BRIDGING THE GAP
Henry F. Funtecha, Ph.D.
Some issues and concerns on Bisayan history
Contemporary Filipino historians are often handicapped by the lack or absence of written materials that could counterbalance the misconceptions, misrepresentations, biases and prejudices of Spanish and American colonial writers. This predicament is true of the history of every group of people in the Philippine archipelago, including that of the Bisayans.
It must be pointed out that the early history of the Filipino people was essentially based on the writings of the colonialists and, therefore, seen and judged through their own perspectives. Their writings were generally damaging to the natives because the common theme presented was that of the Filipinos being uncivilized, primitive, illiterate, backward, indolent, unhygienic and unintelligent. On the other hand, the colonialists pictured themselves as the "liberators" of the "untamed" natives, professing themselves to be the "benefactors" and "educators" of the latter. Thus, they were afflicted with some kind of Narcissus complex and considered themselves as civilized, kind, competent, efficient, religious, God-fearing, and self-sacrificing. Students of history would know what the so-called "white man's burden" and "manifest destiny" stand for.
Other than the obvious unreliability and untruthfulness of many of the writings of the colonialists, there is also the Manila-centered or Tagalog-centric tendency and orientation of Philippine history. For most of the past decades, it was viewed that the history of the Tagalogs represented also the character of the histories of the rest of the Filipino people. In others words, the common thinking was that Tagalog history was already the history of the Filipinos. This was aggravated by the fact that there has always been the lack of emphasis or interest on local history research and writing. It is only from the 1970s onward that there has been an increasing interest and sustained activity on local history throughout the country.
All of the above, therefore, have resulted to many gaps or "missing links" in Philippine national and local history materials. In the case of Bisayan history, some interesting issues and concerns present themselves that need the attention of historians and history teachers alike. They are the following:
1. Why is the central part of the Philippines referred to collectively as the "Visayas"?
2. Is the so-called "Maragtas" really a historical document? Was it written in the middle part of the 13th century?
3. Is "Iloilo" really taken from the word "Ilong-ilong"?
4. Is "Lapulapu" the correct name of the hero of Mactan? Should he be considered as the first defender of Filipino freedom?
5. Was it really Lapulapu who killed Magellan?
6. Was Enrique, the slave of Magellan who served as the interpreter for the Spaniards, a Bisayan by origin?
7. Is the word"babaylan" derived from the phrase "babaye lang"?
8. Why did the Spaniards initially called the Bisayans as "Pintados"?
9. Where was the first Catholic mass in the Philippines really held? Was it in the Visayas or in Mindanao?
10. Is the name "Jaro" the hispanized version of "Salog"?
11. Is Iloilo River not a true river? Is its old name "Batiano River"?
12. Is it true that the Bisayans were still uncivilized and spent most of their time in warfare before they were colonized by the Spaniards?
As can be seen from the above questions, there are many gaps or "missing links" involved in Bisayan history. It is, therefore, the task of every teacher or researcher of the social sciences and the humanities to endeavor to bridge and clarify the issues and concerns confronting the people's knowledge and understanding of Bisayan history and culture. In so doing, people in the West Visayas region will be better enlightened and will be able to appreciate more their historical and cultural heritage as Bisayans.