When readers are not historians
| TABLETS OF STONE |
 |
| Larry Faraon, OP |
Whether the late Ferdinand Marcos should be buried or not at the “Libingan ng mga Bayani” is a simple matter of “weder-weder lang yan” — meaning it depends on who is reading what history. It is purely perceptive, interpretative and therefore, subjective. The “burial” issue should be not an exercise of judgment purported by history or “historical” events. History books actually are not “history,” but chronological reportage of past events leading toward a linear and parallel realization of the present. The historian begins where the chronicler ends.
The historian’s job is philosophical and rises above the events to the level of immanence where time becomes immaterial and linguistically embedded events are decoded or myths — demythologized. And it is only then and there that a real interpretation of peoples, places and events in history can take place. Only a historian going beyond the linear to the cyclical could say that “history repeats itself,” not the chronicler nor the reader.
Judging history or its events including the persons in the fact sheets is a highly hypothetical activity. Thus declaring Marcos a hero or a villain through his burial at the heroes’ plot is not a function of history; it is purely political — no more no less.
In fact, I was totally taken aback when the issue was addressed squarely by the son of the fiercest political husband and wife opponent of the late dictator and he even officially designated Vice President Jejomar Binay to study and come up with recommendations on how to resolve the issue; it is still a webbed mystery to me why, when in fact the issue itself can wait..... MORE
Source: The Daily Tribune
URL: http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20110605com6.html
0 comments
Post a Comment