANKS!]
***********************************************************

I consider the following previous posts and the RECTO READER are essential about our homeland and us native, Malay Filipinos; and are therefore always presented in each new post. Click each to open/read.
  1. WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW:
  2. WHAT IS NATIONALISM [Filipino Nationalism]?
  3. Our Colonial Mentality and Its Roots 
  4. The Miseducation of the Filipino (Formation of our Americanized Mind)
  5. Jose Rizal - Reformist or Revolutionary?
  6. The Purpose of Our Past, Why Study (Our) History?
  7. Studying and Rethinking Our Philippine History
  8. Globalization (Neoliberalism) – The Road to Perdition in Our Homeland
  9. Resisting Globalization (WTO Agreements)
  10. Virtues of De-Globalization
  11. Our Filipino Kind of Religion
  12. Our Filipino Christianity and Our God-concept
  13. When Our Religion Becomes Evil
THE RECTO READER is presented in several postings. Click each to open/read:

NOTE: Recto's cited cases, examples or issues were of his time, of course; but realities in our homeland in the present and the foreseeable future are/expectedly much, much worse. Though I am tempted to update them with current issues, it's best to leave them as they are since Recto's paradigms about our much deepened national predicament still ring relevant, valid and true. In short, Recto saw the forest and never got lost in the trees.- Bert



  1. THE FILIPINO MIND blog contains 532 published postings you can view, as of December 12, 2012. 
  2. The postings are oftentimes long and a few readers have claimed being "burnt out."  My apologies. The selected topics are not for entertainment but to stimulate deep, serious thoughts per my MISSION Statement and hopefully to rock our boat of  ignorance, apathy, complacency and hopefully lead to active citizenship.
  3. All comments are welcomed for posting at the bottom window. Comments sent by email will also be posted verbatim. However, ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL BE IGNORED.
  4. Visit my other website, click --> SCRIBD/TheFilipinoMind, or the SCRIB FEED at the sidebar, or type it on GOOGLE Search to read or download ebooks and PDFs of essays I have uploaded.  Statistics for my associated website:SCRIBD/theFilipinoMind : ALL FREE AND DOWNLOADABLE: 123 documents, 207,458 reads
  5. Some postings and other relevant events are now featured in Google+BMD_FacebookBMD_Twitter and BMD_Google Buzz and Google+.
  6. Translate to your own language. Go to the sidebar and Click on GOOGLE TRANSLATOR (56 languages - copy and paste sentences, paragraphs and whole articles, Google translates a whole posting in seconds, including to Filipino!!).
  7. Forwarding the posts to relatives and friends, ESPECIALLY in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. Use emails, Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. THANK YOU !!!
  8. Songs on Filipino nationalism: please reflect on the lyrics (messages) as well as the beautiful renditions. Other Filipino Music links at blog sidebar.  Click each to play.:






























Friday, January 13, 2012

Historical Truths from Biased Sources [Philippine-American History] - Renato Constantino (Updated)


***************************

WHY DIG THE PAST? WHY STUDY OUR HISTORY? 


To those who wonder WHY DIG THE PAST?  We engage in revisiting and revising our past, i.e. historical "revisionism", to unearth hidden truths, develop new emphases and raise new questions on assumptions and explanations for key historical issues and policies --given by our former colonial masters Spain and America, our government officials and authors of history books, then and now.


In our homeland's case, we can not afford a "balanced" approach to history since in the past and present years, our homeland's history, more specifically, as it refers to Philippine-US relationships, has been imbalanced in favor of the Americans, who as far as we baby boomers can remember, are only "the good guys" and "do-gooders" in history. 


It is time for us, especially for native Malay Filipinos-in-the-Philippines to recover our history, a nationalist history, which necessitates uncovering the lies and myths about America; since the American arrival into and 50-year occupation of our homeland, the sweet nothings about "Philippine-American Special Relations", etc. perpetuated through American-sponsored libraries/cultural centers, our school textbooks, mass media, government pronouncements, Filipinos with Americanized minds, etc.

We native Filipinos, here and abroad, past and present, relied and continue to use these official explanations that lead only to our ignorance of hidden truths and knowledge of untruths, thus perpetuating the colonial and post-WW2 conditions via  neocolonialism aka neoliberalism aka free trade aka WTO-globalization which brought only worsening impoverishment to the native Filipino masses; i.e. foreign control of our national economy, the dwindling of our nonrenewable national patrimony and consequent covert control of our national sovereignty.

Below is a short essay on the study of our history by our great nationalist, the late Prof. Renato Constantino. 



- BERT
**********************************************************
“The HISTORY of an oppressed people is hidden in the lies and the agreed myth of its conquerors.” - Meridel Le Sueur, American writer, 1900-1996


Historical Truths from Biased Sources
by Renato Constantino


History continues to be enriched by new discoveries and new analyses. New truths are unfolded by developing viewpoints that reflect man's changing outlook and goals in each historical stage. There is no source, no matter how biased, that does not yield a bit of historical truth. No attempt at misrepresentation can escape ultimate exposure when a people who make their history critically examine the roles of individuals and groups in particular epochs. It is with this attitude that one should read John Roger Meigs Taylor's "The Philippine Insurrection against the United States: A Compilation of Documents with Notes and Introduction."

Like the old chronicles written by Spaniards, Taylor's history is biased in favor of the colonizer but rich in data and revelations essential to a rediscovery and reassessment of Philippine history. The period Taylor covers is still relatively unknown to a majority of Filipinos. What we know contains so many distortions that it has produced attitudes which impede the correct handling of current problems.

A thorough study of the past will produce a new consciousness of the present. This new understanding will lead to a clearer view of the future which necessarily involves an alteration and a transformation of the present. It is time, therefore, to accelerate our rediscovery of history in order that we may profit from it. More and more, we are experiencing a tension between our consciousness and the reality of our existence.

As a consequence, we have become a people without a sense of history. We accept the present as given, bereft of historicity. Because we have so little comprehension of our past, we have no appreciation of its meaningful interrelation with the present. We lost our history for the first time when the Spaniards, with their fanatical belief in the superiority of their civilization, destroyed the tangible manifestations of our pre-Spanish culture


At a time when we were proving to the world the reality of our nationhood and our capacity for self-rule by ousting a colonial master and resisting the aggression of another, we lost another part of our history. Our records were captured from us.

Tons of “insurgent” records were shipped to Washington, there to remain unread for over half a century except by those to whom permission was granted by the U.S. Adjutant General of the Army. Thus this phase of our history is still relatively unexplored. We have fragments of knowledge about this period from the writings of those who have seriously endeavored to elicit the truth from the inadequate materials at hand, but on the whole we are still relatively ignorant of what really happened. This ignorance has been compounded by our acceptance of a version of our history consonant with colonial policy.

John Roger Meigs Taylor graduated from West Point in 1889 and was commissioned as captain ten years later. Cited for his service during the Boxer Rebellion in China, he was subsequently assigned to the Philippines to collect military intelligence material. Taylor himself gives us the background for the instructions regarding the shipment of the Philippine "State papers" to Washington:

In 1899 General Otis, Military Governor of the Philippines turned over to me, in Manila, several boxes of original documents which had just been captured from the insurgents and directed me to go over them and select and translate such material therein as would inform the War Department and through it, the Senate of the real character and purposes of the movement against the United States. I carried out these instructions. 

In 1901 I returned to the United States and was ordered to report to the Adjutant General to act really as a channel of communication between the War Department and certain Senators who were defending on the floor of the Senate, the conduct of the administration with respect to the Philippines. By verbal orders I was assigned to temporary duty in the Insular Bureau. 



There, in 1902, I suggested that in place of depending upon my recollection and personal knowledge of the situation and papers which recorded it, it would be well to write a history of the relations of the United States with the Philippines and in default of anyone else, I suggested that I should write it. The Secretary of War agreed to this and the authorities in the Philippines were ordered to forward all captured Insurgent records to the Insular Bureau for my use…


In the Army's view, Taylor's acquaintance with the captured documents of the Revolution made him the person best qualified to defend the military administration in the Philippines. Mounting criticism in the United States of the government's imperialist venture made such a defense imperative. It was therefore as a "quasi-lobbyist" that he was assigned to Washington and it was this assignment that caused him to decide to write “a history of the relations of the United States with the Philippines." His project readily received official approval and the Army extended him all cooperation.

All captured documents were loaned by the Army to the Bureau of Insular Affairs where Captain Taylor was detailed indefinitely until he completed his project. Taylor worked conscientiously on the voluminous historical material -- an estimated three tons of records -- and on June 30, 1903 he was able to [xi]report that the documents he had selected for translation and examination were in 2,034 folders. Each folder contained from 1 to 12 documents. He had read and analyzed about 12,204 items. He began his arduous task of translation and annotation in 1902 and completed it in 1906.

The first volume contains an introductory narrative with 105 translated exhibits. It begins with an account of the origins of the revolt against Spain and ends with the pact of Biac-na-bato. The second volume continues the narrative for the period 1898 to 1902 describing the relations between Aguinaldo and Dewey and the progress of the war .


The remaining three volumes contain 1,430 exhibits. However, when the galley proofs of Taylor's painstaking work were ready, William Howard Taft who was then Secretary of War ordered the publication withheld and, while giving Taylor permission to correct the proof of the documents, he instructed the author to leave the history "for our correction."

One wonders what "corrections" of our history he intended to make
. Taft who was then running for President limited himself to this curt statement: "One of the things I do not wish to do is to have the matter published before Congress meets, or rather before the election, for I don't care to give it out as an election document."  



Prof. John T. Farrell, who wrote an enlightening account of the Taylor project and its suppression, hints at a possible motive for Taft's decision:

Should the educated Filipinos, who made up the loyal and pro-American faction, have had reason to consider themselves insulted, and should the out-and-out independence party in the Islands have gained an issue out of the publication of a work from the insular bureau, which was anything but complimentary to the quondam insurgents' motives and conduct during the period of revolution, a serious crisis might have followed and one which would have seriously embarrassed the administration.

Taylor's history, for all that it reflects the American point of view may indeed have proved controversial at the time. For one thing, it furnished data on the tactics and purposes of those Americans who had been charged with the task of suppressing the Filipino movement for independence. Taft who despite his image as the friend of the Filipinos was in reality a shrewd, far-sighted imperialist might have wanted to "correct" certain parts that exposed too clearly America's real intentions toward the Philippines.

For another, Taylor's history uncovered certain unpalatable truths about some leaders of the Philippine Revolution against Spain and the resistance against America. Many of the ilustrado leaders were then already collaborating enthusiastically with the Americans and were being built up by the latter as leaders of the Filipino people under the new dispensation. 



When Taft was elected President there was a renewed attempt to have the Taylor work published. The manuscript was unfortunately submitted to James LeRoy, Taft's former private secretary who was himself writing a book on the same period but based largely on secondary sources. As a consequence, the Taylor book was not published while LeRoy's book was published posthumously in 1914. Farrell writes on this point: [xii]


To one who has had the opportunity to compare the Taylor history with the work of LeRoy which was published in 1914, it is obvious that the invalid (LeRoy) in Fort Bayard Hospital must have been considerably shocked when he read, in December, 1908, something based upon original sources which was so much at variance with what he himself was writing, and which, in turn, was based mainly upon American and Spanish published literature, especially upon reports of government officials, plus his own first hand experience in working with Filipinos.



”Americans in the Philippines”-LeRoy (1914) became an "authoritative" work in Philippine history, whereas Taylor's work remains to this day largely unread. No one knows just how many galley sets were completed. According to Farrell, there is a very well preserved set in the files of the Bureau of Insular Affairs and the Library of Congress has one too. One set went to the headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary, another was sent to the Archives of the Philippines during the administration of Governor Wood, and still another to the library of the University of Michigan. The microfilms of these galleys constitute the basis of this printed work.

Although scholars have worked on these microfilms, the tediousness of micro-reading has undoubtedly hampered scholarship. For the first time, scholars can read this work with the convenience of reading printed matters. But these microfilms contain only part of the thousands of original documents known as the Philippine Insurgent Records which were filed in the Archives in Washington until, by a legislative act of July 3, 1957, they were turned over to the Philippines.

No one knows how many documents were lost or are unidentifiable for these documents suffered many physical transfers and a great deal of reclassification had to be made. At present they are still in process of classification in the Philippine National Library. The complete set of these records can be found in Microscopy No. 254 of the U. S. National Archives. 


Taylor's anti-Filipino bias and the circumstances under which his work was undertaken detract from the value of his work. However, his access to the original documents gave him valuable information not open to others. This gave him certain insights into the motivations and behavior of the leaders of the Philippine Revolution which deserve serious study.

On the whole, however, this publication of Taylor's “The Philippine Insurrection against the United States" has been undertaken primarily to make available to Philippine scholars a part of the voluminous file of original documents of the Philippine Revolution. It is hoped that similar projects will be undertaken in the near future so that Filipinos may have easy access to that part of their history that has been withheld from them for so many years.


Source: http://bonifaciopapers.blogspot.com/2005/10/constantino-renato.html



***********************************************************
PLEASE DONATE CORE SUBJECT BOOKS TO OUR HOMELAND (i.e. your hometown public schools, alma mater, etc.). Those books that you and/or your children do not need or want; or buy books from your local library during its cheap Book Sales. It is a small sacrifice. Also, cargo/door-to-door shipment is best. [clean up your closets or garage - donate books.THANKS!]
***********************************************************

I consider the following previous posts and the RECTO READER are essential about our homeland and us native, Malay Filipinos; and are therefore always presented in each new post. Click each to open/read.
  1. WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW:
  2. WHAT IS NATIONALISM [Filipino Nationalism]?
  3. Our Colonial Mentality and Its Roots 
  4. The Miseducation of the Filipino (Formation of our Americanized Mind)
  5. Jose Rizal - Reformist or Revolutionary?
  6. The Purpose of Our Past, Why Study (Our) History?
  7. Studying and Rethinking Our Philippine History
  8. Globalization (Neoliberalism) – The Road to Perdition in Our Homeland
  9. Resisting Globalization (WTO Agreements)
  10. Virtues of De-Globalization
  11. Our Filipino Kind of Religion
  12. Our Filipino Christianity and Our God-concept
  13. When Our Religion Becomes Evil
THE RECTO READER is presented in several postings. Click each to open/read:

NOTE: Recto's cited cases, examples or issues were of his time, of course; but realities in our homeland in the present and the foreseeable future are/expectedly much, much worse. Though I am tempted to update them with current issues, it's best to leave them as they are since Recto's paradigms about our much deepened national predicament still ring relevant, valid and true. In short, Recto saw the forest and never got lost in the trees.- Bert


  1. THE FILIPINO MIND blog contains 532 published postings you can view, as of December 12, 2012. 
  2. The postings are oftentimes long and a few readers have claimed being "burnt out."  My apologies. The selected topics are not for entertainment but to stimulate deep, serious thoughts per my MISSION Statement and hopefully to rock our boat of  ignorance, apathy, complacency and hopefully lead to active citizenship.
  3. All comments are welcomed for posting at the bottom window. Comments sent by email will also be posted verbatim. However, ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL BE IGNORED.
  4. Visit my other website, click --> SCRIBD/TheFilipinoMind, or the SCRIB FEED at the sidebar, or type it on GOOGLE Search to read or download ebooks and PDFs of essays I have uploaded.  Statistics for my associated website:SCRIBD/theFilipinoMind : ALL FREE AND DOWNLOADABLE: 123 documents, 207,458 reads
  5. Some postings and other relevant events are now featured in Google+BMD_FacebookBMD_Twitter and BMD_Google Buzz and Google+.
  6. Translate to your own language. Go to the sidebar and Click on GOOGLE TRANSLATOR (56 languages - copy and paste sentences, paragraphs and whole articles, Google translates a whole posting in seconds, including to Filipino!!).
  7. Forwarding the posts to relatives and friends, ESPECIALLY in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. Use emails, Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. THANK YOU !!!
  8. Songs on Filipino nationalism: please reflect on the lyrics (messages) as well as the beautiful renditions. Other Filipino Music links at blog sidebar.  Click each to play.: