THE FILIPINO POINT OF VIEW

IN HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
AS ARTICULATED BY TEODORO A. AGONCILLO

ANTONIO C. HILA

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION IS NOT done in a vacuum. A point of view is

necessarily adopted by the historian who writes to re-live the past. Precisely
because history can never be objective as Agoncillo has firmly asserted,
interpretation varies according to the varied persuasions of the historians. This
is clearly seen in the writing of the history of a nation like the Philippines which
has undergone successive waves of colonization. Philippine historians have
assumed different ways of interpreting its past indicated by two opposing
viewpoints - one that reflects the perspective of the colonizer, and that of the
colonized.
In writing and interpreting the history of the country, Agoncillo had batted
for the Filipino point of view. The position that Agoncillo had taken was a
strong reaction to the position assumed by historians who viewed Philippine
history largely "through foreign eyes", a phenomenon whj;h he said, had been
going on up to the 1950's. The Filipino viewpoint is a view,which Agoncillo, in
his own words, has stated "countless times". One such time was in 1972 when
he articulated his succinct ideas on this issue in two different lectures. It is "tragic",
he said that Filipino historians still view their history from the colonizer's
viewpoint. A "colonial hangover", that is a form of conditioning of both the
"mind and the body", is a result of four centuries of colonization. Thus they

* This is part of the author's dissertation entitled "The contribution of Teodoro A.

Agoncillo to Philippine Historiography", submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate
School of the University of Santo Tomas in September 1998. ·

Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, Vol 2, No. 1 (May 2001), pp 110-138

Copyright 2001 by College of Liberal Arts, De La Salle University
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 111

"follow blindly the colonial master's subtle and not-too-subtle policies directed
against the attainment of national and/ or individual self-interests." According
to him, "It takes courage and a strong sense of nationalism for the Filipinos to
banish the had effects of colonialism." 1
Agoncillo explained that the stance taken by these historians who wrote
in the perspective of the colonizers was the result of the "most potent techniques"
that the latter used in conditioning the minds of the colonials to make them
"pliant" and "easy to manage". Because our historians continued to suffer from a
pervasive colonial hangover otherwise known as "colonial mentality" since
"nominal independence in 1946" was achieved, "the re-writing of Philippine
history", Agoncillo m~aintained, is a "difficult task that is fraught with danger."
The difficulty, he said~'Tay in "overcoming the obstacles that centuries of mental
slavery have erected the people's path." The danger, on the other hand, was seen
in the "bristling attitude of obscurantist in our midst who, either because of
ignorance or bigotry or both, condemn everything that does not conform with
traditional thinking and outmoded values" (Agoncillo 1972).
While he admitted that "historians differ in their outlook and therefore in
their interpretations of facts", Agoncillo maintained such a difference is not as
significant as acquiring "the habit of thinking as Filipinos not as Spaniards or
Americans." This, he said, "is crucial specially to underdeveloped countries like
the Philippines" because if the Filipinos "cannot think as Filipinos they cannot
expect foreigners to think for them." Elaborating further on the idea, he said:

Since in the past and up to the present our people have been accustomed
to the foreign climate of opinion and since our very own leaders-or
misleaders-have had enough time to devote themselves only to frivolous
activities, our people have acquired the habit of depending on foreigners
to think or do things for them. (Agoncillo 1972)

Much earlier, in 1961, he harped on the same theme, after having done
preparations for the offering of a basic course, Philippine History, which used a
new textbook that he wrote together with Oscar Alfonso, a junior colleague in
the department of history at the University of the Philippines. The course had
been expanded to include "institutions", hence the title "Philippine History and
Institutions". As conceived, the course touched not only on the "narration and
interpretation of the significant events in the Philippines that led, directly or
indirectly, to the development of Philippine polity", but also on its institutions,
the "various elements in Philippine society which constitute the essence of the
Filipino's way of life", which are the "customs, traditions, beliefs, practices,
activities, and agencies of a people's culture" .2
112: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

The paper was quick to point out that Philippine history as "conceived
and taught in the University" some 25 or more years ago, was "limited to social
and political development with a quick and rather supercilious glance at the
economic aspect of Filipino life". Even the artistic and literary aspects were "left
to literary historians, who were non-existent in the first place". Agoncillo's
conception of history was that it could be both inclusive and exclusive. It is
exclusive in the sense that it could be conceived as "A huge and moving mural",
that, like a projector, "flashes the meaningf:ul events in the total life of the people".
(Underscoring supplied) On the other hand, it is exclusive in the sense that "it
dismisses those events which, while they happened in the Philippines, nevertheless
had nothing to do with the Filipinos and the development of their institutions".
What was attempted in the course was a "well-rounded, if brief, account of the
significant events that led to the development of the present Filipinos and their
institutions".
Through this course offering, Agoncillo had emphatically sounded the
"clarion call" for the Filipino point of view, echoing the sentiment:

As an independent people, it is our duty not merely to know but to

understand our past and interpret it from the Filipino point of view.
This is crucial, for hitherto our history has been seen through alien
glass. The result has been twisting of facts in such a way as to denigrate
the Filipino and so to instill in him an inferiority complex that has
made him look upon himself with misgivings. While persons and events
are interpreted from the Filipino viewpoint, there is, however, no
attempt to subvert or twist historical facts to accommodate national or
regional prejudices. What is attempted is a re-consideration of the facts
of our history and their re-interpretation from our point of view.
(Agoncillo 1972)

It was during the Japanese Occupation (1942-1945) that such an idea

germinated in Agoncillo's mind. Due to lack of something better to do, he would
spend his time "reading and writing about things Philippines". The first chance
to express such a view came according to him when he taught Filipino in a private
university in downtown Manila. He harped on the "necessity of re-writing our
history" in the class for one whole period or an hour "citing with the passion of
St. Bernard, the errors, misconceptions, misstatements, and inaccuracies in some
books written by Filipinos and foreigners." 3
In 1958, in another lecture given under the auspices of the Philippine
Chapter of Pi Gamma Mu, he re-stated the same idea adding the controversial
statement, which stirred a hornet's nest that: Philippine history, rightly looked
upon, began in 1872."
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 113

Agoncillo had dismissed the view that Philippine history "as it has been
written and taught in the schools and colleges is anchored primarily on the puerile
theory that we owe everything that we are to Spain and the Spaniards." He said
he did not "dispute the right of the Spanish writers and propagandists to wallow
in delusions of grandeur" but deplored the "propensity or our own historical
writers and teachers to believe and accept unquestioningly the balderdash that
passes for truth."
Agoncillo stressed the idea that history should be both inclusive and
exclusive. He said:

Our history under Spain and, for that matter, under the United States,
must be rewrittt~ to give way to a new interpretation. It must be inclusive
to encompass wt''fbin its fold the active role played by the Filipinos in carving
out their destiny. It must be exclusive in the sense that matters not pertinent
to the development of our policy (sic} should be ruthlessly deleted to make
the role of the Filipinos positive. 5

In his thinking, it is useless to saddle the reader's mind with what he calls
"useless details" which result to nothing other than to "parade the author's
mistaken concept of history", a literal interpretation of Leopold von Ranke's
"wie es eigentlich gewesen" which means "to show what really happened."
Moreover, the colonial hang-up is visibly seen in the accounts written by
foreigners which cannot completely be relied upon. The history for instance of
the country under Spain had been colored by both lay and ecclesiastic writers
who suffered from what he called "Eurocentric disease", therefore losing the
autochthonous essence of what they were writing about. This Agoncillo vividly
described:

The Spanish missionaries who came to the Philippines with the

conquistadores wrote the chronicles of their exploits in the Philippines
and at the same time, pictured the kind of society they found. Since
they could not very well understand what they found, especially the
religion of the natives, they based their judgments of things Philippine
on their knowledge of Western society and its morals and made these
their frame of reference. From Fathers Juan de Plasencia and Pedro
Chirino to Father Felix Huerta and Francisco Fordada, the Spanish
chroniclers, with the exception of Antonio de Morga, who was a layman,
suffered from Eurocentric disease in which all non-European scale of
values, religions, societies and the like, were treated in a cavalier manner.
The Spanish lay chroniclers, ably represented by Jose Montero y Vidal,
Vicente Barrantes, Wenceslao E. Retana, and Pablo Faced, are no better
than their ecclesiastical colleagues, perhaps worse. Their focus, quite
understandably, was on the achievements of the Spaniards, especially
the friars, and any mention of the natives whom they.called 'indios',
114: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

was done to furnish a contrast with the self-effacing,' 'self-sacrificing,'

'humane,' 'industrious,' and 'kind' Spaniards, were afflicted with
Narcissus complex. (1972)

In 1960, Agoncillo had another opportunity to express such a view when

he spoke in the "First International Conference of Historians of Southeast Asia."
In his paper entitled "Our Usable Past" he called for a re-writing and re-
interpreting of "our history from the point of view of the Filipino." This
viewpoint, he said does not "mean distorti-ng the facts of history to suit our
national pride and prejudices." Adopting the Filipino point of view "is not
synonymous with the "Philippines, my Philippines, right or wrong." Because
the Filipino have been conditioned with a kind of history "that implicitly denies"
their "capacity as a people that any modest attempt to interpret it from the
Filipino standpoint is met with the gnashing teeth and pained cries of ultra
nationalism", the supreme task of this mind and liberate its energies in a manner
conclusive to the national welfare. " 6
In all these papers, Agoncillo had sought to refute assertions that to him
appeared to have been made from the perspective of the colonial master. In the
Sunday Times Magazine essay entitled "Our History Under Spain", he critically
questioned the following assertions which he claimed were based on a colonial
standpoint:

1. That Magellan discovered the Philippines;

2. That Spain's motives in coming to the Philippines was
primarily religious;
3. That the Philippines was a burden to Spain and was nearly
dropped like a hot potato; "'*
4. That the Philippines was represented in the Spanisn Cortes; and
5. That the Spaniards gave us unity, and taught us nationalism
and freedom.

He considered the assertion that Magellan discovered the Philippines as

something "funny." The point of view was certainly colonial. The belief was
flaunted by Spanish chroniclers whose purpose in disseminating it was to call
attention to the greatness of Spain. Agoncillo maintained the view that the
Philippines was already known to so many Asian countries before Magellan
arrived.
In the course of the "First International Conference of Historians of
Southeast Asia", where Agoncillo presented his comments on the paper read by
his former mentor, Gregorio F. Zaide, Agoncillo bitingly commented on Zaide's
 ANTONIO C. HILA : I I5

assertion that Magellan "re-discoverer" the Philippines, and that he should be

given such recognition. Agoncillo found such a statement:

more grievously erroneous than the statement that Magellan discovered

the Philippines, for while the latter was not totally unknown to her
neighbors, it was Magellan who placed her on the map, the former
statement implies that the Philippines went into the bottom of the sea
and miraculously reappeared at the precise moment when Magellan was
on his way to the Spice Islands, thereby making him the rediscoverer of
the Philippines. (Proceedings of the International Conference of
Scholars: 250)

In lieu of such astatement, Agoncillo proposed: "Would it not be correct to

say simply that Magelhn or the Spaniards came to the Philippines in 1521, instead
of insisting that Magellan 'discovered' or 'rediscovered' our country in 1521." To
his mind, he said, "the former is the Filipino point of view; the latter the Spanish
viewpoint." (Proceedings of the International Conference of Scholars: 10)
According to Agoncillo, the motive of Spain's coming to the Philippines
was primarily "economic" rather that "religious", citing the agreement between
King Charles of Spain and Magellan, which "were purely and exclusively business
propositions."
His reaction to the assertion that Spain would have abandoned the
Philippines because it caused a financial burden to the colonial crown, was an
indecisive straightening out of facts that do not warrant such interpretation. In
the first place, the money that was spent for the Philippines came from the people
themselves in the form of taxes. So was labor that was forcibly elicited from the
people. The subsidy that came from Mexico, he further said, was not spent for
the "welfare of the Filipinos" but to defray the expenses and to pay the fat salaries
of Spanish officialdom. Considering these points, he dismissed as a "romantic
nostalgia that is hardly in keeping with the facts" that " we should be thankful
that Spain did not cut the umbilical cord that joined us to Mother Spain."
On the issue of Philippine representation in the Spanish Cortes, Agoncillo
said it was "neither Philippine nor a representation, for the delegates to the
Cortes, in the first place, were not representing Filipino interests." The Filipinos
did not have a hand in the "selection or election of delegates; only the Spaniards
had the right." He likewise tackled this issue in his other already cited paper,
"Philippine History Through Filipino Eyes", where he said that the elected
representatives represented "Spanish, not Filipino interests." He found the
subject "inconsequential and irrelevant to the history of the Filipino people."
And for a Filipino historian to discuss such matter " ... is to adopt the Spanish
viewpoint."
116 : ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

Finally on the matter of Spain giving us unity and fostering the spirit of
nationalism, he said that "geographic" unit was mistaken for "unity of thought
and feeling." He rejected the notion that nationalism which fired the revolution
of 1896 was the "result of the conscious Spanish efforts." "Filipino unity and
nationalism" on the contrary were "the negative upshot of the Spanish policy of
divide and conquer, a policy that made the Spaniards supreme in the Philippines
for more than three centuries." He continued:

The Spaniards never even imaginecfto give us political and social

cohesion, for it would have meant nationalism and, ultimately, freedom
and independence - and eventually they were not prepared to accept in
view of their material interest in the country.

The most radical assertion Agoncillo made which stirred much controversy
was his assertion that there was no Philippine history, "properly speaking", prior
to 1872:

When one examines critically the texture and substance of our history
under Spain one wonders, really, whether the Philippines had a history
prior to 1872 or thereabouts. For what had been regarded as Philippine
history before 1872 is not Philippine, but Spanish. Except for the
abortive uprisings and revolts that sporadically stalked the Spanish
administration up to the Cavite Mutiny, there is nothing Filipino or
Philippine on those events which our historical writers so painstakingly
and lovingly dangle. (Agoncillo, "A Re-interpretation of our history
under Spain: 6)

The above quotation has been grossly misunderstood, which when viewed
in the context of Agoncillo's pronouncements is actually a valid statement. For
~,;;

indeed, to Agoncillo's mind, historical events that do not have direct bearing in
the formation of the Philippines as a nation have no relevance at all, and therefore
do not deserve to be emphasized at all. He had amply stressed this idea in the
previous lines above. At this point, it is important to quote once more Agoncillo's
thought from the last paragraph of his address, "Philippine History Through
Filipino Eyes." Expressing wonder over what the "furor is all about" on the
discussions of subjects in which the "Filipinos did not play any significant part"
as raised by other historians, he said: "subjects not related to the development of
the Filipino nation I dismissed in a few words, thus economizing on time, energy,
and paper."
One such misunderstanding of Agoncillo's statement is revealed in the
following criticism:
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 117

To begin with 1872 is to consider only an eruption in history and to

disregard the seemingly imperceptible changes before that enabled the
cacique-principalia-ilustrado of Philippine society to respond to Spanish
tyranny the way they did in 1872.

To highlight and contend that the Filipinos did not play any major role,
indeed no role at all, in the process of their becoming is to consider only
one discourse as historically important, the discourse of the indigenous
elite with the Spanish colonial masters. But should history cater only
to articulate? 7 (Guerrero, 1988:5)

It is obvious that the quotation sorely misses Agoncillo's idea. Nowhere

in Agoncillo's essay did he deny the role of the Filipinos in the process of their
"becoming." The phase he used, "except for the abortive uprisings and revolts
that sporadically stalked the Spanish administration .... " explicitly acknowledges
the role of the natives in the development of Filipino polity of their "becoming."
This reaction has a poor cerebral grounding, showing more of emotional tinge
instead. Certainly those rebellions were not done by the "articulate" if such a
term is reckoned from a European viewpoint. For many of those who rose in
uprisings were the masses, or the "inarticulate."
Even then, Agoncillo did not make a distinction of the "articulate" and
"inarticulate." Obviously the rebellions were done on purely personal
considerations by both people of noble birth and masses. In his thinking, these
rebellions assumed a significant role in the sense that they marked the beginning
of the long, dogged struggle for freedom and complete liberation that had fully
developed in the last half of the 19th century. As will be discussed later, this
phenomenon marks the transformation of the "native" into "Filipino."
Rightly, the late historian's son, Teodoro Agoncillo III, correctly read his
father's thought, as seen in his reply to the quoted criticism hurled against his
father:

But when he said that there is no Philippine history before 1872, he

meant that the historian, if he assumes the nationalist perspective, should
deal with events that contributed to the shaping of the nationalist mind.
For it would be a waste of time and effort to cite the history of Spaniards
which had no bearing on the formation of the said mind. The reference
of course was so telling; he was reacting to historians who would fill up
their books with the nonsensical chronology about 'the history of Spain
or Spaniards' in the Philippines. 8

The said essay also elicited "divergent" views from different historians,
most of whom became his colleagues at the U.P. Department of History. Some
of these views, reconciled with Agoncillo's essay, are simply irrelevant, indicating
118 : ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

that some of these historians had not read the said essay or if at all, may have
some lapses of memory. One interpretation advanced by some stated that what
Agoncillo meant was that there was a paucity of documents written by Filipinos,
or that said documents, if they exist do not assume a Filipino viewpoint, as they
were written by Spaniards. Another historian said Agoncillo's interpretation
carried a "nationalistic bias"; while another labelled it as a "catastrophic theory",
similar to the term "eruption" that the previous critique cited considering that
"historical events have a sequential development." Still another referred to it as
a theory which cannot be "taken wholly" as the question "What happens to
Lapu-Lapu?" can be raised. Others upheld its validity when properly viewed in
the right "context" or "perspective," which is the Filipino standpoint or
nationalist viewpoint. 9
In addition to what he had raised in the STM article, Agoncillo had likewise
presented other interpretations in Philippine history which are not anchored on
the Filipino viewpoint in his other essay, Philippine History Through Filipino
Eyes. Still on the Spanish aspect of Philippine history, he raised the view that the
so-called Sarrat uprising in Ilokos in 1815 could not have been triggered by the
suppression of the Cadiz Constitution of 1812, as alleged by the SpanisH friars
and adopted by Filipino writers. Because if it were so, it would have implied that
"the yokels of the Ilokos hinterland were so highly educated as to understand
what the Cadiz Constitution was all about." This would have required, he said,
a "sophisticated education" which the Spanish rulers never gave the Filipinos in
general and the Ilokanos in particular, "to understand the Cadiz Constitution
whose suppression in Spain led the Ilokos to take up arms", that is, he continued,
if the friars account would have to be believed.
Turning his attention to the American regime, Agoncillo ,All
said that the
"Americans had done more damage, consciously or unconscio11sly, to the Filipinos
in so short a period than the Spaniards had done for more than three hundred
years. "It was the economic dependency, the Filipinos dependence on American
terms and ideals ... As a consequence, Filipino taste, mental attitude, way of living,
even their defects, are borrowed from the Americans." And the writing of history,
he continued "is not an exception, for we find in our midst writers of history
books whose point of view is that of an American and whose ideal is purely
commercial".
He recalled that one historical writer used the term "spring" 10 in denoting
time sequence. He also said it was not valid for the Filipinos to follow the
"American opinion" of referring to the Filipino-American war as an insurrection,
as he found it "slavish." The fact was, when the war broke out, the Filipinos
were in control of "99. 99% more or less, of their country", Agoncillo emphasized.
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 119

Moreover, at the time, the Philippines was already a de facto independent republic
which Spain did not have the right to cede to the Americans under the Treaty of
Paris of December 10, 1898. He admonished: "Let the Americans call this armed
conflict 'Filipino insurgency' -that is their privilege, but let no Filipino at heart
parrot them simply because they were the victors in the armed confrontation."
Nor was it proper to refer to the Filipino revolutionists as "bandits".U They
were certainly "bandits" from the point of view of the Americans but for the
Filipinos they were "heroes." Such was Macario Sakay, a hero, he added.
In 1950, he bewailed the fact that most of our history books were written
by "Americans and naturally their interpretation is that of an American. " 12
The University of the Philippines became his venue in articulating his
Filipino-centric vie~ Be joined the faculty of the university's department of
history in June 1958 with rank of full professor. 13
It was at the height of the controversy over his book, The Revolt of the
Masses which was published by the U.P. College of Liberal Arts in 1956, largely
through the efforts of its Dean Prof. Tomas Fonacier, when the latter recruited
Agoncillo to join the university. In Agoncillo's words, Fonacier asked him to
join the U.P. because "ang mga tao roon walang contribution" ("the people there
have no contribution"), referring to scholarly writings (Ocampo 1995:140). Prof.
Fonacie.r hailed the Revolt as a public document which is of great value to a
proper under~tanding of the cultural history of the Philippines" (Agoncillo 1956:
vi).
In December 1959, Agoncillo was instructed by then President Vicente G.
Sinco (1958-1968) to write a textbook on Philippine History to be used in his
General Education Program in 1960 which will replace Nicolas Zafra's
mimeographed Readings in Philippine History. Together with Oscar Alfonso,
Agoncillo wrote A Short History ofthe Filipino People. Agoncillo took Alfonso as
his co-writer "to encourage young people" in the department. 14
As already cited, the textbook was to be used for the newly conceived and
expanded Philippine History and Institutions whose thrust was to lead the
"student to think of himself as a free Filipino and not as a colonial." (The offering
of Philippine History)
Agoncillo's textbook was seen as radical departure from Zafra's readings,
as it spelled a "difference in perspective." Bernardita R. Churchill, who used
Zafra's readings in her undergraduate study at the U.P. where she took her BA
in history described it as follows:

.... the textbook that was used in the University was the compilation of
Nicolas Zafra, Chairman of the department of History (1946-1958),
Readings in Philippine History (1947, revised in 1949 and 1956), which,
120: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

as the title indicated, was a collection of readings from Magellan's

expedition to the Philippines to the outbreak of the Revolution in 1896.
Most of the readings were taken from Blair and Robertson, with "brief
accounts in form of summaries of leading events of various periods of
Spanish History included to enable the students understand more clearly
the nature and significance of events in the Philippines and their
relationship to contemporary events in Spain and in Europe
(Underscoring supplied). In 1956, the textbook was revised to include
materials on the life and works of Rizal. This was done in view of
Republic Act 1425, popularly known as the Rizal Bill (sic), which
mandated the giving of courses on the life and works of Rizal as part
of the curricula of all schools, colleges and universities of the
Philippines. I.S

It is significant to note that Zafra's readings stopped at the revolution of

1896. Agoncillo labeled Zafra as a "catholic" who taught that the revolution was
a "mistake." Agoncillo further said that during the Zafra's incumbency, the
Revolution "was not being taught because of him", (F. Sionil Jose's interview
with Agoncillo, qtd. in Ocampo's (1985:185). For Agoncillo, the revolution was
one of the "most interesting parts of our history and ... the most,, significant"
because before it "we were indios"; it was the Revolution that made us Filipinos",
(Interview with Ocampo, qtd. in Ocampo 1985:185).
In the preface, Agoncillo explained further the meaning of the Filipino
point of view: "What is meant here is that were the facts warrant two or more
interpretations the authors naturally took the Filipino viewpoint." (Agoncillo
and Alfonso, 1960:iii) This is in essence reflected what he had expressed earlier:
" ... when a set of facts can be interpreted in more ways than one, the Filipino
historian should opt for the one which is close to the Filipino soul -without of
course, twisting the facts by addition, suppression or by li~g sentences or parts
thereof out of context" (Philippine History Through Filipino Eyes).
It is in this textbook that Agoncillo gave substance to his claim that there
was no Philippine History prior to 1872, a claim which he again stated in the
preface of the said book. It actually contained only three chapters on the Spanish
colonial period, following of course his philosophy that only those events which
have direct bearing in the formation of Philippine polity should be included in
the writing of Philippine history. These chapters were entitled "The Coming of
the Spaniards" (Chapter 50);" Aspects of Spanish Colonization" (Chapter 6), and
"Result of Spanish Colonization" (Chapter 7). Ironically, these chapters were
actually written by his junior partner, Dr. Oscar Alfonso who later became
assistant when he assumed the Chairmanship of the Department of History in
1963. While they worked independently from each other, there was a "meeting
of the mind", with Alfonso fully subscribing to the Filipino point of view, hence
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 121

the unity of approach· 16 These chapters are indeed "inclusive in so far as the
formation of the country's national polity is concerned. For in these chapters,
one sees Spain's colonial intent, its operationalization, and the subsequent reaction
of the nati~es which altogether served as a catalyst in the formation of a sense of
national belonging or nationhood. The book has therefore avoided a weakness
of parading 'a cavalcade of events' which Agoncillo had noted in other books
and dismissed as useless as they are irrelevant to the formation of national unity.
In this sense, nationalism came about as a reaction to Spanish colonial
rule, as there existed no Filipino nation before the coming of the Spain. Thus he
said in another imponant writing: "There was, from the beginning, no Filipino
nation, nor a FilipiJ:!O state, for what is now known as the Philippines was
composed of commu~ities called barangays with their more or less independent
rulers called datus or rajas. This is also primarily the reason why Agoncillo
emphatically said as mentioned previously above that Spain only provided
geographic unity which should not be mistaken for nationalism, which is
ideological. Essentially, therefore, Spanish colonialism is the mother of Filipino
nationalism, simply because it was from the natives' reaction to the harsh colonial
impositions that a sense of nationhood was born and developed. Following this
idea, Agoncillo (1974:2) maintained that nationalism is "defensive in nature which
expresses the people's longing to live an independent political life, to direct their
economic and social improvement, and to protect their interests."
In 1969, when he was commissioned by Mentor Book to write a concise
history of the country, Agoncillo discussed Spain's more than three centuries of
colonial rule in the Philippines in three solid chapters pointing out Spain's colonial
policies and critically assessing their implementation, and how these colonial
impositions instilled a feeling of oneness or nationalism among the natives.
Agoncillo described the growth and development of nationalism and its
articulation in a chapter aptly entitled, "The Natives Became Filipinos." It is of
course understood that the term "Filipino" in Agoncillo's point of view referred
to the natives who fully gained a different political status when they opted to
fight for their eventual decolonization as distinguished from the Spaniards born
in the Philippines or the insulares who were likewise referred to by the same
name. Agoncillohad subscribed to the idea of Leon Ma. Guerrero who honored
Rizal the plaudit the "First Filipino", for he was "among the natives to free and
think of himself not as a Tagalog, but as a Filipino the true indigene of the
Philippines. " 17
In his March interview with F. SionilJose, Agoncillo said that his statement,
"Philippine History properly begins in 1872", was taken "literally." Referring to
the Spanish period, he said:
122: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

there is history but the trouble is nobody wrote that history except the
Spaniards and naturally, the Spaniards would favor the Spaniards. The
role of the Filipino was submerged. That is what I meant. So, only
beginning with 1872 was the role of the Filipino really given
Importance
•
... " 18

Another highlight of the book was its inclusion of a chapter on the

Aglipayan Movement, which was a way of giving importance to what he thought
that said movement deserved. Agoncillc1··explained that the subject, short of
relegating it to a footnote, had been treated "gingerly" by Filipino historians.
He called this

A suppression of facts, a sin more than distortion, for the Aglipayan

Movement, whether one likes it or not, has a capital significance in
Philippine history. It is to the Philippines what the Reformation is to
Europe. It is the legitimate offspring and the only living result of the
Revolution. To ignore it, as it has been ignored or toned down in the
textbooks, is to falsify the facts of Philippine history. (1969:iv)

In the latter part of 1960, he tackled the same issue, accusing two authors
of distortion in writing a book about Aglipay.· 19 Distortion was committed he
said when the authors, describing the incident between Aglipay and Fr. Francisco
Foradada, S.J. "snapped their fingers and called it 'fantastic'." Agoncillo said
that the authors were "too shy to elaborate," implying that "a Filipino because
of his 'inferiority' cannot talk back to a "superior white man, much less hold
him by the occiput and force him on his knees to apologize for his insults to the
Filipinos" {Our Usable Past: 188-189}. Agoncillo also accused the authors of
deliberately distorting Mabini's letter to Aguinaldo "by ~;wpressing significant
passages, in order to denigrate Mabini who was a Mason.-Agoncillo said in an
interview with Ambeth Ocampo, that the two authors corrected this in the
subsequent edition. (Ocampo 1995:47).
Agoncillo also laughed off a review of the 1960 textbook, branding it "all
wet" specially on the subject of Aglipayanism which the reviewer said he "should
not have discussed" because at the time of the writing, "Aglipayanism was very
much less than the Iglesia ni Cristo." 20
His short treatment of the entire Spanish period in the said textbook did
not of course pass unnoticed. A Spanish diplomat whom he met in a party
complained about this. Wittily, he countered:

A Spaniard once asked me why I treated the Spanish period of Philippine

history in such 'arbitrary' manner. I answered him, thus: Spanish
historians give the Moors, who ruled Spain for eight centuries, only a
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 123

few pages; I give the Spaniards, who ruled the Philippines for only three
centuries, three full chapters, and here you are complaining. 21

More than the writing of the textbooks and other historical writings through
which Agoncillo was able to articulate his ideas regarding the Filipino point of
view of writing and interpreting Philippine history, the department of history of
the University of the Philippines also served as a potent venue in nurturing and
propagating such a philosophy through curricular changes. While Agoncillo had
already given his hand in the re-orientation of the basic Philippine history offering,
more had to be achieved in defining the direction of the department in both the
undergraduate and graduate levels through its curricular offerings.
,
Nationalism became the burning issue in the university in the 1960's which
was subsequently followed by the birth of the First Quarter Storm in the 1970's.
The University of the Philippines became the seat of militancy, which saw the
birth of "student power" as the students clamored for the abrogation of military
bases, the termination of "Parity Rights" and the call for non-interference in
Philippine affairs. "The issue of nationalism", said the Philippine Collegian (25
November 1964: 8), the progressive student publication of the university, "has
so immensely engulfed the mind and heart of the University constituency that
we find both the studentry and faculty deeply engaged in the common task of
seeking answers and solutions posed by Nationalism (qtd. in The Philippine
Collegian 25 November 1964: 8).
It was in 1963 that Agoncillo became Chairman of the Department of
History, which, he lamented, was a "dead department." Obviously, Agoncillo
did not find the situation likeable, in fact he felt "sorry" for its moribund state.
Such a situation had affected him, saying that something must be done with the
department. "I grew up in that department" he said. "I've therefore more than a
passing interest in it, more than anyone in the department not excluding of course
the old fogeys." He said, his "deep concern is to make that department produce
something, before I retire fifteen years hence. "22 He repeated the same observation
that the department is dead to another person. When his time comes to head it,
he said he will "revamp it" to "inject some strength to it." 23
Earlier, he confided to another person that he agreed with Prof. Fonacier's
idea that the department's Philippine area had to be strengthened. Short of saying
it needed a revamping, he said that such a need can be answered "either by enticing
outsiders who already have done something along the line or by training young
faculty members." 24
When the final moment came, when he was actually being offered the
chairmanship by then university President Carlos P. Romulo, he momentarily
vacillated saying that he preferred to be just a "mere professor." He instead
124: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

recommended Dr. Serafin Quiason. The recommendation was turned down by

the university's officials on the account that Quiason was "too young" to hold
such a position. Prof. Fonacier, who was instrumental in bringing him to the
U.P., urged Agoncillo to accept the chairmanship, and "expected him to improve
the department." Romulo finally summoned him and sought his help in
administering the university. He told Agoncillo it was he whom Romulo referred
to in a speech he delivered on the occasion of Fonacier's retirement when he said
that the "scholars of the U.P. should accept administrative positions." Romulo
followed this with the statement: "Teddy, fwant you to strengthen the Philippine
Area of the department. After all, that has been your obsession." Agoncillo,
realizing the import of Romulo's words replied with a question: "Is that an order
Mr. President?" Romulo's ringing reply was. "That's an order!" 25
Immediately, Agoncillo prepared the blueprint for the department's
revamp. With the help of Oscar Alfonso, he prepared the "Program of Study in
History", which specified the following basic aims:

A. To develop historical knowledge and critical understanding

of the major developments and problems of Philippine and
Asian history
B. To train departmental majors for historical research and
writing on topics of their own choice
C. To enable students to combine and interrelate cultural ideas
and movements
D. To provide coherence and depth within the major programs
of the study

As conceived, majors in history completed a minimum'!f 36 units in history

distributed as follows:

Philippine Area 12 units

Asian Area 9 units
American Area 6 units
European Area 6 units
Historiography 3 units 26

Agoncillo in a letter informed some persons regarding the curricular revamp

both in the undergraduate and graduate levels saying that the revamp was
"complete" and that he had "placed emphasis on the Philippines, with Asia taking
the second spot". Moreover, he "abolished Eastern Thought", a course that
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 125

nobody in the department could teach. 27 To another person, he described the

revamp as "from top to bottom", saying that "Asian civilization", which replaced
Eastern thought, is more history than philosophy. 28 In the same letter, he also
disclosed that the yardstick for promotion in the department is research. He
summed this up in the much touted statement: "publish or perish."
In November 1964, he had the opportunity to bring to the attention of the
entire university the revamp that he made in the department in a response to a
column written by Ruben Torres which criticized the administration of Carlos
P. Romulo in as far as nationalism in the campus is concerned. Short of referring
to Romulo as a "ceremonial nationalist," Torres called for a more "substantial"
articulation of nationalism, over and beyond mere "symbols" e.g. flag ceremonies,
rayadillo, the naming,lof streets in honor of our heroes, etc." {qtd. in Philippine
Collegian 18 November 1964: 8). Specifying what could have been more
substantial, Torres called for the purging of the curriculum of subjects which
deal more on American rather than Philippine history, politics, government,
nationalism and way of life", and expressed hope that the President will give
sufficient encouragement to the writing and teaching of history from the Filipino
point of view" (Torres 18 November 1964: 8).
The next issue of the Philippine Collegian carried a long letter of Agoncillo
correcting Torres' "inaccuracies and misconceptions." Agoncillo said that it was
Romulo who instructed him to give the "best attention" to Philippine and Asian
histories which they deserved, and to continue the use of the textbook in
Philippine History. It was also Romulo who encouraged him to write from the
Filipino viewpoint. Moreover, it was Romulo who "resisted" the pressure to
revise that said book "in such a way to make it innocuous and instead appointed
me Chairman of the Department of History with instructions to continue the
nationalist crusade. And he knew all along that "I was-and am still am-an ardent
nationalist." 29
On the revamp of the curriculum, Agoncillo said:

... I cannot accept Mr. Torres's view that President Romulo has not
purged the curriculum of subjects which deal more with American than
with Philippine courses. I can say this to Mr. Torres: that the
Department of History has decreased the number of American,
European and Latin-American courses and has correspondingly increased
those dealing with Philippines and Asia. In particular, the American
courses were decreased from three to two, while the sole Latin-American
course was abolished to give way to Asian Civilizations, now part of
the general education program. At the same time, History 115
(Philippine Revolution) and History 116 (The Development of
Philippine Nationalism from the 19'h Century to the Present) are now
offered, thanks to President Romulo's nationalism projection program.
126: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

A study of the curriculum of the Department of History shows that

under President Romulo (1) the number of Philippine courses has been
increased, with corresponding increase in the number of Asian courses;
(2). European, American, and Latin-American courses have been
considerably decreased in order to accommodate (1); and (3) the teaching
of Philippine Nationalism has been intensified by introduction of
History 115 and History 116, both of which are crucial in the study of
our nationalism. (Agoncillo's letter to the editor, qtd. in Philippine
Collegian 25 November 1964; 7-8)

Earlier, Agoncillo felt "gratified" when Zaide likewise expressed though

belatedly the need for re-writing Philippine history by "Filipino historians",
before an international audience in 1960, saying that most of our history were
"written by foreigners whose perspective was often distorted by racial prejudice
and discolored by antipathy to Asian achievements" and as such, these books
"cannot be expected to tell the real story of the Philippines or to mirror the soul
of the Filipino" for "only a Filipino historian can truly feel the heartbeats of the
Filipino people and interpret faithfully their aspirations, idiosyncracies, failures
and successes." 30
According to Zaide, Agoncillo has at last come out of the monk's study
breathing heavily with patriotism and offering his valuable services to lead a
historical crusade." Agoncillo was convinced the "crusade will be a success"
(Comments of T.A. Agoncillo on Zaide's Paper, qtd. in Proceedings of the
International Conference of Scholars: 249).
In the said comments, Agoncillo had of course noted and concurred with
other historians who said that the big challenge that the writing of history
especially during the Spanish period poses is the availability of archival materials
which are deposited in several archives in Spain. This problem had been sensitively
noted by historians, who observed that "the bulk of the~~urce materials for a
major portion" of the country's history are deposited "in widely scattered archives
and libraries abroad." The problem then is to locate them and make them available
to Filipino scholars "who are not able to go abroad." 31
In regard to this problem, Agoncillo likewise stated: " ... our first task is to
put our efforts together and gather all or most of the materials here and abroad
and make them available to all. When we have done this, our next task will be to
interpret those facts from our point of view" (Comments of T.A. Agoncillo on
Zaide's Paper in Proceedings of the International Conference of Scholars: 252).
The procurement of the sources for historical writing had indeed posed a
problem for Philippine historians. Agoncillo had even desired to write a social
history of the Philippines, and had already even conceptualized a title, The
Cathedral in a Hut: A Social History ofthe Philippines, but he asked: "Now, where
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 127

shall I get the sources?" He continued, "I have to go to Spain. I have to go to the
United States." He followed this with another pragmatic questions, "Who will
finance me?" 32
William Henry Scott took note of the paucity of these historical sources,
and the ine~itable bias assumed by foreign writers in writing the country's history.
He took well the comments of Agoncillo, and talked about a 'parchment curtain'
from whose cracks one can glean "fleeting glimpses of Filipinos and their reactions
to Spanish dominion. "32 In unfolding the history of the Philippines, Agoncillo
certainly took a Gadamerian viewpoint, where he treated the past in terms of
what Croce likewise said, contemporaneous stance. Of course, the 1960 edition
ended with the Magsaysay era, with a breezing account of the contemporary
cultural scene. In therrevision that subsequently came out in 1970, this stance is
clearly delineated in the inclusion of the related chapters, namely, "The
Continuing Crisis" (Chapter 27), "Profile of the Economy" (Chapter 28),
"External Affairs" (Chapter 29) and "The Cultural and Social Scene" (Chapter
30) which harped on the persistence of the socio-economic ills that confronted
the newly born republic-ills that had been witnesses during the colonial years.
Agoncillo's posture was certainly that of a nationalist, who bewailed the
subservient posture of the country to the United States, especially in foreign
affairs.
Agoncillo likewise focused on the nationalist posture taken by two
statesmen, Claro M. Recto and Jose P. Laurel, who assailed the burning issues
brought about by the infamous "Parity Rights" and the Military Bases Agreement
concluded with the U.S. that had direct influence on the emerging socio-economic
crisis that gripped the republic. He also pictured the rising militancy of the
students, which resulted in the institutionalization of "student power"
spearheaded by the students of U.P. and which spread like fire among the
progressive schools in downtown Manila.
Because of the innate limitation of the book, it being a textbook, the neo-
colonial posture of the country, howev~r, was not fully dissected and commented
upon. The proper venue for this was his other book, Filipino Nationalism, 1987-
1970 an expanded monograph that contained some readings that, even before its
publication in 1974, became the bible of students, especially those who took the
course History 116, an offering of the U.P. Department of History, which was a
course on "Philippine Nationalism." In this book, Agoncillo discussed the "stages
of Filipino nationalism and critically examined the various responses of the
Filipinos in each stage without leaving a vacuum" (Hila 1974:21).
Agoncillo had incisively assessed the lopsided arrangement that
characterized the relationship between the Philippines and the U.S. which
128: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

dominated the economic aspect of Philippine contemporary life. Agoncillo said

it was "not only economic dominance by Americans that the Filipinos resent,
but also its concomitant political power" (Hila 1974:73) He said:

To ensure economic dominance, the Americans, backed up by their

powerful government, have been known to interfere, directly or
indirectly, in Philippine elections in order to assure the election of pro-
American candidates. It is no secret to the Filipinos that American
businessmen and some officials have been investing heavily in
presidential elections by making this~or that candidate their 'fair-haired
boy'. (Hila 1974:73)

Because of this intervention, anti-Americanism came to the fore. The

Filipinos came to realize, and rightly so, that since "nominal independence in
1946", American policy in the country was set "to subvert that independence in
the interest of America." He continued:

This American attitude directly clashes the Filipino concept of friendship

and loyalty, a concept that is nourished in sentimentalism.
Unfortunately for the Filipinos, Americans are not sentimental; on the
contrary they are ruthlessly businesslike. (Hila 1974: 58-59)

Agoncillo was quick to note that it was precisely at that moment "when
the Filipinos had won their political independence that their nationalism suffered
an atrophy" (Hila 1974: 66). Correctly, Agoncillo had attributed this atrophy
largely to sentimentalism and naivete on the part of the gullible Filipinos who
believed that

America, in pursuit of her destiny and with national s~ejj-interests, was

incapable of exploiting them who stood by her in hef hour of need.
While the Americans act according to the dictates of their national
interests, and no other, the Filipinos, or at least their political leaders,
still cling to the mawkish sentimentalism of the hinterland which has
been made the basis of the myth called 'special relations' with the U:S.
(Hila 1974:86, et. passim).

On the whole, the burden of asserting effectively the country's

independence falls on the shoulders of the Filipinos themselves, who were advised
by Recto thus: "As Filipinos, we must look out for ourselves because no one else
will" (qtd. in Hila 1974: 59). Indeed, much will depend on the attitude of the
Filipinos to achieve completely the task of liberating themselves that was
vigorously started in 1896. The continuing crisis that grips the entire social life
of the country will stop only if, as Agoncillo had stated, the Filipinos will hearken
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 129

to the words of Apolinario Mabini, one that will always be relevant for as long
as colonialism or neo-colonialism exists: Strive for the independence of thy country
because thou alone hast real interest in its greatness and exaltation, since its
independence means thy own freedom, its greatness thy own perfection, its exaltation
thy own glory and immortality.
Agoncillo, indeed, had staunchly advocated the writing of Philippine
history from the Filipino point of view. "I do not want to appear fulsome," he
said, "but I can say without blushing that I pioneered in the writing of Philippine
history from the Filipino point of view" ("Philippine History Through Filipino
Eyes").

NOTES

1
Agoncillo, "Philippine History Through Filipino Eyes", a paper read at St.
Theresa's College in Quezon City in June 1972, TS, 14 pages. Same paper
carries a different title, "On the Rewriting of Philippine History" which
was read at the 5th Regional Seminar on History, Baguio City on May 26-
27, 1972 published in the Proceedings and Position Papers ofthe Fifth Regional
Seminar on History. (Manila: National Historical Institute, 1976), pp. 43-
52; also in Historical Bulletin 17, nos. 1-4 Ganuary-December 1973): pp.
178-187.
2 Agoncillo, "The Offering of Philippine History and Institutions I", TS _14 pages.

3
See "Comments of T.A. Agoncillo on G.F. Zaide's Paper" in Proceedings of the
International Conference ofScholars (N.P. :Philippine Historical Association,
n.d.), p. 29. The university was the Far Eastern University where he taught
Tagalog in 1948, when then Director of the National Language Institute,
Cirilo Panganiban who was handling this course became sick and choose
him to be his substitute. Agoncillo said his handling of the course must have
been liked by the Dean, he was eventually offered to teach at FEU. He
accepted the offer and resigned frQpl Cosmopolitan Colleges where he was
previously connected. See F. SionilJose's interview with Agoncillo in Ambeth
Ocampo, Taking History: Conversations with Teodoro A. Agoncillo (Manila:
De La Salle University Press, 1995). Pp. 139-140.
4 The paper was titled" A Re-interpretation of Our History Under Spain" which

was published in the August 24, 1958 issue of the Sunday Times Magazine,
pp. 6-9.
5 The word "policy is a typographical error. In the original draft, it reads "polity".

The original draft is found in the compilation of his works, "Original Drafts
of My Work, 1955-1961.
130: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

6 See Proceedings of the International Conference of Scholars pp. 192-193. This

paper was published in Progress. 1960 under the title "The Retelling of
Philippine History", pp. 116-119.
7 Agoncillo became more emphatic in stressing the above points as he rebutted

Jose M. Hernandez who wrote contrary views on the matter. The debate
was published in the same Sunday Times Magazine, dated September 21, 1958
pp. 18-21. The banner for Hernandez read: "Critic claims Mother Spain is no
real cruel stepmother" while that of Agoncillo who claimed that Hernandez
was a "sectarian writer" stated: "Author says our country paid dearly for
Spanish Heritage,"
8 Agoncillo's son on history, letter of Agoncillo's son' to the editor, Philippine

Daily Inquirer 16 October 1988: p. 5. Agoncillo's son, Tito, as he is fondly

called, expressed amazement over Ms. Guerrero's "misreading of his father's
mind", and said: "It now appears that through the years, Ms. Guerrero had
not really understood my late father." The statement is a tongue-in-check
one, so to speak, as in the words of another historian, Dr. Samuel K. Tan,
"Ms. Guerrero worshipped the late historian when she was just beginning".
Dr. Tan strongly doubts that Dr. Guerrero's criticism (he used the word
"attack") is motivated by historical disagreement as "her public assault is
done when the historian is no longer around to defend himself ..... " See
"Controversial history", Dr. Tan's letter to the editor, Philippine Daily
Inquirer 2 November 1988: p. 5.
9
See Am beth Ocampo, "Reinterpreting Agoncillo", a forum on Agoncillo,
Philippine Daily Globe, 9 April 1989: p. 10 and 16 April 1989: p. 10. The
historians Ambeth interviewed in the order of their appearance were: Dr.
Marcelino Foronda, Dr. Leslie Bauzon; Dr. Romeo Cruz; Dr. Zeus Salazar;
Dr. Bernardita Reyes-Churchill; Dr. Samuel Tan.,.t.nd Dr. Napoleon
Casambre. ..
10
This was Fernandez, his teacher. See "Philippine Historiography in the Age of
Kalaw", an unpublished paper consisting of 48 sheets read on March 31, 1984
at The Philippine National Library Auditorium on the occasion of the birth
centenary of Kalaw.
11
See "Our Usable Past", p. 187. He also touched on the matter of the
revolutionists being called insurrectas in his interview with F. Sionil Jose, see
Ocampo, op. cit., p. 157.
12
Letter to Gabriel Maiialac, Chairman of the Board of Textbooks, February 1,
1950. The letter details his report on the history textbooks prepared by E.
Alip, Conrado Benitez, G. Zaide and T. del Castillo. Agoncillo had cited
Jernegan and Barrows as the two "popular" writers of Philippine history
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 131

textbooks which readily became "Bible of Filipino Students", see "Philippine

History Through Filipino Eyes."
13
Agoncillo's joining the U.P. was largely due to the "prodding" of his wife
Anacleta V. Agoncillo, a medical doctor, who accepted the invitation for
him because she wanted him to have at "little rest." Salary wise he was earning
more outside than in U.P. where his starting salary is P 690.00 compared
with the P 1,400 he was making before he joined U.P. See Ocampo op. cit, p.
51 and p. 101, respectively. His name appeared in the listing of faculty
members of the department with the rank of professor in U.P. General
Catalogue for 1958-1959, with Gabriel Fabella as head. In the list was the
name of Tomas S. Fonacier, the person who was "responsible" for his joining
the university. Hrgf. Leopolda Yabes was not persuasive enough to convince
him. Yabes talk:-d to him before Fonacier did. See Ocampo, op. cit. p. 140.
14
Ocampo, op.cit., p. 134. This was revised in 1967, and in the third edition,
1970, Alfonso was replaced by Milagros C. Guerrero. In 1990 this book was
again revised and updated upon the behest of the Agoncillo family, with new
chapters written by Bernardita R. Churchill, Isagani R. Medina and Samuel
K. Tan who replaced Guerrero. See B.R. Churchill, "State of the Art: History
and Current Situation of the Discipline of History in the Philippines" in
Philippine Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (QC: PSSC, 1993) pp. 7-34,
footnotes 28, 29 and 30.
15 See Churchill, op. cit., p. 14. Dr. Churchill still keeps the book. Interview

with her, October 15, 1997.

16
Telephone interview with Dr. Oscar Alfonso, October 22, 1997. In the 1970
revised edition of the book, Guerrero wrote the said chapters.
17 See Agoncillo's A Short History ofthe Philippines (New York and Toronto: The

New American Library, 1969), p. 40. For its review, see Antonio C. Hila, "A
New Interpretation of Philippine History", Graphic Magazine 15 April1970:
40.
18
Ocampo, op. cit., p. 156. Ocampo's text contains a typographical error. The
year "1872" appeared "1972". See original transcript in Solidarity, no. 112
(May-June 1987): p. 103.
19 P .S. Achutegui, S.J. and Miguel A. Bernad, S.J. Religious Revolution in the Philippines,

The Life and Church ofGregorioAglipay, vol. 1 (Manila: Bookmark, 1960}.

20 The reviewer was Carlos Quirino. The review appeared in a sectarian paper,

according to Agoncillo himself, where his name was felt like "poison." He
said that Quirino's background in history was "not only shaky but nil. All
he has is enthusiasm." See Agoncillos's letter to Oscar Alfonso, who was
then in Chicago, March 10, 1963.
132: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

21
"Philippine History Through Filipino Eyes." See also interview with F. Sionil
Jose dated February 29, 1984. The party was held "long before the martial
law regime."
22 Letter to Alfonso, who was then in Chicago, February 14, 1963.

23 Letter to Bernardita R. Churchill, who was then in Washington, March 10,

1963.
24
Letter to Diosdado Asuncion, who was then in Florida, January 26, 1963.
25 Letter to Bernardita R. Churchill, January 14, 1964.

26 See "Program of Study in History," unp~blished TS, mimeograph, 4 pages,

n.d. This document which is already brittle is found in the bound letters of
Agoncillo, "Letters of Teodoro A. Agoncillo, 1963-1966." This was discussed
by the entire staff of the UP Department of History on January 29, 1964 and
was sent to Dr. Francisco Nemenzo, Sr. then the Dean of the College of
Liberal Arts on February 5, 1964. See Agoncillo's letter to Francisco Nemenzo
5 February 1964. Among the subjects that were abolished were History 104,
a course that deals with the History of Russia since 1917; History 105, History
of England; History 160, U.S. History from 1492 to the present and History
162, History of Latin America. Courses that were introduced were the
following: History 115, The Philippine Revolution and Phil-American War;
History 120, Directed Readings in Philippine History; History 110,
Philippines under Spain, 1521-1700; History 111, Philippines in the 19th
century and History 114, Cultural History of the Philippines. History 111,
however was revised and gave way to History 116, History of Philippine
Nationalism.
27
Letter to Silvino Epistola, who was then in Cambridge, Massachusetts, April
18, 1964.
28
Letter to Napoleon Casambre who was at Stanford Urri:fersity at that time,
April26, 1964.
29
See Agoncillo's letter to the editor, with the banner "Not a ceremonial
nationalist" Philippine Collegian, 25 November 1964: pp. 7-8.
30
"New Frontiers in Philippine History" in Proceedings of the International
Conference ofScholars pp. 235-236. Dr. Zaide also read a paper, "The Rewriting
of Philippine History" which substantially raised the same need for a history
written "of, for and by the Filipinos" in the First Regional Seminar on History
ofthe NHI at Bicol University on August 28, 1971, and was published in
Historical Bulletin 17 Qan-Dec 1973): 162-177.
31
Higher Education and Philippine Culture (QC: Ateneo de Manila, 1960) This
volume contains the tentative report to the Rector of the Ateneo de Manila
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 133

by Special Committees representing the Various Disciplines to commemorate

the Centenary of the Founding of the Ateneo, 1859-1959.
32
lnterview with F. Sionil]ose, op cit., p. 104; in Ocampo, op cit., pp. 158-159.
See also the 1984 interview of F. Sionil Jose, op. cit., where he lamented the
"poor handling of our archives" which were mostly unclassified before it
was transferred to where it is now, from the old Bilibid Prisons on Oro quieta
St. as ordered by then President F. Marcos after the "pleadings" done by Dr.
Domingo Abella, Carmen Guerrero Nakpil, Fr. Horacio de la Costa, S.J.
and himself. Dr. Abella had done much of the classification of some "eleven
million documents."
134: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

REFERENCES

Bibliographical Guide

Medina, Isagani, comp. Talaaklatan ng mga akda ni Teodoro Agoncillo, 192 7-

1977. Quezon City: U.P. Department of History, 1977.

Works of Teodoro Agoncillo

Books
Agoncillo, T eodoro and Oscar Alfonso. A Short History of the Filipino People.
Quezon City: U.P., 1960.
Agoncillo, Teodoro and Milagros C. Guerrero. A Short History of the Filipino.
Quezon City: R.P. Garcia Publishing Co., Inc. 1970. The 1990 edition of
this book includes new chapters written by Bernardita Churchill, Isagani
Medina and Samuel Tan.
Agoncillo, T eodoro and S. V. Epistola. The Writings and Trial ofAndres Bonifacio.
Manila: Bonifacio Centennial Commission, 1963.
Agoncillo, T eodoro, Malo los: The Crisis of the Republic. Quezon City: University
of the Philippines, 1960.
- The Revolt of the Massses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan. Quezon
City: University of the Philippines Press, 1956.
-A Short History ofthe Philippines. New York and Toronto: The New American
Library, 1969.
- The Fateful Year: Japan's Adventure in the Philippines, 1941-194 5. 2 vols. Quezon
City: R.P. Garcia Publishing Co., Inc., 1965.
-Filipino Nationalism, 1872-1970. Quezon City: R.P. C:rltrcia Publishing Co.,
Inc., 1974.
- A Burden of Proof" The Vargas-Laure! Collaboration Case. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press, 1984.
-Stray Thoughts: Quezon City: R.P. Garcia Publishing Co., Inc., 1986.
-Original Drafts ofMy Works, 1955-1961.

Articles/Lectures/and other Writings

Agoncillo, T eodoro. "A Re-interpretation of our history under Spain." Sunday

Times Magazine 24 August 1958: 6-9.
-."Author says our country paid dearly for Spanish heritage." Debate with Jose
M. Hernandez-rebuttal. Sunday Times Magazine 21 September 1958: pp. 18-21.
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 135

-. "Not a ceremonial nationalist." Letter to the editor. Philippine Collegian 25

Nov. 1964: pp. 7-8.
-. "The Filipino-American War." Historical Bulletin 18, nos. 1-4 Qan. - Dec.
1970): pp. 16-17.
-."Interpretation in History." Historical Bulletin 7, nos. 1-4 Qan.- Dec. 1973):
pp. 225-233.
-. "Objectivity and Impaniality in History." Historical Bulletin 17, nos. 1-4
Qan. -Dec 1973): pp. 213-217. This was extemporaneously delivered in the
Third Regional Seminar in History held on January 22-23, 1972 in Davao
City and printed in Proceedings and Position Papers of the Third Regional
Seminar on History. Manila: NHI, 1976.
-. "Comments of T$Qdoro Agoncillo on G.F. Zaide's Paper" in Proceedings of
the International Conference of Scholars. Manila: The Philippine Historical
Association, n.d.
-."Four Girls and a Man." Manila 19 to 27 Oct. 1956.
-. "Our Usable Past." A paper read in the First International Conference of
Historians of Southeast Asia held in Manila on November 25-30, 1960.
Published in the Proceedings ofthe International Conference ofScholar. Manila:
The Philippine Historical Association, n.d. This paper was published in
Progress (1960): 116-119 under the title "The Retelling of Philippine History."
- "New Frontiers in Philippine History." Proceedings of the International
Conference of Scholars.
-. Program of Study in History, TS. 4 pages. This document which is already
brittle is found in the bound letters of Agoncillo, "Letters of Teodoro A.
Agoncillo, 1963-1966."
-. "Imagination in History." A paper read at the third series of the Division of
the Humanities, U.P. Diliman on November 4, 1964. Revised version of this
paper was read at the Fourth Regional Seminar of History held on March 23-
24, 1972 at Davao City and published in Proceedings and Position Papers of
the Fourth Regional Seminar on History. Manila: NHI, 1970.
-. "Philippine History Through Filipino Eyes." (also known with the similar
title, "Looking at Our History from the Filipino Viewpoint"). An address
delivered on April24, 1964 before the faculty and graduating class of Luzon
Technical Institute, San Antonio, Zambales.
-"Philippine History Through Filipino Eyes." A paper read at St. Theresa's
College in Quezon City in June 1972. The same paper carries a different title
"On the Rewriting of Philippine History", which was read at the 5th Regional
Seminar on History in Baguio City on May 26-27, 1972 and published in
Proceedings and Position Papers of the Fifth Regional Seminar on History
136: ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

(Manila: National Historical Institute, 1976); also in Historical Bulletin 17,

nos. 1-4 Qanuary-December 1973): 178-187.
- "History as a vehicle of Cultural Development." A paper read in a seminar on
history at Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija on March 2, 1974.
-"Scholarship and the University." (Quezon City: University of the Press, 1977).
A professorial lecture delivered at the U.P. Faculty Center on February 6,
1976.
- " History as Humanistic Studies." A paper read at the seminar held on May
31, 1977 at the Central Philippine Unf~ersity, Iloilo City.
- "Literature as History."TS. 1977. Published in the Annals at the Philippine
Chinese Historical Association, 9th issue (October 1979): 1-17.
-. "Philippine Historiography in the Age of Kalaw." An unpublished paper
consisting of 48 sheets read on March 31, 1984 at the Philippine National
Library Auditorium on the occasion of the birth centenary of Kalaw.
- "In passing." Unpublished draft of a preface. 4 pages.
- Preface to the Second Edition of Revolt of the Masses. TS. 4 pages.
Unpublished.
-"The Offering of Philippine History and Institutions." TS. 14 pages.

Interviews with T.A.A.

"All historians are controversial." An interview in Archipelago Quly 1974): pp.

11-13. F. Sionil Jose. Interview with Agoncillo, Teodoro. TS. 12 pages. 29
Feb.J984.
-.Interview with Agoncillo, Teodoro. Original transcript in Solidarity, no. 112
(May-June 1987): 103.
-. Interview with Agoncillo, Teodoro. Ocampo, Amb-t!h. Talking History:
Conversations with TeodoroA. Agoncillo. Manila: De La Salle University Press,
1995.

Letters

Agoncillo, Teodoro. Letter to Gabriel Maiialac, Chairman of the Board of

Textbooks. 1 February 1950.
Agoncillo, Teodoro. Letter to Diosdado Asuncion. 26 January 1963.
-.Letter to Oscar Alfonso. 14 February 1963.
-.Letter to Oscar Alfonso. 10 March 1963.
-.Letter to Bernardita Churchill. 10 March 1963.
-.Letter to Bernardita Churchill. 14 January 1964.
 ANTONIO C. HILA : 137

-.Letter to Bernardita Churchill. 14 January 1964.

-.Letter to Francisco Nemenzo. 5 February 1964.
-. Letter to Silvino Epistola. 18 April1964.
-.Letter to Napoleon Casambre. 26 April1964.
-.Letter to Juanita Saez. 21 May 1964.
-. Letter to Bernardita Churchill. 15 February 1979.
-.Letter to Bernardita Churchill. 19 November 1979.

Other Works

Books
Achutegui, P.S., S.J. illd Miguel Bernard, S.J. Religious Revolution in the
Philippines: The Life and Church of Gregorio Aglipay. Vol. 1. Manila:
Bookmark, 1960.
Churchill, Bernardita. "State of the Art: History and Current Situation of the
Discipline of History in the Philippines." Philippine Encyclopedia ofthe Social
Sciences Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council, 1993.
Higher Education and Philippine Culture. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University, 1960.
Scott, William Henry. Cracks in the Parchment Curtain. Quezon City: New
Day Publisher, 1985.

Journal and Catalogue

UP General Catalogue 1958-1959.

Zaide, Gregorio. "The Rewriting of Philippine History." Historical Bulletin 17
Gan-Dee. 1973): 162-177. Presented during the First Regional Seminar on
History sponsored by the National Historical Institute and held at the Bicol
University on August 28, 1971.

Articles

"Agoncillo's son on history." Letter of Agoncillo's son to the editor. Philippine

Daily Inquirer. 16 October 1988:5.
"Controversial history." Letter of Dr. Samuel Tan to the editor." Philippine Daily
Inquirer. 2 November 1988: 5.
"Dialogue on Nationalism." The Philippine Collegian 25 November 1964:8
Guerrero, Milagros. "Approaches to history." Philippine Daily Inquirer 18 Nov.
1988:5
138 : ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

Hila, Antonio. "A new interpretation of Philippine History. Graphic Magazine

15 April1970:40
Ocampo, Ambeth. "Reinterpreting Agoncillo: A Forum on Agoncillo."
Philippine Daily Globe 9 April1989: p. 10 and 16 Aprill989: 10.
Torres, Ruben. "Nationalism in the University." Philippine Collegian 18 Nov.
1964: 8.

Interview

Hila, Antonio. Interview with Bernardita Churchill. 15 October 1997.

-.Telephone interview with Dr. Oscar Alfonso. 22 October 1997.