The Stories They Tell

What is truth?

It is the laughter of a friend when told a joke. It is the sorrow of a sibling when faced with a war. It is the anger of a people who are tired of the same old chapter. It is the desperation in the voice of a nation as it screams in pain and fear. It is the love for the country amidst the failures of their people, the incompetence of their government, and the mistakes in their history. It is the tragedy and the loss during the evils of the past; times that cannot be replaced, moments that will leave a great mark on the present and future.

The truth has been told and retold, written and rewritten through years of revision in immense ways. One historian may perceive the truth to be different from an eyewitness beside them, in the same way that a media influencer may interpret history differently from an experienced scholar.

Today, the media has become the central driving force in the propagation of these interpretations of history. The history of the Philippines, including the Martial Law period, has been told through the written and the spoken word of these interpretations. Old-fashioned newspapers and the modern social media, the main sources of information in the current generation along with broadcasted news and documentaries on screen, have been used to inform and educate the people on the situation of the Philippines during the Martial Law era.

But who has been telling and writing the history of Martial Law?

The Martial Law period has been told through various mediums and perspectives. We hear the accounts of torture and loss of the victims of Martial Law: how my Social Science teacher was a rape victim because she was an activist, how my father had to sell books because he didn’t have the money to buy food, how Boyet Mijares was killed because his father wrote against the Marcoses, and more stories. We hear their pain as they recall those times even though they try to cover up the sadness.

And we hear the disappointment and anger in their speech as they see the country dissolve once more into darkness.

We read the claims of glory from the apologists and the family of the late dictator: the infrastructures during the dictator’s rule were great achievements, education and sports were of high-quality, life was decent for every Filipino household, and more. On the dictator’s birthday, we read the tweets of his son, Bongbong Marcos, announcing that his father “inspired greatness in the Filipino people.” Even the President has emulated and praised Ferdinand Marcos, saying that “the Philippines is better off choosing a leader like [him].” It is as if the deaths of his countrymen during the Martial Law period did not matter, as if 3,257 was just a number in the books.

In elementary, Martial Law was simply a two-day discussion on Marcos’s legacy, and not a word about the killings, bloodshed, and injustice during those times; Martial Law was simply an event of the past. We learn that it ended with the EDSA Revolution, and we memorized a date to be forgotten once we aced the test. We learn that the Revolution marked the end of the Marcos’s rule, an end ignited by the Aquinos, the “champions” of the Philippines — although, this is not the case. The Aquinos were not faultless — they were simply seen as the “good” side to Marcos’s “evil”.

“History is told by the victors,” according to Winston Churchill, a leader during the Second World War, a time of terror similar to the Martial Law era. But, is history really written by the victors?

Historical revisionism has played a key role in the writing of the history of the Philippines. Accounts of suffering and pain from the victims of Martial Law, of glory from the apologists and the family of the dictator, of tragedy and death from the Aquinos, of anger and protest from the activists of the Martial Law era, and of inspiration and regret from the scholars of the 21st Century, all write and contribute to the history of the Philippines under the rule of the dictator. Yes, the victors — in this case, the Aquinos — were some of the main contributors of the history we know today, but, in a society of “woke” citizens, Philippine history has been analyzed and fact-checked through the years to provide the most substantial evidence and truth in our reach.

Although, at times, bias is inevitable; history is — contrary to Churchill’s statement — written by the historian’s telling and retelling of the story, based on concrete facts and research. It is not solely written by the victors but branched from it and from other sources. The writing of history is revised to present the untarnished truth of the matter at hand, to show the meaning behind the actions of our historical figures, and to find out that truly happened.

Undeniably, fake news is prevalent in today’s society: in the government, in the news, in homes — simply, everywhere. Not all the news we see on the media is truthful and without bias. As scholars, intellectuals, and citizens of the Philippines, we must learn how to dismiss these false statements and see if the information from other sources add up. We must learn to be critical in our thoughts and in the “facts and truths” presented to us, because, in the end, we are to decide which is true or false.

We live in an era of fools, kings, scholars, intellectuals, activists, and dreamers: humans determined to improve society, to change its standards, and to find the light.

We live among the brains at work; brains that are alive, with hearts that are on fire, of lives that constantly seek the greater good and the truth that lies behind the curtain.

We are the fire and the beacon to search for the truth.