Matt Walsh’s Documentary, “What is a Woman?” (2022) and my thoughts on Gender Ideology

Matt Walsh, What is a Woman? (credits to the owner)

             The issue on gender may not be new to most of us. In my case, this has been talked consistently when I was in college. Even until now, having a career with close ties to a government institution, this matter on gender sensitivity, equality, development, et cetera is still being studied and talked about. Heck, the government even has millions, if not billions, worth of funds just for it. I don’t know the entire details when it comes to allocations. Just look it up, will ya?

            So, gender, as most people believe, especially in the academe, is a very broad subject to talk about. Though I’m not entirely sure that is really the case because if you would look for its definition in the dictionary, it’s just basically related with sex (I’m not talking about coitus. So, curb that naughty mind of yours.) and sexual classification. Many might disagree with me on this, but I don’t really care about that. What I do care about is the disturbing ideas that most of the western culture have developed especially on the side of the LGBTQ+ Ideology. I wouldn’t classify this as a “community” because for me, it’s an ideological concept which I believe could lead to a lot of things. And believe me, most of it is… bad. I mean, bad, bad.

            I could get in trouble just by saying that. Be labeled as a “homophobe” or a “transphobe” or whatever those “phobes” are. But I know for a fact that that ain’t what I am. I consider people, no matter what they believe in, as people. Just human beings living their lives in the way that they think could work for them. However, I’ve seen an imposition on some of the concepts that this ideology adheres to our established norms. Now, I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t care if they want to scream at the top of their lungs the ideas that they believe in. Shoving it into our faces though, now that’s a whole different ball game.

            There is nothing wrong about fighting for your rights. I mean, I’d fight for mine. So does everybody. I’m referring to the most basic human rights which are life and liberty. Everything else is basically just a subset of those two. However, there’s a boundary that we must note when it comes to the second one. Liberty is not all-encompassing and is therefore limited in some sense. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau puts it, “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.” And another one, “Freedom is the power to choose our own chains.”

            I’m saying these because there is a limit to what we want the world to believe in. And not everything that we adhere to is acceptable to everybody. And in relation to the gender ideology that the LGBTQ+ espouses, it’s a contradiction to their dogma. But let me reiterate again, I have nothing against the people around this ideology. However, I am against the ideology itself.

            Now, that has been a lengthy introduction. I guess I was just carried away with my thoughts, which a writer should avoid, or so they say. But naaaah, I choose to be different. So, about this documentary that, by the way, is a preeeettty good one. Matt Walsh just asks the simple question, “What is a Woman?” fairly simple premise about a very simple inquiry. But apparently, post-modern leftist mentality made it exceptionally incomprehensible to the western mind. It concerns me because this idea has somehow crept ever so silently but viciously into our eastern culture.

            Through the media and pseudo-scientific experimentation, our generation is experiencing a downturn from the natural order of things into a spiraling void of irrational ideas and destructive belief. Matt Walsh has successfully and brilliantly exposed in this documentary the sheer stupidity and likelihood for the downfall of the western civilization, by asking that very simple question, “What is a Woman?” and why does it matter? Well, for one, it matters because the future of our species lies in the hands of the present and future generations. And if they grow up to have a difficulty in distinguishing their own identity, it would be a problem. Like, BIG TIME!

            The U.S. and most of the entire western world has had its fill of misdeeds in the past, but those are basically arbitrary in sense. Some are even necessary for our present culture to be shaped on what it is today. But somehow along those lines, their culture and reliance to the truth has waned through time. I don’t know? Maybe they’ve become too comfortable in their status that’s why most of them have become soft and unable to distinguish the truth that nature screams from their mental disability to even question the truth? This is a blatant and idiotic evolution, if you can consider it one.

            My point here is, when do we draw the line between the truth and somebody’s own perception of the truth? And I think the documentary has raised that question too. Perhaps it is relatable to me because I am concerned about the future. Just so you know, I have recently been married and my wife and I are expecting a child one of these days. I hope that would be soon. And I don’t want my future children to have a blurred vision of reality. I want them to experience life the way it is meant to be explored and enjoyed as a BOY or a GIRL. I don’t want them to be further away from the truth which our society is slowly inclining to do the very opposite.

            I hope that you, my dear reader, could also realize the potential danger of this ideology and be able to deeply understand the negative outcomes it might bring. I’m not endorsing, but I hope you’d watch Matt Walsh’s documentary. Thanks for reading. God bless you all!

More reads here:

Welcome To My Mind - A collection of my random thoughts on Facebook

Movie Reviews

Book Reviews

On ABS-CBN Shutdown

Special Joint Committee Hearing on the renewal of ABS-CBN Franchise. June 11, 2020 (Photo credits to TheHouseOfRepresentatives.gov.ph)

This reaction may come as a bit late to the party that's been ongoing for a while now. Nonetheless, this is what I have to say about all these legal shenanigans that I have grown too tired of seeing as I scroll down my newsfeed. Disclaimer, I am in no way an expert of these matters and I am yet to dig deeper into these things since it's getting more and more interesting as it progresses. My opinions are also leaning towards bias since I am in full support of our Nation's Laws and not to some pig-headed conglomerate that's just there to seduce our minds into believing what they have to say. (See? That's already biased, so read at your own risk!)

Idiots holding pointless rallies (Photo credits to ABS-CBN.com)

As we may all know by now, since people consider themselves to be experts on everything these days, ABS-CBN is one of the country's biggest Mass Media Corporation. And it seems that they've been conditioning the minds of most Filipinos since they started their game long before social media was making zombies out of us. I'm not saying that they got to where they are first. I'm just posing the fact that they're older than me. (Duh!)

Yeah right, I can't even get my facts straight about when they were conceived, but who frickin' cares, anyway? That's not the issue on hand, because one can easily Google those facts.

So, about ABS-CBN, I've been watching the latest Committee Hearing of the House of Representatives lately about this issue. In my own opinion, the hearing is downright stupid. And I don't mean that our lawmakers are stupid for doing so, I respect these people with every ounce of dignity that I have. What I mean about being stupid is the sheer idea of having this hearing, A SPECIAL HEARING, if I might add. I mean, for what? Just so that these ABS-CBN pricks could resume their blatant diabolical operations? Instead of Congress actually putting up laws and policies to combat this pandemic that's currently loose in the country, unfortunately.

On the other hand, it might also be a good idea so that somehow, Congress and ABS-CBN could shed some light on the matter. And rightly so, the hearing did not just shed some light on a specific matter but we were as if being bombarded with some big-ass floodlights on other important matters that pertains to our laws and the Constitution as well. Now, as I have said, I am not an expert on these legal matters but I think it's also safe to say that our laws have loopholes that we should be worried about if we really want to live a peaceable and sound life in this great country. And if we want to maintain that, I think we should also be concerned about these matters because companies like ABS-CBN has long been toying with us through these loopholes.

As I look into the things presented in these hearings, I think it's about time that ABS-CBN and other companies (whomever they are) who are doing these fiendish acts, be held accountable. And with that line of thought, ABS-CBN is not fit to be renewed in whatsoever operations that they were doing.

As for their "11,000" employees, if ever there was even some semblance of truth to that statement, can apply for jobs in other media agencies. I think, in their time in ABS-CBN, they have learned a lot and are qualified to do the jobs in their line of work in other companies/agencies. Now, come on, if this wouldn't work, I'm sure there are other legal means for them to feed their families. No?

So then, can we live a life without ABS-CBN? We certainly can! There are plenty of media outlets out there offering real news other than ABS-CBN that's just "In service of their bosses". If that's the only thing that you care about. As for the question of who their bosses are, that's for another time. Also, the company drew first blood by undermining the authority of the Constitution by violating it through appointing a non-Filipino citizen as their leader. Which should not be so, as I understand it. The government is just doing what it's supposed to do by exercising the authority of the Constitution. Right? And we should be pleased with that because that's a clear manifestation that our government is progressing and should not be put inside some greedy corporation's pocket.

So that's about it. If anyone has to add to this, you are welcome to do so in the comments' section. Thanks for reading. GOD Bless Us All!

I Stand for MSU: A Revolution Against Decadence

The glorious entrance to Mindanao State University - Main Campus. (Credits to the owner of the photo)

For the past day, I have been informed about the two Mindanao State University Execs who were suspended because they were charged of “simple neglect of duty” by the Ombudsman. It came to me that these charges were made so that these two executives could be litigated. It is safe to assume that they would face these accusations in time in order to resolve the problem that they face. However, it also occurred to me that this simple charge of neglect of duty isn’t the only thing that should be looked and investigated upon by the Ombudsman. As an MSUan, I have seen the frailties of the system of the university, I have witnessed the malpractice of some administrators who only care for themselves and not the interests of the students, faculty, staff, and the whole institution as a whole.

I have been here for almost nine years, that’s just a small fraction of what others have experienced being here in the university. In the past eight years of my residence here in the university, I have learned to love it, care for it, prayed and defended it from the outside “forces” that thinks less of it. In this case, I can consider myself as a “nationalist” (If MSU is of course, a nation). My admiration for this university exceeds from those of other bigger and “well-known” institutions, because I was not just academically trained in the university, I also grew even more matured in terms of practical thinking and decision making in this beloved university of mine. However, in all the admiration that I have for the university, I could not deny that there are really some dark elements that it conceals. Too dark that I could not help myself but doubt about the love I have for this institution. I have seen the irony that this beautiful yet decadent university beholds. For everybody’s consumption, I am not writing here a hate-piece towards the university. This is merely an “exposition” of what I have perceived a debase attitude that our previous (and to some extent even some of the present) administration had or has.

When I was an undergraduate, I have been an S.A. (Student Assistant) to various establishments in the university. The last time that I was an S.A. was when I worked for one of the best, if not brilliant, professors in the university. I would not mention his name here for personal reasons. I was this professor’s last S.A. on his last year in the university. It wasn’t supposed to be his last year because he was only planning for a retirement then. He wasn’t even sure if he wanted to retire immediately because according to him, he has still the passion and the will to teach. One can really see that he still has the capacity to work and teach eloquently. Also, he hasn’t even turned sixty – the most suitable age that the government requires for a person to retire. This professor has been entrusted a “faculty cottage” with in the university, and yes, this cottage was situated in a seemingly fitting environment in the university. Now, it was still even rumors that this professor would retire, even though he hasn’t made up his mind yet, and his colleagues knew that it would be a great loss for the university if he would retire then and then. I for one knew that he didn’t want to retire because he told me. But then, even rumors can quantify as true for a self-indulgent bastard.

It was November of 2014 that an MSU “official” surveyed the area/compound where the professor resides. At first, we were not sure what the purpose of their visit was. Eventually it became evident that they wanted to occupy the area as soon as the professor has retired. The professor tried to explain that the procedure isn’t that simple. However, the “official” insisted that the professor should work for his retirement because he would replace him as the next resident of the compound. RESIDENT. I remember the word correctly because I was there when it happened. It was as if he thought that the compound was allocated for “officials” where in fact it was a “faculty cottage.” And we felt like we were driven off by an external force that we didn’t see coming. Later, we found out that the “official” was a “relative” of the seating president of the university. I wouldn’t mention his name, you know who he is. We were wondering why it was so simple for him to say those words to us at first, but in the end it was made clear to us.

Every day, since that month, a PKF (Peace Keeping Force) guard would visit the house and would ask us when will we move out. We were treated as if we were squatters in an area. At least that’s what it felt like. Note: EVERY SINGLE DAY. They’d ask us that question. Even though the professor hasn’t even filed his retirement papers. By the start of December, we were already packing our things because we really felt that they would bulldoze the house anytime. The “official” would call the professor asking him to move out in the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT! I was constantly praying during those times that perhaps these persons would reconsider and even help us find an easy alternative of moving out. Help us pack the professor’s books perhaps. But no! They didn’t even lift a finger as we struggled moving and packing the furniture! That week, the wall construction started. And we were really doubling our efforts to pack everything that belongs to the professor. Still, the retirement papers weren’t done yet.

For me, I was worried, the professor I was working for would be forcefully retired, and I didn’t have a place to live in. My initial thought was to go back to the dormitory, but then, I’d have no income if I stayed there, so I searched for another option where I could still survive as a working student. Eventually I found a boarding house not too far from the professor’s cottage. But even so, the professor still helped me with my allowances even if he’s not in MSU anymore. Oh, I forgot to mention, we were eventually and “officially” stripped off the house. And they demolished the house even if it still looked well. That’s the bitter truth that I’ve experienced in MSU. It hurts for me, how much more for the professor who was forcefully evicted like a squatter in an area.

Nepotism isn’t a new thing in MSU. I have witnessed that myself, not just in that experience that I had. Forgive me, it is not my intention to point fingers, I just have grown sick with all that’s happening to the place I love. Now this, going back to these two executives who were charged with that case, it is not new to my hearing because it’s not only that time that they’ve done a thing like that. That’s just one of the many unfit practices in MSU. The CSC even branded the university as one of the Philippines’ “worst universities” in terms of administrative functions. So what could one expect? Many of my friends would tell me, “Masanay ka na, nasa lugar tayo na walang batas!” (Get used to it, we’re in a place where the law isn’t observed!”)

I refuse to believe that, but there are times that I could really agree to it because the filth is so foul, you could suffocate! As to you, my fellow MSUan, if you are reading this right now, would you tolerate a system that runs its course the way that an oil spill corrupts the sea? I have seen MSU’s worst, but its bests outweighs it more. And I hope that it wouldn’t reverse its way to what we don’t like. Would you stand for MSU or would you like to watch it crumble in the hands of corrupt administrators who only care for themselves? This is a call for revolution against the system that doesn’t work as it is supposed to. The question is, would you heed this call?

Please do leave your comments and suggestions. If you have a story to tell, please let me know. Thanks for reading!

Suicide Squad Movie - A Review

As Suicide Squad heads to its final theatrical release week, let me just share my opinion about the film. I know, I know... It's already late for reviews but I want to share mine anyway.

  So, Suicide Squad is a movie adaptation of DC Comics' antihero group Task Force X which then became Suicide Squad. But unlike any other DC comics based film, this is the very first "team-up" that they have made ever since the DCEU began. The movie stems up from a group of villains hired by the government as a contingency unit for future threats. And that is what you can see in the movie. For comic book readers (like me), there is so much to be brought up regarding the Suicide Squad and the movie was not a disappointment as it is the first of its kind to be brought up by the DCEU. Fans are eagerly anticipating for more Suicide Squad but the release dates are just too anti-climactic. Unlike MARVEL, DC has its own way of presenting their characters not being too generic.

  Anyway, let's go back to our main theme. For a moment I really thought that they would be basing the movie on Batman: Assault on Arkham since the Suicide Squad was the main theme of that animated feature. Anyone who has seen Assault on Arkham would be amazed by who these characters are. The Suicide Squad film has some similarities though but for me Assault on Arkham was a much better Suicide Squad film. I cannot help but compare these films because it is a point of fact that fans love Assault on Arkham more than the Suicide Squad film. But I can't also say that I can't give credit to the film. For the non-comic readers, the film was a great introduction to the characters, and that is the one thing that I could give credit to Director David Ayer.

Now for the characters:

Deadshot

  Played by Will Smith, Deadshot is an assassin who is an insanely skilled shooter. In the comics and animated features, you can see see him as a merciless criminal who is just leashed by the government and works for them because he has no choice, but in the film you actually feel for him. His backstory is just heart-pounding. There is this scene in the movie when Batman captured him and Deadshot tries to shoot him but he can't because his daughter was preventing him from doing so. You can see that in many films but in the point of view of Suicide Squad, you can actually share your sentiments with him. Deadshot and Harley Quinn owned most of this movie, yeah.

Harley Quinn

  Also known as Dr. Harlene Quinzel, a psychiatrist in Arkham who was administering the Joker's medication but ends up being the one who was recruited and brainwashed by the Joker. Margot Robbie was a superb casting on this film. She captured the Harley I know from Batman: The Animated Series. Aaaand she looks like my girlfriend, only my girlfriend's much prettier. Hah!

Captain Boomerang

  Honestly, Jai Courtney as Captain Boomerang was not a bad choice. I've seen Jai Courtney's films and I gotta admit, he ain't a good player in those films. But as Captain Boomerang, he was good... kudos to that bro!

El Diablo 

  I can't really remember who played his part but El Diablo was the most, I can say, important member of the team. I have to admit, I really didn't know that DC had a character like him until I saw Suicide Squad. He had the feels and the badass-ness of a character in this film. Among all of the members, he was the most powerful one but he won't show it because of the remorse he felt after he killed his family.

The Joker 

  Hmmm... What am I going to say with the Joker? Oh I know... Jared Leto was a shitty choice playing the Joker. Honestly, the first time I knew that Jared Leto was going to be the Joker, I also knew that it's a poor choice. But I didn't gave up hope, I wanted him to be good, I wanted him to be the Joker I know from DC's New 52, but after seeing the movie... Ummmm... sorry dude, I had my hopes but forgive me, I just can't seem to like you.

Enchantress

  Played by Cara Delevingne, Enchantress was the main antagonist of this movie. But honestly, I found her weird. If only it was her brother who was the main villain and Enchantress would just be the one conjuring him, it would be more convincing. Also, what I don't understand is why does she want to destroy the world? That's what seems lacking in the story. There is no nefarious ideology that the enemy holds in their plans. And in the end, the film ends up just showcasing some comic book characters that some don't know about.

Rick Flag

  In the film, Rick Flag is the field handler of the Squad.

He is the US' top field agent, he got involved with the Suicide Squad just because he and Dr. June Moone, Enchantress' surrogate, are together. In order for Amanda Waller to get a hold of Col. Flag, she has to control Dr. Moone thus putting Flag into the game. Joel Kinnaman playing the role was actually not a bad idea. Tom Hardy was the original casting but for some reason, he dropped the role.

Amanda Waller

  Who says Loki is a badass? Well guess what, here's a character who's a more asshole than any of these characters. Meet Amanda Waller everybody; the squad's Government handler. And duuuude... when I say badass, I mean she's the real deal! While it is true that Waller is both a badass and an a-hole in the comic books, Viola Davis totally nailed it as Amanda Waller in this version.

Killer Croc, Katana, and Slipknot

  It is sad to say that some of the characters in this movie gets less appreciation. When you look at the comic book or animated version of these characters, they are quite interesting. Take Croc for example; I was acquainted with Croc's backstory watching Batman: The Animated Series and reading some comic book features about him and Batman. On the sidenote, Croc is an interesting character because of his struggle being different. He doesn't want to be an asshole but he becomes one because he is being chased by his nemesis, Batman. When you look at his story based on his point-of-view he is just some mutant being a victim of evolution. But that isn't much emphasized in the film. He's just like some dorky street gangster dude hanging with some other guys. On the other hand, Katana isn't also as interesting as her story is in this movie. If you aren't much acquainted with Suicide Squad or the DC Universe, you actually won't appreciate Katana's struggle in this film. I suggest you watch the CW TV Series Arrow for a much clearer introduction for the character. And last but... yeah... let's admit it, the least: Slipknot. What am I gonna say about him? To be honest, it is the first time that I saw this character in the DC Universe. Before this film, I really didn't know that he exists. In the movie, he's the only character that you won't care about, really. I think he was just made to die. 

All in all, Suicide Squad is a pretty good movie to watch, especially that... oh, did I mention that they have captured the original look of the characters from the comics? That is also one thing that I appreciate about this film, comic accuracy. I enjoyed watching it even if it's already in its fourth release week and there are only five people (I think) watching with me in the cinema. But it is still worth the watch especially that I've been waiting for this movie ever since they announced that they're going to make one. And it didn't disappoint me... except for the Joker though. I suggest that DC won't cast Leto as the Joker anymore. Now for its rating, I'm gonna give Suicide Squad a grade of 4 out of 5.

So, Suicide Squad; have you seen it? What did you think about it? Just comment below and let me know. Thanks for reading, you're AWESOME!

Confinement and Freedom (A Look on Discord)

Confinement can sometimes be better off than freedom. Wait, before you react to this, let me just say that this piece doesn’t come from a person who is confined to an ideological matter relating to something like… religion or politics, et cetera. Because I will not let myself be bound to those ideas for me to think of matters concerning what life should be, in my point of view. Hey, we’re all beings of thought here, thus, we are entitled to our own opinions of our views in life. So, what then is the reason why I mentioned those words in the first sentence? Perhaps we should look better at confinement as a means for one to be free rather than see confinement as a matter of being chained in a box outside of being liberated.

Ironic as it may seem but the truth of this matter can be seen in our very lives, I’ve seen it in mine, I don’t know about yours. But mostly, as far as my observation to other people’s lives (and mine) is concerned, I have seen this irony and am continually seeing so as long as I’m breathing. So, why is it better for some to be confined rather than be free? Why is it better to be bound to something than to be liberated by someone, or something? I’ve been asking these questions to myself more than a dozen times and have attempted to shed some answers to it more than I ask about it.

Confinement as the Basis for Freedom

            Whether we like it or not, we are not free; we are not in a state we deem to think being free in any way. Being a part of a society that builds itself on politics and laws, we are bounded on a set of codes that makes our society what it is. Under those codes, we have set a standard for freedom and if we deprive ourselves from those, we are considered outlaws of the society we claim to be a part of. Unless, of course, we submit ourselves to those moral codes that we’ve established that should exert punishment for our deflection, we can have a chance yet to be accepted back by the society we ought to live in. By this, I am reminded of what Jean-Jacques Rousseau pointed out that, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” In my understanding of this, we are free yet that freedom is only a matter of what the law says we are. If I’d furthermore explain this, we’ll just go round-and-round the context that I’ve already presented, thus, we proceed to another point by which I shall conclude this “opinionated” blog.

Freedom as a Means of Discord

            I myself am a “professing” anarchist; anarchist by means of subjecting myself with my own understanding of some concepts that others prefer to accept without deeply looking at it. But I am not saying that others just don’t view things deeper. As I’ve said, we have our own opinions and we are subjected to raise those opinions whenever we want to. So, what then is the basis of anarchism without viewing lawlessness and discord? As some view anarchism as a matter of chaos and turbulence. But for me, anarchism is simply viewing things differently from what most people view it to be. Anarchism is therefore, for me, a matter of private opinion than a basis of turmoil.

            Now let us go back to freedom. Have you ever heard of the phrase, “Men are free, but not TOTALLY free.”? Well, for some good reason, this phrase has a significant amount of validity since, as I’ve pointed out, men are bound by the laws their society has built on. Now, being free, and I mean total freedom, can be a basis of discord than a means of positive liberty. This is where confinement then arrives. In order for a society to thrive and survive, the law is created to suppress discord and therefore confine the people to a norm that should make the society it builds be in harmony we can only describe as “peace”. We now arrive to the conclusion that peace is the only way for a society to thrive. However, peace is just another idiosyncratic mode of building a genuine account for true liberty. There is a much greater factor that we should view at freedom rather than discord, and we should confine ourselves to it to be truly liberated from the superficial amounts of freedom that the law provides. Love.

            Love is the profoundest way that we should allow ourselves to be confined with so that we can be entirely free. It is not just a maudlin aspect, but the only true basis that we could conclude so that we can be truly free. It is the object by which peace is contained, it is the prison by which we should lock ourselves into, and it is the very matter at the core of our search for genuine freedom. But it is ironic that we profess to love but still we grip on hate, thus freeing ourselves from it, and in doing so, be confined to the very thing we loathe… discord.

The Impacts and Significance of the Advancement and Decline of Jesuit Missionary Works in Mindanao

I. Introduction

There are some aspects that we think are of little importance in our history. Philippine history in particular, has that sort of partiality especially in matters of religion and dogmatic understanding about faith. We cannot neglect the fact that in basing our understanding about religious developments in the Philippines, especially in the 19^th century, would give us the perception that it is only limited to, in the aspect of Christianity. While religious developments are not only limited to Christianity in our discussion on Philippine history, particularly in Mindanao, it is still a vital part upon understanding our past. On this note, I am tasked to discuss the role of the Jesuits in the evangelization of Mindanao. Though this is a subject too broad to be discussed in a minimal amount of time, I shall attempt to give an overview of its advancements and how it slowed down. And it is expected that by the end of our discussion on this matter, we shall have an understanding on the significance of its impact to the history of Mindanao...

TO BE CONTINUED!

This research will be presented on April 13, 2016. If you want to learn more about this, attend the History 223 (History of the Philippines during the 19th Century) Seminar at the IPDM, Mindanao State University-Main Campus, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, Philippines. There are more interesting topics to be discussed in this upcoming seminar, so if you are willing to attend, be excited! History is FUN!

"With no history, there is no heritage. And with no heritage from the past,

there is no legacy for the future."

Robert J. Morgan (Author, On This Day in Christian History)

Imagination in History: A Discourse

Imagination is important to history indeed. As much as interpretation gives life to history, imagination also gives color to it. Otherwise, history could have been the most favorite among all other subjects since children love stories, even adults do. Variety of entertainment is in history; the story of the world is in it. They say there are only three interesting subjects to be talked about: my story, yours, and of the other people. And that is history. Hence, if art is applied to it, no wonder, people would love it at best.
   Imagination is an art. It is actually being used in literature. Mostly, it is used in descriptive writing whether it is objective or subjective, or spatial in its flow. It allows the reader to paint a picture of people, place, organization or an event. Well, history too needs imagination since it is not only a science, but also an art.
   History and Literature, even though these fields of study are different in nature; they’re closely related in structure. In history, a historian uses facts of evidences and that is objectivity. Further, he uses his mind to interpret and imagine the past as lively and as beautiful as he could by the use of the gathered evidences, and that is subjectivity.
   In literature, the writer, or, let us be more particular, a poet or a fictionist writes more subjectively and even usually embellished. That is simply because literature is dramatic. Besides, it aims more to entertain than to contribute factual knowledge about the humanity. It may be used as a call for nationalism by the use of, of course, representations of the characters to the real people in the society (like the novels of Rizal) but still, it is indirect and may confuse the speculators of history if literary records will be used as basis in history.
   Therefore, Teodoro Agoncillo was right in his point that the historian’s task is to narrate events without any exaggerations, or even, we must also consider this, omission. Like in our first understandings in the Philosophy of History, history must be seen in its wholeness and not on one side only. How else do historians expect their readers to do such standard in the Philosophy of History if they omit important things in their writings for some irrational reasons such as impression, satisfaction, and desire to avoid exile, or the least, prejudices?
   On the other hand, it is not only omission that a historian must be watchful of (watchful because, of course, a historian must be selective), but also exaggerations. One cannot and must not embellish a bad to worst or a good to best. Otherwise, his writings will be highly questionable.
   As much as it is true that a writer of history must not distort any factual event, date or place, it is also true that he must not be a good one if he writes things which are not acceptable in terms of using his imaginations. Like in the example in the Mass at Limasawa, saying that there was a total silence while the Mass was being conducted would be an obvious exaggeration. How could that be? Where in fact, Leyte faces the Pacific Ocean and that time of the year, summer was approaching... well, winds might have probably been blowing toward their direction (given that it was at daytime and it winds indeed; the sea breeze-blows toward the land). If the wind was blowing toward them, the trees must have made some rustling noise. Now, that is exaggeration through imagination.
   Unlike interpretation that cannot be wrong or right but only be valid or invalid, sensible or nonsense, etc., I say that imagination in here can be wrong if not given much thought at all. Thus, a historian, or an aspiring one must be careful with his imaginations. Let the evidences be the guide and we provide the picture of it in our minds as it was before. Besides, we have the grounds to just limit ourselves in imagining because there is no such thing as a “complete history”.
   Another thing, as Professor E.H. Carr said, “History cannot be written unless the historian can achieve some kind of contact with the mind of those about whom he is writing.”

Professor Edward Hallet Carr

I concede because imagination is re-living the past and one cannot possibly think the way his subject did or at least understand his subject.

   See through the past according to what you know is right and true. Be rational in giving reasons to why you write certain descriptions of the people, place and events you are writing. Lastly, don’t fabricate the facts if you want to honor yourself with a name of a true historian. Be subjective, interpret and imagine as much as you want, just make sure you don’t go beyond the borders of history.

Published last February 17, 2015