Filipino Nationalism

What is Nationalism?
WHAT IS FILIPINO NATIONALISM?
- Mrs. Leticia R. Constantino
Nationalism has had a long history in our country. In our struggle for freedom, there have been
periods when strong nationalist feelings fired our people to action and other periods when
nationalism seemed to be forgotten. Not only did nationalism as a sentiment have its peaks and
valleys, nationalism as a political concept has been espoused at one time or another by
different sectors of society which projected particular nationalist goals as their own interests and
historical circumstances demanded.
The ilustrados who led the Propaganda Movement were expressing the nationalist goals of the
Filipino elite when they demanded reforms which would give them participation in political rule
and a greater share in economic benefits. The people, led byBonifacio, went further than the
ilustrados. They demonstrated the highest nationalist fervor when they spontaneously heeded
the call of the Katipunan and fought an anti-colonial revolution against Spain. They had
practically won their freedom when they were confronted by a new colonizer.
Nationalism again sustained the people in their fierce resistance to American rule. Many from
among the masses fought for a decade more, even as most of the ilustrado leaders changed sides
and collaborated with the enemy. Their goal, their ideal was independence. They equated
independence with a better life, and rightly so, although they had no clear idea of the
economic dimensions of the independent societythey aspired for beyond the immediate
demand for land to the tillers.
Nationalism at that time was mass nationalism. It was clearly anti-colonial; its dominant goal
was political independence.
American colonial policy suppressed Philippine nationalism by military campaigns against
resistance groups - the members of which is branded as brigands and outlaws –and by
the Sedition Law (1901) which imposed the death penalty or a long prison term on anyone who
advocated independence from the United States even by peaceful means. The Flag Law
(1907) prohibited the display of the Philippine flag, that symbol of Filipino nationalism, from
1907 to 1919.
As for Andres Bonifacio, the leader of the anti-colonial struggle, it was only in 1921,
when Senator Lope K. Santos authored a law making his birthday a national holiday, that he was
recognized as a national hero. On the other hand, with Governor Taft’sapproval, Rizal has been
proclaimed a national hero as early as 1901.

The American administration gave every assistance to this recognition because, in the words
of Governor-General W. Cameron Forbes, “Rizal never advocated independence, nor did he
advocate armed resistance to the government. He urged reform from within by publicity, by
public education, and appeal to the public conscience.” Rizal became the symbol of "safe"
patriotism. (my quotation marks - Bert)
American public policy further undermined Filipino nationalism through the educational
system which imposed the English language as a medium of instruction, projected American
society and culture as models to be emulated, omitted all mention of Filipino resistance to
American conquest and the cruel suppression of that resistance, inculcated the idea that
Filipinos must undergo tutelage in self-government to deserve independence, and presented the
United States as our generous benefactor.
Although the beneficiaries of American education began to imbibe American values and culture
and to like American consumer goods, the majority of Filipinos remained faithful to the ideal of
independence. Politicians therefore had to declare in campaign speeches that they would work
for “immediate, complete and absolute independence”, in order to get the people’s votes. But
this independence was now to be requested from the colonizer who had promised to grant it in
due time.
Actually, the major political leaders, representing as they did the landlord class which grew
rich on the export-crop economy dependent on the US market, had become afraid of the
economic difficulties independence would bring. Hence, there were instances when leaders of
the independence Missions themselves privatelyrequested American officials to postpone the
grant of independence preferring instead greater autonomy, that is, more political power from
themselves.
Manuel L. Quezon himself had worked secretly against the Jones Bill. Because they had
acquiesced to the growth of a dependent economy, these leaders could not very well explain the
economic realities to the people nor could they espouse economic independence since they were
the beneficiaries of economic dependence. Independence therefore remained a political goal.
Nationalism as anti-colonialism was raised to new heights of necessity by the brutal Japanese
occupation. Ironically enough, this hatred for one colonizer only increased the longing for the
return of the other colonizer and our blind faith in his promises.
While an aroused nationalism and a healthy suspicion made most Filipinos see the sham
independence by Japan and correctly appraise Japan’s exploitative designs on our economy and
natural resources, we failed to recognize very similar policies and objectives when these
came from our American friends.

When our “liberators” demanded that we accord American citizens the same rights as Filipinos,
when they asked for military and naval bases on our soil, not enough Filipinos objected. We did
not see these as derogations of the sovereignty we had just regained.Our nationalist aspirations
were satisfied with flag independence. The economic dimensions of nationalism were not
yet clearly within the perspective of the majority.
Soon, however, economic problems arising from the re-imposition of free trade and the renewed
domination of our economy by foreign, mostly American, corporations would make more
Filipinos realize that the task of nationalism did not end with the attainment of political
independence.
In fact, American interventions in our internal affairs and American influence on our foreign
policy made thinking Filipinos doubt that we were even politically independent. The
subservience of the Philippine government to American dictates was most obvious under our
most pro-American, and indeed, American-made president, Ramon Magsaysay.
Almost single-handedly, Senator Claro M. Recto espoused the nationalist causes against
Magsaysay’s pro-Americanism. He said that US-bases made a mockery of our independence
and would expose us to nuclear annihilation; he advocated an independent foreign policy. Above
all, he projected the economic aspect of nationalism, opposed the granting of special incentives
to attract foreign investments and instead advocated nationalist industrialization. On the last
point, he had the concurrence ofPresident Carlos P. Garcia and of Filipino businessmen who
supported Garcia’s“Filipino First” policy.
Although the nationalism of these Filipino entrepreneurs was based on their narrow economic
interests (they wanted the government to protect them against foreign competition and to give
them preference in dollar allocations), Filipino First as a nationalist slogan inspired other
sectors to voice out nationalist demands in their particular fields. Educators, for example,
asked for freedom to design a pattern of education more responsive to Filipino needs.
Recto has raised the banner of economic nationalism, and clearly showed that the greatest
obstacle to its realization is American imperialism, which acting in behalf of corporate giants,
pressures weaker states to open their economies to penetration and control. His definition of
nationalism is still valid today: “…a banner of freedom proclaiming the national interests of
the people, to be protected and safeguarded by themselves so that the fruits of their efforts and
the wealth derived from their God-given resources shall accrue to them and thus enable all of
our people to rise above poverty and march on to prosperity, contentment and dignity.”
From this definition, we can deduce the major characteristics of Filipino nationalismfor our
time.
Nationalism is defensive, protective. Nationalists believe that the resources of our country

should be for the benefit of our people today and in the future. Since our economy is increasingly
being dominated by foreign corporations with the active intervention in their behalf of their
governments, nationalism is necessarily anti-imperialist. This means primarily, American and
Japanese imperialism though it includes the operation of other advanced countries as well.
However, anti-imperialism is not racism. Nationalists are not anti-American or anti-Japanese;
they are only against those policies of governments that harm the interests of the Filipino
people, policies which these governments pressure our government to adopt.
For example, nationalists criticize the many incentives and privileges given to foreign
corporations which take over areas of the economy that could well be handled by Filipino
businessmen if our government gave them preference and protection. Whereas Filipino
businessmen would have no reason to remit their profits abroad, foreign corporations are
guaranteed by our government the privilege of remitting their entire profits in dollars. Thus, a
large part of the dollar earnings of our exports only goes to finance these profit remittances.
A second example: nationalists criticize export orientation which satisfy the needs of others
rather than those of our own people. We export our best fish and shrimps to Japan and import
their canned mackerel. Our best fruits are for export. Meanwhile, 77% of Filipino children
between the ages of one and four are suffering from malnutrition.
The nationalist goal is the welfare of the Filipino masses; therefore the second major quality
of nationalism is its mass character. Our people themselves must protect and advance their
own interests. Nationalism should no longer serve the interest of one or another sector as in the
past. Mass nationalism is therefore democratic; it believes in the greatest possible participation of
the people in the determination of policy, particularly in the re-orientation of our development
program. Corollary goals of mass-based nationalism are a more equitable distribution of
economic resources and a just and humane society.
Nationalism does not advocate economic, political, scientific or cultural isolation. It is not antidevelopment; it does not long to return to an idealized past. Nationalism believes that our
people deserve all the ease and comfort, good health, and access to the best products of man’s
intellect and artistic spirit that the highest achievements of modern science and art can provide.
For this reason, nationalism believes in economic, political, scientific and cultural exchanges
with other countries but it will be careful and selective, always placing priority on the needs
and welfare of the Filipino people.
As a national ideology, nationalism must permeate every aspect of Philippine life. We have
been witnessing in past years heightened interest in ethnic culture as well as local music and art.
These are manifestations of cultural nationalism. However, if this new sense of cultural identity
is not integrated with economic and political nationalism and instead is used to divert our

attention from growing foreign control of our economy, then this cultural development is a
disservice to our people.
Nationalism demands both economic and political independence. It resists and condemns
foreign intervention in our internal affairs as well as in the conduct of our foreign policy. The US
bases are an unwarranted derogation of our sovereignty and should be dismantles. In the field of
education, the use of our national language vas the medium of instruction is a primary nationalist
demand. Instruction is always more effective in the national language. This should not be taken
as hostility to English or any other foreign language. They should be learned as a foreign
language because that is what they are.
It is a measure of our colonial mentality that we are more interested in understanding and
being understood by foreigners than we are in developing an efficient medium
for internal communication. The multiplicity of Philippine language is often advanced as an
argument by those who have favor for English. Let us not forget that these are sister languages
and therefore mastery of Pilipino is infinitely easier for a Visayan or a Pampango than mastery of
English, if only there were no psychological roadblocks arising from colonial conditioning. We
must not equate good education with proficiency in English.
Education can be a powerful weapon in propagating nationalism. A nationalist education would
place great importance on the teaching of Philippine history from the point of view of the
Filipino people. This will develop an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist orientation based on our
historical experience as a people. Such a history should clarify how, why, and for whose benefit
our people have been exploited and oppressed.
A nationalist education would also emphasize a critical study of the Philippine economy so
that as a people we will learn to be wary of economic programs proposed by foreign
governments and institutions. Moreover, we should know how the world capitalist system
operates so we will understand in what way economic development will affect our people. In
history as in economics, we must use only one yardstick. We must judge past events and
present developments in terms of whether or not they served or will serve the best interests
of the people.
The Filipino people have the right to decide what kind of society they want, what is best for
them. They should strive to have the fullest political and economic independenceto chart their
own future. This is the essence of nationalism.

contract workers. In this respect, it is erroneous to call overseas Filipino workers our modern day national heroes.
Becoming an overseas contract worker is not a nationalisticstand; it is a stand for survival.If pride in one’s origin
then does not suffice in defining what nationalism is, then what isnationalism? Why is it important? To answer the
latter question I here borrow the words of Josephine Dionisio:
In the colonies and in the hands of nationalist fighters, the myth of nationalism served as an
inspiration in the struggle against colonialism and oppression, whichtook on an anti-imperialist form
in the 1970s
(and if I may add an anti-colonialistform in the late 1800s in the Philippines as embodied by the Katipunan)
. Nationalist struggles in the Third World subsumed all other issues to forge a united front
against imperialism, and to focus on their fight for national independence. People coming from
different classes or religion fought side by side against acommon foreign enemy, united by a strong
sense of national identity that theybelieved superseded their differences.
I will venture here to define nationalism as a certain loyalty and love for a nation. Dionisio definesthe nation as
rooted in
the belief that we belong to a group with whom we share a common memoryof the past and vision of the future
. Upholding the interests of this group, the nation, and I believemaking a commitment of allegiance to this belief is
nationalism. Yet as many as there are people ina society, as many definitions as well as forms of nationalism will
emerge. In a colonial society in particular, where nationalism
serves as an inspiration in the struggle against colonialism and oppression
the definitions and forms of nationalism that emerge vary in terms of the depth andkeenness with which these
penetrate the root of economic and socio-political problems. Theseforms of “nationalisms” that emerge are what
constitute a nation’s nationalist discourse. A crucial point in this discourse is the development of a critical
and reflective consciousness. Criticalconsciousness is the basis of a critical nationalism, and critical
nationalism is the key to trueliberation, to social justice and equality. This critical consciousness was embodied by
Rizal,Bonifacio and other distinguished figures of our history. However, for the purpose of our presentconditions, it
will not suffice that only a select few are critically conscious. If we reflect upon our history and the nature of our
elite-captured society, it is evident that the common people (I avoid touse here the term
masses
as I do not only mean the proletariat, and I am not only delving uponclasses as actors but I am speaking here on a
discourse of nation-state and therefore, I am speakinghere of citizens as actors whatever class they may belong)
need to be empowered with a criticalconsciousness in order to effectively dismantle, whether by reform or
revolution, the existingoppressive and exploitative social order.I believe that for the critically conscious Filipino
nationalist the primary project is that of nationhood. In my assessment of the current status of the Filipino nation,
relevant endeavors wouldinvolve generating discourse on national identity, anthropological studies, critical
historicalresearch, a Filipino psychology, and many other similar endeavors in the social sciences that aimto define
the Filipino identity (whether singular or multiple) in terms of culture and history, theconscious and subconscious,
as well as articulate a vision of the Philippines and its future, and therole and stance of the Filipino nation in a
globalizing world. In addition, endeavors in the
biological and natural sciences, in research and development, and the development of
technologiesmust also be pursued. In fact the project of nationhood, and a commitment to nationalism
wouldentail reforming the way in which life itself is lived in the nation. This entails calling into accountthe
underlying structures and motivations and determining upon whose interests they serve andredirecting them
towards serving the national interest because the primary goal and motivation of nationhood (in our context)

should be establishing and enacting a real democracy with functioningand responsive democratic institutions that
are able to provide at the very least equal opportunity toall and social justice.With the above said, one of the
manifestations of a critical nationalistic consciousness would bethe endeavor towards the analysis of existing
conditions, institutions and the social structureviewed from the disciplines of sociology, history, economics,
anthropology, and psychologyderiving its data both from concrete experience on the ground as well as access to
the body of literature on Filipino nationhood that has at that point in time already been generated. This willentail
analyzing the old methods, questioning them, seeing them against the light and scrutiny of critical analyses to
detect their flaws. If upon scrutiny the old methods will reveal insufficient thenthey will have to be rejected or
reinvented to suit the needs of the present condition may they betheoretical or strategic in nature. If it will be
necessary to draft a new framework then that willhave to be the project of the critical nationalist. Also an important
question is to review and assessthe history of our revolution and find out where our historical place is, to determine
what our project is aimed against. Are we still in a nationalist struggle against imperialism? Is our
strugglethen mainly a neocolonial one? Or are we now in the phase of a nationalist struggle against anoppressive
social structure? Who or what is the enemy? And so, how can it be reformed?Dismantled? Eliminated?With
reflection and analysis, however, must be action contingent or emergent to it. The idea of praxis must
be consciously remembered like a cautionary banner; concrete action must always bethe end point.
Reflection will have to be fashioned into practice. This is the second project. Andwhatever old methodologies
there were in the revolutionary phases of our national history willhave to be reinvented. The youth of today will
have to be even more creative and critical; they willhave to stretch the limits of their imagination in order to
provide and enact a solution that willfinally erode the old social order that remains oppressive and exploitative, and
in certain localities,unbelievably feudal.The above said, I believe a nationalist of our times will have to come to the
realization, if he/shehas not already intuited that every Filipino has to take part in the project of nationhood for
our country to progress. In this sense, nationalism if it is lived will manifest itself in the things that wechoose to
commit ourselves to. The first concrete manifestation in my opinion is choosing to stayin the country and taking
part in its development, be it in research or the social sciences, in theservice professions such as education, and
medicine, and many others. Even the overseas worker, avictim of his/her circumstances, is nationalist when he/she
leaves always with the intent to returnand contribute whatever skills or wealth learned abroad for the development
of the country, andthat even as they are outside the country and living lives in foreign lands, they possess
theconsciousness of the nation wherever they go in that they are still part, and they still have a role inthe project of
nationhood. Nationalism as explained may imply that it can be lived outside a political line. Perhaps. It will
have to be proved. For me, though, a nationalist is a person,
regardless of what his/her politics is, who will carry out his/her convictions about the nation andhow it can be
made to progress, and though Filipino nationalists may also possess differentconceptions of progress, the
important thing here is to struggle towards these convictions. Thedifferent struggles we undertake whether as
individuals or collectives, depending on the strategieswe surmise will best serve our ends, will create discourse,
will create exchange. This discourse,this exchange, and our contending conceptions and definitions will be the
material for the re-imagination, reinvention of reform or revolution (whatever is necessary) will draw its base
from.Perhaps one of the interesting efforts towards nationalism (but as yet not critical nationalism) in present day
Philippines broadly involving different sectors is the emergence of new forms of socialformations
(though whether they are really new forms is debatable). I cannot keenly analyze their link to the social
movements already pre-existing, the core of which is situated in the NGO sector (which perhaps may be
historically analyzed as to their relationship with the social and millenarianmovements of the 1960s, 1896 and
earlier. There may be something to be learned from this, butthis is not the place to delve into it.). I suspect that the
recent socio-political movements at presentsuch as Ako Mismo, and Ako Si Ninoy are of a different orientation in
comparison to say thefeminist movements. First they are different in terms of constituency, and second they are

differentin terms of political orientation or shall we say the lack of it, and also in terms of the discoursethey
espouse, endorse and engage.These social and political formations are varied and multifarious in terms of
constituency. They arenot limited to sectoral groups unlike such groups as gay-lesbian movements. They are
opencollectives of individuals who share the sentiment or desire to create a change or deliver an impact,to respond
to needs. This is the basic motivation which in an extended sense and when properlyharnessed may germinate into
a nationalistic consciousness. In my assessment these socialformations manifest growing unrest and dissatisfaction
of government and its failure to provide people’s most basic needs. These citizen groups emerged out
of people’s desire to take things intotheir own hands, to initiate change directly to the realities they face, to
provide for their fellowcitizens the services the basic duties that government fails to deliver. However, for
definitivechange to occur, it will be necessary for critical consciousness to develop in these collectives—astand that
would call for the accountability of government, as well as criticize and repudiate it for its inefficiency. In short
these groups need to evolve from socio-civic action groups to collectivesthat engage in political discourse and
action.It is also important to note that these social formations are escalated or catalyzed by crises, a veryreal
example are the recent calamities wrought by the tropical storms Ondoy and Pepeng. If in theFirst Quarter Storm
student and workers’ pickets and rallies served as valuable experience of massmobilization and collective struggle
for the people, which either served as eye-openers or strengthened consciousness and commitment to the struggle
against Marcos oppressive regime, inthe present day when the old slogans are either ignored or cynically received
as mere rhetoric, it iscollective action in socio-civic action aimed at meeting the needs of other Filipinos such as
theOndoy and Pepeng relief operations that now provide people with the valuable experience of collective action,
these experiences reinforce in their consciousness the power of action, the power of delivering needs through the
collective, and the power of the collective to respond to thoseneeds, and the possibility of creating change through
the collective. But to link this experience to political commitment is difficult because evidently, it has to
evolve from socio-civic involvement to political involvement so that citizens’ action will also evolve from
this “dole out” activism to anactivism that truly engages the roots of our social ills and not only its
manifestations.The current social political formations may be said to be manifestations of nationalism, but theyare
still at their infancy. Perhaps experience in action on the ground rendered to citizens (especiallythe youth that
comprise the majority of these groups) will help in developing critical consciousnesswhen informed by an
understanding of Philippine society as it is lived, as well as the historicity behind our present conditions.
Perhaps also these social formations may fail to change the statusquo. But I believe that its failure will
only serve to fuel more disenchantment and will even makeclearer the necessity for stepping up to the plate and
responding to the call for deeper involvement,for going beyond one’s comfort zone to question, to demand, to fight
for change.As for youth nationalism I want to examine here the idea of Filipino youth nationalism as a form
of “giving back to the nation”. I find associating nationalism (perhaps this is a trace, an under current manifestation
of utang naloob) with the repayment of an incurred debt problematic. As I’vedefined in the earlier paragraphs,
my conception of nationalism is hinged upon allegiance andcommitment to the belief of nation. Youth nationalism
should not be grounded upon “giving back”. The youth does not owe the Philippines or their forebears
anything. We are all accidental births into the world. By saying so I mean to say that we do not
choose which nationalities we are born into, and therefore, we do not have inherited or
congenital responsibilities. Nationalism is a commitment, a recognition emanating from
historical consciousness andsociological imagination. I believe that a healthy Filipino youth nationalism
emanates from therecognition that one is an individual living in a particular place and time with social conditions
thatare borne of a history unique to a certain proximity, a geographical space, where these particular circumstances
are shared by people inhabiting that space, thereby sharing in this particularity,sharing a narrative, and a world view
that is logical upon shared collective memories andexperiences. These circumstances entail particular interests,
particular needs, particular conditionsthat are different from other peoples of other geographical spaces and
proximities (and byextension socio-political conditions and consciousness), making the individual and

his/her particular peoples representatives of their own particularity. In a world that is increasingly
without borders, though one may recognize a shared communion with the world’s peoples and
recognizeone’s responsibility for them as they are for oneself, foremost, one is primarily an actor with
a biography representing a particularity that one must endeavor to assert in the struggle for
equalityin the global arena, because only one and the peoples that share these particularities are capable
of articulating it.
Works Cited:David, Randolf S. (2004). Nation, Self, and Citizenship: An Invitation to Philippine
Sociology.Philippines: Anvil Publishing, Inc.Reyes, Bobbie. (2009).
Nationalism redefined.
Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved Oct. 13,
2009fromhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090723-216760/Nationalism-redefined.
SOURCE:
http://www.academia.edu/1627737/The_Practical_Manifestations_of_Filipino_Nationalism
RISE OF FILIPINO NATIONALISM
The Rise of Filipino Nationalism
Factors:
1.
Spread of Liberalism
Liberal ideas from Europe filtered in when Spain gradually exposed Philippine to
international commerce.
The sons and daughters of the Principalia were able to attain education, thereupon giving
then exposure to libertarian ideas.
2.
Sentiments against the Principales – proportion of the local aristocracy to the broad
masses.
3.
Racial Prejudice
Inferior race, limited intelligence
4.
Cultural changes
Ilustrados
5.
Secularization Controversy
Council of Trent – secular priests appointed to parishes. But due to lack of sec. priests,
Pope Pius V issued Exponi Nobis (1567) w/c allowed the regular clergy to serve as parish
priests w/out diocesan auth. And be exempted from bishop’s auth.
6.
Cavite Mutiny
200 Filipino soldiers and dock warriors of Cavite mutinied and killed their Spanish officers
led by Sergeant Lamadrid. 2 days after, he was executed together w/ 41 mutineers in
Bagumbayan.
Some were exiled, hanged, and garroted.
Propaganda Movement
The Propaganda Movement was a literary and cultural organization formed in 1872 by Filipino
émigrés who had settled in Europe. Composed of Filipino liberals exiled in 1872 and students
attending Europe's universities, the organization aimed to increase Spanish awareness of the

needs of its colony, the Philippines, and to propagate a closer relationship between the colony
and Spain. Its prominent members included José Rizal, author of Noli Me Tangere (novel) and
El Filibusterismo, Graciano López Jaena, publisher of La Solidaridad, the movement's principal
organ, Mariano Ponce, the organization's secretary and Marcelo H. Del Pilar.
http://www.studymode.com/essays/The-Rise-Of-Filipino-Nationalism-1061852.html
Given the two periods, it can be evidently seen how much the Philippine society changed and how the
Spanish regime invoked the sudden will of the Filipino for freedom. During the pre-colonial period, the
Filipino didn't have a sense of nationalism for they don't have a common identity yet during that time.
They primarily focus was their community and the people's welfare and they didn't show any sign of
interest with other barangays. This proves that the Philippines didn't act as a nation despite seeing
movement for every community. In contrast, the Spanish period drove the Filipinos to act as a nation.
Being ill-treated and misguided, the Filipinos found the courage and strength from Rizal's works and
revolted against the Spaniards and this turned out to be the Filipino nationalism that we know now today
(Cortes et al., 2000).
There are different factors that led to the development of Filipino nationalism namely the deaths of
GOMBURZA, Rizal's writings and his two novels, "Noli Me Tangere" and "El Filibusterismo", and world
events that occurred during the Spanish regime. First is the death of GOMBURZA. The Filipinos were
severely affected by the deaths of these three priests because many, especially those who witnessed the
execution believed that they were innocent. It was described to be a judicial murder and this incident is
something that the Filipinos could forget during that time.
Second is Rizal's writings.The Filipinos, before Rizal's time, were afraid to fight for their freedom
because of different reasons, including the false teachings of Catholicism during that time. When Rizal's
two novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, circulated among the masses, a sense of unity has
begun to form and the Filipinos started to unite as one in fending off the Spanish oppression.
Third are the world events that occurred during the Spanish regime. These events namely the Seven
Years' War, French Revolution, US Declaration of Independence, Latin American War of Independence,
Age of Enlightenment introduced the concept of Liberalism to the Filipinos. During this time, the Filipino
learned that the Spaniards were not that superior and that they can be defeated. These events caused the
opening of the Suez Canal, the Philippines became opened to world trade, the death of Rizal, Chinese
expulsion and the Jesuit eviction. Most of the perceptions of the Filipino changed during this point.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_Factors_that_give_rise_to_the_Filipino_Nati
onalism
Filipino Nationalism Today:
Nowadays nationalism has taken on a new meaning.

In the mark of globalization, nationalism now means patronizing Philippine- made products. It also
means staying in our country and stemming the brain drain plaguing the economy. Simply put,
nationalism now means loving our country enough to make some small sacrifices.
Our market is flooded by goods coming from other countries. Take shoes, for example. Cheap shoes
imported from china can be found anywhere. If we buy these, we save a few pesos, but it hurts the
small-scale shoe makers from Marikina and Liliw, Laguna. Now question, what can we do to show our
nationalism? Guys, it’s continuing patronizing locally-made products. There are affordable pairs of
Philippine-made shoes in most stores. Every purchase we make ensures the survival of the country’s
shoe industry.
Experts say that the current exodus of Filipino nurses, doctor-turned-nurses, caregivers and
information technology professionals to other countries will adversely affect our economy in the next
few years. The best and brightest Filipino minds have found greener pastures abroad, and have opted
to work or live in other countries than to stay behind here. Their choice to live the
country doesn’t imply that they’re not patriotic, but most of them cite the chance for a better life as an
irresistible motivator for them to find their luck in other countries.
Solving the brain drain problem is not easy as just staying in our country. The government and the
business sector should give our fellowmen reason enough to stay like, better salaries, better work
conditions and a chance to improve oneself.
So,friends,gals, and guys, Nationalism in thought and in deeds, is barely alive, and we must make a
conscious effort to rekindle the pioneering spirit of our forebears. If only our leaders could set aside
political arguments and set good examples of genuine love of our country, then nationalism has a
chance to prosper and make this nation great again.

Currents of Philippine Nationalism: Critical Analyses of the Development of the Nationalist Thoughts that
Shaped the Filipino Consciousness and National Discord

Introduction
It is an extremely arduous task to write about Philippine nationalism if one were to be ambitious in
detailing each and every aspect of the issue. Nevertheless, the undertaking would be a tremendous help to
the better understanding of what Philippine nationalism is.
This is not to say that there has been a lack of writings on the topic. Indeed, books and articles written on
the subject are aplenty. Among the most notable ones that can provide a good introduction to the subject
matter are John Schumacher's The Making of a Nation: Essays on Nineteenth-Century Filipino
Nationalism and Romeo Cruz' Ang Pagkabuo ng Nasyonalismong Pilipino. There are many more to add to
the two, each one offering a different, if albeit overlapping view; though some do offer fresh insights into

the discourse of Filipino nationalism.
Perhaps to add one more to the already cacophonous views on the issue will not hurt, especially if it comes
from a relatively younger generation far removed from the ones who wrote the bulk of literature on the
topic. Every generation has its own views; and each view can be supposed to differ from the others, each
having its own importance. Altogether, they would aid in the fair assessment of what Philippine
nationalism has achieved, or what it aims to achieve as part of a collective agenda to strengthen the
Filipinos' concept of nationhood and nationalism.
This paper will not set out to explain everything there is about the subject matter. Rather, it hopes to add
one more view especially as regards the manner by which one can arrive at answers to fundamental
questions of nationalism: Are Filipinos nationalistic? What are the factors that helped shape their national
consciousness? In what context and levels has nationalism been absorbed and understood by the
Filipinos? What problems, if ever, do these differences offer to the overall concept of nationhood and
nationalism?
This paper will take a broad look at the major currents of Philippine nationalist thoughts in order to
address the questions posed in the foregoing. It will do so by analyzing written materials related to the
topic of inquiry and putting questions into them so as to give a different perspective on the issues
concerned. Ultimately, this paper aims to arrive at a feasible approach to the understanding of the
different currents of nationalism. In other words, to help give coherence to the apparently diverse, if not
conflicting views on the matter.
Nationalism before History: Was Lapu-Lapu a Filipino?
A quick look at most books on Philippine history will give an impression that Philippine history only
began after the Spaniards came to what then were a group of islands that was later to be known as the
Philippines. This impression, as has been noted by other historians, stems from the fact that much
emphasis has been accorded to the colonial period of history.[1] Understandably, this has been done on
the pretext that the Philippines did not exist then as a country, being, as it was, a cluster of islands with no
centralized form of government and without a unified goal. This emphasis on the coming of the Spaniards
as the "beginning" of Philippine history has therefore made possible the bias to write Philippine history
from this period. It is perhaps for this reason that Lapu-Lapu, the acknowledged assailant of Ferdinand
Magellan is seen by some not as the first example of a Filipino nationalist who fought against Spanish
incursions into his island territory citing that there was no nation (Philippines) yet to speak of at the time.
[2] This reasoning demands careful consideration precisely because it provokes a controversial question
as to whether Lapu-Lapu should at all merit a part in Philippine historiography on nationalism. By
implication, it also puts into question the entire notion of nationalism as understood by many Filipinos of
which the fight against foreign aggression or imperialism is a major ingredient with Lapu-Lapu as the first
icon of that reaction.
This problem, no matter how seemingly trivial it appears, serves to demonstrate the fragility of the
Filipino notion of nationalism not necessarily because the claim to the foregoing issue is absolutely valid
but because it lays open to attack the foundation of the Filipino sense of belonging to his ancestors as
imposed on him by a constricting historical time frame. Moreover, the issue begs other questions which
only serve to further alienate the Filipino from his pre-Hispanic roots. One might for instance ask, Was
Lapu-Lapu then not a Filipino? If not, then why bother to mention him at all in Philippine history, much
less consider him a hero?--questions that inevitably lead to the question of identity and nationalism.
Time-space Factor in History: Who is a Nationalist--in Which Time?
Nevertheless, the above questions serve some purpose: they open up a new world of possibilities as
regards the interpretation and evaluation of the nationalist consciousness of the Filipino. They allow him

to locate himself in the time and context of events in which he developed his own consciousness and
consequently his own notion of nationalism. It is here that the dynamics of "how", "why", "when" and
"therefore" comes into play as he begins to question his being and identity.
Obviously, time and context have so much to do with the shaping of the consciousness of the people
inevitably pointing to the non-static nature of nationalism. It can develop (or diminish) over time, even
refashion itself in response to various social, political and economic forces.
Philippine nationalism itself did not come into being overnight, nor did it remain the same after the
common objective of independence had been achieved from Spain. Indeed, it took on different forms,
expressed in various ways, but nevertheless geared towards a better understanding of the Filipino identity
and belongingness to one nation. The beginnings of the Philippine nation and nationalism, taking into
account the coming of the West, suggests that these were essentially 'modern' constructs, meaning that
they, in the words of Anthony D. Smith, "are purely modern phenomena, without roots in the past."[3]
Smith was of course merely putting in broad terms the modernist theories advanced by the likes of Eric
Hobsbawm, Ernest Gellner, John Breuilly, etc. But what these modernist theories imply is that LapuLapu's actuation does not fall in the category of a nationalist reaction for there was no political structure
then existent which is assumed as a focal point in which social conflict, and hence, nationalism, could
germinate.
The question about Lapu-Lapu being a Filipino or not reveals the weakness of some modernist theories
noted by Smith as "too dismissive of the legacies of pre-modern ethnic and cultural ties."[4] In other
words, the heroism of Lapu-Lapu and his being a Filipino cannot be totally dismissed in the light of the
time-space factor already mentioned. In Philippine historiography, the attendant problem resurfaces in
the use of the word "Filipinos" as opposed to "indios" depending on which period of Philippine history one
is talking about. Consequently, this failure to locate oneself in the time-space continuum creates a
problematic, if not a controversial issue if one talks about the "depth" or "nature" of one's nationalism
especially in the absence of quantitative data to help proffer an explanation. Nevertheless, whether or not
one has the instruments for measuring levels of nationalism, it can be assumed without much debate that
nationalism permeates the consciousness in different levels or magnitude, the variables being one's
experiences in relation to the time and context in which he lives.
Hence, for an ordinary Filipino not into the study of history, Lapu-Lapu not being a nationalist appears as
an absurd proposition, indeed, much less if his being Filipino is questioned. In the light of the foregoing,
therefore, it is important to take into consideration the time-space continuum of the person reflecting on
his history.
Representations of Nationalism: Are Some More Filipinos than Others?

Teodoro Agoncillo dates the use of the "Filipino" to be in the late 1890's towards the end of the Spanish
regime. Prior to that, "Filipinos" only referred to the insulares, or Spaniards born in the country.
[5] Considering the "artificiality" of the collective name given to a geographically fragmented population,
it is reasonable to assume that others most probably had not initially identified with the term "Filipino" as
indicated by the way Andres Bonifacio referred to his followers as "Tagalog." In effect, Agoncillo may have
a valid point in calling the issue a "decelerator" in Filipino nationalism.[6] This point further shows that in
the process of consolidating as a nation and as a people, the Filipinos' sense of nationalism must have
evolved differently at different times, only finding a common ground in the expression of grievances, and
finally the overthrow, of the oppressive Spanish regime. Renato Constantino succinctly phrases this
common thread thus: "The nation was born of the Revolution as much as the Revolution was the
expression of the nation being born."[7]
It would be unwise however to say that Filipinos found their expression of nationalism in purely
revolutionary terms. The ilustrados, particularly Jose Rizal, Graciano Lopez Jaena, etc. found their

expression of nationalism essentially through assimilation and reforms while Emilio Aguinaldo and
Andres Bonifacio were for independence through armed revolution. It should be pointed out, however,
that though the nationalist consciousness was being formed differently, they were, in varying terms,
complementary.
The Ilustrado-Katipunero Schism: of What Nationalist Tradition Are You?
The apparent difference between ilustrado and revolutionary nationalists was obviously the method by
which they responded to the call of nationhood. Constantino tries to bridge the schism between the two by
invoking the educational attainment of Bonifacio which Constantino saw to have synthesized the "theory"
of the ilustrados with the "movement" of the Katipuneros.[8] John Schumacher likewise notes that
Bonifacio must have indeed built on the ideas of Rizal as indicated by the parallels in their thoughts as
expressed in Bonifacio's "Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Tagalog."[9] Whether the rest of Bonifacio's
followers were able to meaningfully absorb the ilustrados' theory remains a big question, and
Constantino's claim to synthesis may have held true only insofar as the Katipunan's leaders were
concerned. It is likely that it did not penetrate deeply into the understanding of the rest of the people.
Constantino betrays this possibility by remarking on Bonifacio and his companions' handicap by saying
that they "were incapable of abstractions. Thus their writings voiced the raw ideas of the people."[10] He
goes further by saying that "the ideas of Bonifacio did not have a solid ideological content. His was a
primitive ideology based more or less on the dignity of man."[11]
The implication of this ilustrado-Katipunero schism is far-reaching: it set the stage for two major
nationalist traditions to emerge, underscoring the differences in the way nationalism has been written,
understood, discussed and practiced even in contemporary times.
The Ilustrado and Revolutionray Traditions: the Battle Still Rages
One of the major--perhaps the most prominent--traditions in the discourse of nationhood and
nationalism is the one originated from the ilustrados as spearheaded by Jose Rizal. Reynaldo Ileto
attributes much of this tradition's popularity to Filipino historians whose writings he describes as "a very
subtle kind of elitism" (ilustrado).[12] Ileto cites the likes of Agoncillo, Constantino and Ferdinand
Marcos as belonging to the same tradition of ilustrado nationalists who relegate the masses in the their
writings to the background , as well as their emphasis on the linear movement of history. In his criticism
of this kind of history, Ileto writes:
"…The reason most educated Filipinos find the linear-developmental mode a natural one for ordering
such phenomena as revolts and the consolidation of state power in the name of nationalism is, I think,
because this framework puts them [the 'elistist' Filipinos] at the forefront of the development process.
Whether as apologists or activists, they are able to reorganize themselves in a comfortable way in the past,
and they are assured of a primary role in the fulfillment of the end towards which history moves. We can
detect this with respect to the nineteenth century 'ilustrados' construction of a history that moved from
Golden Age, to Fall, to Dark Age, to Enlightenment or Ilustracion."[13]

Ileto especially detests Constantino's pretension to being radical with the latter's socio-economic
determinism and its aim "to precisely locate the stages of economic and social development…so that the
progression in time can be more scientifically plotted."[14] For Ileto, such emphasis on precision and
order may have come from the "bourgeois mentality" or "the fear of anarchy and disorder."[15] Hence, "by
displaying such order and precision in his text…Constantino in fact subverts his radical claims."[16]
Ileto may have a valid argument in putting Constantino in the league of the elite on the point of the latter's

portrayal of the masses as passive individuals who needed the ilustrados to vocalize their sentiments. Yet
it cannot be denied that Constantino bears the revolutionary strain by picturing the elite as more or less
opportunists whose main agendum was to usurp or take over the power of the ruling class. It is possible
that Constantino's intention was to arouse indignation and consequently rectify this "error" in history in
view of the existing (Constantino's generations') realities--quite possibly through an armed struggle.
Indeed, the overall tone and movement of Constantino's history tends to support this hypothesis, and the
best proof of that is the real affinity that present day Marxists/leftist ideologues continue to have with his
works--an affinity that would find its most tangible expression in the resurgence of nationalism in the
Marcos regime.
Ileto's criticism of Constantino's kind of history provides a glimpse of the differences that the ilustradoKatipunan schism has fathered no only among ordinary Filipinos themselves but more so among Filipino
nationalist historians.
Through the eyes of Constantino, it is easy to see how the Katipuneros' fight for political independence
during the Spanish regime acquired a different cause in the 20th and 21st century to become a more
ardent fight for economic, social and political justice.
Ileto's view of Constantino may have been motivated by his own agendum of writing a history from the
point of view of the masses. For him, the masses are active participants in the creation of history and not
passive individuals Constantino and others portray them to be. In this sense, Ileto offers an alternative
view of history--one that hopes to be "radical," or, in other words, true to the Katipunan tradition of
displacing the dominant (or dominating) ideology. If so, it turns out that Ileto may have only been preying
on his own kind (Constantino) whose point of view is but a strain of his (Ileto's) own variety.
Nevertheless, this case illustrates how different the two nationalist strains have evolved into, so that it has
now become very difficult to identify where one begins and the other ends. More importantly, it has
brought to the fore the problematic aspect of Filipino nationalism and what a Gordian knot it has become
with both forces oftentimes coming at odds with each other. Romeo Cruz conveys this very same view
when he talks about Filipino nationalism which he classified into two: "Liberal Nationalism" and "Radical
Nationalism."[17]
The ilustrado current finds its parallel in Cruz' Liberal Nationalism, and the Katipunan (revolutionary)
current in Radical Nationalism. Cruz points out, as has been discussed earlier, that these two had been
mixed with various influences in the passing of time. Cruz further notes that through most of Philippine
history, the relationship of the two has always been characterized by ambivalence: "In times of war or
crisis, the two traditions would merge. And in times of peace, the two would oppose each other. Whether
they are allies or foes, Liberal Nationalism would always win [translation from Filipino mine]."[18] Why
this was always so is an interesting and a very important facet of nationalism's development in the
Philippines.
From Rizal to Marx
This paper has so far argued that the ideology of the ilustrado may have been little understood by the
masses due mainly to its abstractions. In this scenario, the ilustrado/liberal nationalism would
understandably always win because, as history would have it, power has always been held in succession by
those belonging to the educated class. It also helped that the same class would later control much of the
country's wealth, and consequently much of the country's affairs. It is therefore not surprising that the
bulk of assertions regarding nationalism would eventually take on economic overtones (read Marxist)
especially as the country was moving into the 1960's and 1970's when poverty was becoming more
pronounced. Nationalism came to be defined and understood within the terms of wealth distribution and
equitable development. In other words, the schism now became the split between the rich and the poor,
and in the larger context, between the exploited and impoverished third world and the wealthy and
presumably exploitative West. Between the two opposites, there has always been some form of distrust.

Understandably, many of the political leaders would come to be tagged as puppets of the West (America),
notwithstanding the fact that many of them also took on nationalist stance (i.e., Ferdinand E. Marcos). On
the other hand, the activists or radicals, as advocates of economic and social equality, came to be tagged as
Communists (i.e., Benigno Aquino). Again, the notion of nationalism took on a different form and course
with respect to the context of history. Yet the old schism subtly underlies every form that nationalism had
been taking. Whatever it has become, it can be noted that the outcome had been one of constant paranoia
and chronic distrust--of putting almost everyone under suspicion of being un-nationalistic, with the
intelligentsia as the main objects of criticism. Interestingly but expectedly, Jose Rizal with his ilustrado
background would be among the first to fall into the radicals' version of historical witch-hunting. Rizal,
according to them, was no more than a hero "sponsored" by the Americans.[19]
If anything, this example demonstrates how the issue of nationalism can be used to co-opt people into a
particular mode of thought or ideology. In other words, nationalism has become a part of almost every
agenda as a tool for appropriating power or legitimizing a cause.
This is not to say, however, that nationalism has been absolutely disgraced. Rather, this further shows
how varied the issue can be taken and how prone Filipino nationalism is to being wrested by opposing
groups at the expense of the entire country. A common ground is therefore called for if it is to be hoped
that nationalism can contribute to the solidarity and advancement of the nation.
Conclusion: Back to the Past, Back to Rizal
But how does one find a common ground? Surely it is nationalistic to demand for equitable development
(as what the radicals do) just as it is nationalistic to formulate policies towards this end (as what the
powers that be ought to do). But in the end nationalism is just one among the many forces that needs to
be mapped out in relation to many other things that concern the country. In other words, it is quite easy
to have a nationalist sentiment, but to enact pertinent policies in view of other issues is another thing.
Constantino found his common ground in the revolutionary tradition history has bequeathed to the
Philippines by saying that "the nation was born of the Revolution" and "the Revolution was the expression
of the nation being born."[20] If at this time we were to accept that the Philippines is still undergoing
identity crisis, then it follows that the Philippines is still a nation in the process of being born, and that the
Revolution is just waiting around the corner waiting to be set off at somebody's command. Surely,
Constantino has a good reason for saying what he had said, but to build a nation on the entire notion of
revolution hardly ever helps in providing a strong foundation for a young democracy. Of course it helps as
an intervening force whenever national interests are seriously threatened, but, as Cruz has pointed out,
radical nationalists has not always been found to be very cooperative with liberal nationalists at other
times. One need only look at Philippine society today to sense that Cruz had indeed been right in saying
so.
Upon close examination, Constantino clearly shares in the modernist idea of the Philippines being
basically a modern state borne out of the West's outward expansion. Ileto does not vastly differ from
Constantino in that sense, no matter if he substitutes the masses for the elite as the main movers of
history. For both historians, nationalism is first and foremost a reaction to Western imperialism and
antagonism that robbed the Filipinos of their freedom and autonomy, hence the emphasis on the
revolution in their discourse of history. Here, the two share in the view of Isaiah Berlin that "nationalism
is an inflamed condition of national consciousness which…seems to be caused by wounds, some form of
collective humiliation."[21]
Wounds and collective humiliation were and are in fact not uncommon in the Philippine experience,
whether suffered in the hands of colonizers or fellow Filipinos. These, multiplied and recurrent
throughout history, may have bred a destructive attitude of self-doubt, among other things. Indeed, it will
be no exaggeration to say that much of the Filipinos' sense of distrust, cynicism and defiance of authority
may have been one downside legacy of a prolonged (oftentimes justified) replication of revolutionary

thought. The revolutionary, no matter his nationalism, must always have someone or something for an
opponent.
Under this circumstance, the prospect for national solidarity remains to be a distant dream. Clearly, an
alternative view to nationhood and nationalism must be proffered, one that can weld the entire nation and
make nationalism weave a positive response to the challenges being faced. Nationalism, if it is to perform
such task, should be anchored on a solid foundation on which the temporal aspects of nationalism (i.e.,
reactions to foreign oppression) can find a firm footing such that long after the challenges had been
addressed, the spirit of the nation still remains, ready to move forward from that point on. Obviously,
such a foundation can only be had through having shared memories of the past, traditions, and everything
else that Filipinos hold as comprising the super-body of culture that set apart Filipinos from other
peoples. This goal comes close to Benedict Anderson's idea of "imagined political community," and closer
still to Smith's "ethno-symbolic alternative" where a nation shares " a myth of common ancestry,"
"historical memories and traditions," "elements of common culture," "link with an historic territory,"
etc. [22]
Interestingly, the importance of such kind of foundation had long been recognized by Rizal, and, by the
same token, by the historians that Ileto considered elitist because of their subscription to the myth of a
Golden Age, etc.
Of course, the term "Golden Age" may be too peremptory to describe the level of civilization Filipinos have
achieved when the Spaniards came, but the purpose for which it has been given prominence in nationalist
history books (i.e., O. D. Corpuz' The Roots of the Filipino Nation and Teodoro Agoncillo's A History of
the Filipino Nation) attest to these historians' view that a nation's cultural past is of paramount
importance to the development of a national identity and consciousness.
Rizal himself was clearly aware of the Filipinos' pre-Hispanic cultural achievements and the significant
role it could play in fostering pride and love for country once national identity and achievements had been
established. John Schumacher writes:
Rizal felt deeply that it was in understanding pre-Hispanic Philippines that the Filipinos would
understand themselves, would find the identity on which a new nation could rise. Earlier he had urged his
colleagues in Barcelona to learn Italian so as to translate the manuscripts of Pigafetta, Magellan's
chronicler, 'so that people may know in what state we were in 1520.' He is, moreover, at pains to show
links existing before the coming of the Spaniards, pointing to Morga's remarks on the similarity of
customs among the different linguistic groups as evidence 'that the links of friendship were more frequent
than the wars and differences. Perhaps there existed a confederation.'"[23]

Considering the time Rizal thought of such a foundation for the Filipino nation, it can be deduced that he
was far more advanced in his understanding and foresight as regards the nation's destiny. He at once
understood that identity would prove very crucial in the formation and unification of the country.
Numerous other accounts point to Rizal's vision of the Philippines as essentially a nation that could
eventually come to terms with its past, a nation with cultural achievements that can be at par, if not better
than the cultural achievements of the Europe that he had seen.
It is reasonable to think that Rizal's deep understanding (in fact romantic) dream for the Philippines
could only have come from the "wounds" that oppression had inflicted on him and his countrymen.
Furthermore, his exposure to the ideological supremacy of the West (Europe) as confirmed by its material
and cultural achievements may have opened up Rizal's eyes to the possibility that the same could be
achieved by the Filipinos.
In this regard, the ardent nationalist, Claro M. Recto is justified to have Rizal be studied in schools on the
premise that there are plenty of lessons that Rizal can impart to the Filipinos. It is perhaps for Rizal's
vision that he stands as the giant among all other national heroes of the Philippines, and it is all worth it
to discover and rediscover him in the changing times.

Somehow Rizal has given Philippine nationalism an enduring legacy by imbuing the Filipinos with a sense
of past that, in the passing of time, will serve as a basis for solidarity that Filipinos can firmly stand on in
times of crisis. With this foundation, Filipinos can claim everyone and everything within the threshold of
their collective memories--the heroism of Lapu-Lapu, Dagohoy and others, the stories that archeological
artifacts tell, the various customs and traditions of the archipelago--to form part of their being and
consciousness. With these, the course of the nation and nationalism may shift according to the temporal
needs of the nation, but it is assured of a home to go back to in the fullness of time.