Historical Revisionism and Historical Perspectives
This article on historical revisionism and its perspectives is also published with a Filipino language version. To read it in Filipino, press this link: Filipino Article
Published on May 10, 2023
Protesters wearing masks of Imelda and carrying placards, one of which reads “#NeverForget No To Historical Revisionism,” during a rally marking the anniversary of Martial Law. Photo by AP/Aaron Favila. Taken from Business Mirror
Martial Law: A History by the Victors?
The issue of historical revisionism hounds the Philippines today, particularly when dealing with the history of the Martial Law period. The regime that saw thousands killed, tens of thousands imprisoned or tortured, and millions suffering in poverty[1], as billions were stolen from the nation’s coffers, is being whitewashed with an altered narrative – one that justifies or even denies these atrocities, while glorifying Marcos for ushering in the nation’s “golden age”.
A common argument supporting Marcosian history is that their perspective is being written out of the narrative because of the family’s forced exile. This, according to them, is an unfair analysis that automatically paints the Martial Law period in a negative light. They, on the other hand, offer perspectives that can explain the wealth of the Marcoses, as well as rationalize and justify Marcos’ actions and decisions, including the declaration of Martial Law.
That history is written by the victors is an argument that may possess some truth. History is often written by victors who may wittingly or unwittingly embellish their narratives. However, there must be a distinction between historical revisionism done in a constructive manner, and revisionism relying on disinformation, misinterpretation or even the denial of facts.
Defining Historical Revisionism and Negationism
History is not static; rather, it is a very dynamic construct. Historian James McPherson characterizes it as a “continuing dialogue between the present and the past”.[2] It may be best perceived that the conclusions of history are not always absolute, and it is part of the historian’s duty to constantly challenge these conclusions. Given that there can always be new information that can change our collective understanding of the past, historical revisionism in itself is not innately good or bad. It is in fact an essential part of the work historians do. It allows for different versions and perspectives of history to be reexamined in a more competent manner.[3]
Given such a level of importance, this form of scholarly history is also known as positive historical revisionism. However, especially in the Philippine context, the term “revisionism” is often brought up with negative connotations. This usually refers to negative historical revisionism, which occurs when there is an attempt to revise historical narratives without adhering to or circumventing historiographic methods. This is done by individuals, such as ill-motivated historians, opportunist politicians, and privy personalities, to advance their agenda, justify and propagate their own views, or besmirch and delegitimize the views of those with whom they disagree.[4]
With regard to the study of Martial Law History, one often finds themselves having to contend with historical negationism. Negationism in particular talks about the rejection of existing narratives and the distortion of facts in order to present them differently.[5] Marcos apologists and loyalists argue that they have the evidence to prove that the narrative of Martial Law has been based on lies and fabrications intended to degrade the Marcoses. Historians and Marcos’s critics, on the contrary, argue that what is inaccurate or based on lies and fabrications are the very evidence they speak of. Their evidence intends to romanticize the Marcoses, while, on the contrary, the existing narrative is based on decades of peer-reviewed research of facts.
There are many ways negative revisionism or negationism can be done. One may simply “cherry-pick” the facts that support their argument while ignoring those that do not. One can also twist or skew facts to suit their interpretation, such as through mistranslating and misinterpreting sources as well as manipulating statistical data. More maliciously, one can resort to completely fabricating evidence and testimonies or inventing facts to strengthen their case.
Historical Denialism
When, in the face of all available evidence, one still chooses to believe that the Marcoses do not have ill-gotten wealth, they engage in what can be more aptly called “historical denialism.” They engage in the same when they say the Marcos administration ushered in a “golden age for the Philippines,” despite all the evidence to the contrary.[6] Denialism is a narrower application of distortion wherein facts are not simply twisted, but rather outrightly rejected.
Perhaps one of the more infamous examples of this phenomenon is Holocaust denialism. The Holocaust, the genocide of more than six million Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, is a well-document historical occurrence with an abundance of evidence readily available. Despite this, there are still a number of people who believe the Holocaust did not occur. One of its leading proponents, David Irving, was once a prominent military historian on Nazi Germany.[7] His stance on the Holocaust, as seen in his book, Hitler’s War, from its 1977 version until its 1991 version, evolved from acknowledging it but exonerating Hitler and downplaying the magnitude of the killings, to categorically concluding the Holocaust as a myth.[8]
His position has been criticized by many historians, including Deborah Lipstadt in her 1993 book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.[9] In response, Irving sued Lipstadt and her publishers for libel, alleging that Lipstadt’s accusation constitutes libel and destroyed his reputation. In 2000, Sir Charles Gray, the presiding judge, ruled in favor of Lipstadt and upheld that “Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.”[10] Irving was eventually convicted in Austria for his Holocaust denial.[11]
Author and Holocaust denier David Irving holding a copy of his controversial book "Hitler's War" while addressing reporters in 2006. Photo by Reuters/Heinz-peter Bader taken on February 20, 2006. Retrieved from NBC News
When, in the face of all available evidence, one still chooses to believe that the Marcoses do not have ill-gotten wealth, they engage in what can be more aptly called “historical denialism.” They engage in the same when they say the Marcos administration ushered in a “golden age for the Philippines,” despite all the evidence to the contrary.[6] Denialism is a narrower application of distortion wherein facts are not simply twisted, but rather outrightly rejected.
Perhaps one of the more infamous examples of this phenomenon is Holocaust denialism. The Holocaust, the genocide of more than six million Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, is a well-document historical occurrence with an abundance of evidence readily available. Despite this, there are still a number of people who believe the Holocaust did not occur. One of its leading proponents, David Irving, was once a prominent military historian on Nazi Germany.[7] His stance on the Holocaust, as seen in his book, Hitler’s War, from its 1977 version until its 1991 version, evolved from acknowledging it but exonerating Hitler and downplaying the magnitude of the killings, to categorically concluding the Holocaust as a myth.[8]
His position has been criticized by many historians, including Deborah Lipstadt in her 1993 book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.[9] In response, Irving sued Lipstadt and her publishers for libel, alleging that Lipstadt’s accusation constitutes libel and destroyed his reputation. In 2000, Sir Charles Gray, the presiding judge, ruled in favor of Lipstadt and upheld that “Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.”[10] Irving was eventually convicted in Austria for his Holocaust denial.[11]
Reckoning Negationism and Bias
Historical negationism plays into the emotions and inclinations of peoples and their beliefs. Just as revisionism is not warmly received, history can often contain uncomfortable truths. Those who do not wish to believe these may push for more comfortable, albeit inaccurate or false, narratives. Those who wish to refrain from revising existing narratives may reject newer ones just the same. Many attempts at negationism are fundamentally untenable because they are based on patent untruths or distorted facts but survive nonetheless because they conform to some people’s existing biases and confirm their beliefs.
Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo once asked, “what history is not biased?” and challenged to be shown a historian who is not biased, arguing that “history is never objective.” “History is written by every generation. Every generation writes its own history using the same sources. The interpretations vary according to time,” Agoncillo adds.[12]
Our own biases and moral values reveal themselves as we engage with how we remember our past. Discussions on objectivity become a different issue, however, when facts are maliciously twisted, distorted or even invented for the sake of pushing forward a new narrative. The denial of Martial Law atrocities, the misrepresentation or ignorance of statistical data to cast Martial Law as a “golden age,” and the invention of the Tallano gold myth to explain the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses all constitute grave distortions of the past.[13] This is something that many historians are actively fighting against until today.
Martial Law as a History by the Survivors
To surrender to the negation and distortion of the truths of Martial Law would be to surrender the story of the Filipinos in overthrowing a dictator. It would be an insult to the memories of those who perished during the Marcos regime, be they those who laid their lives on the line fighting against the abusers or those who were haplessly killed. It is often said that “history is written by the victors.” To paint a more accurate picture, it might be apt to revise this and say that “history is written by the survivors.” Though one can say the 1986 People Power Revolution was a victory, what came after may not be as pleasant, especially for those who went through Martial Law.
Many of their struggles continued long after, culminating in today’s time as a Marcos has once again assumed the presidency. This is, of course, amid the unrelenting barrage of disinformation on social media and the lamentable insufficiency of our educational system in teaching the lessons of Martial Law to students. The younger generations interpret the same past, but due to these problems, the accepted history being established is one wherein the truths of Martial Law can be distorted or even denied. The falsified version of Martial Law that has deified Ferdinand Marcos and his family to some extent has, in the past decades, slowly pervaded our national consciousness and now poses a legitimate threat in shaping how our country moves forward.
Though the situation looks bleak, one must again be reminded that there is no finality in history, and conclusions are, at best, temporary.[14] Historians, academics, activists, institutions, such as the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, and Martial Law survivors themselves have continued fighting to defend the truths of history, and to keep the facts of Martial Law untainted by disinformation and propaganda. If alternate narratives being pushed through historical revisionism reject realities and subscribe to falsities, it becomes a form of historical negationism, as it can either distort or reject the truths of history. Deborah Lipstadt herself believes engaging denialists and negationists, such as David Irving, who want to be thought of as the “other side,” accords them that status and involves them in the conversation.[15] These impugn what the historians have done to write an accurate record of the past. These narratives must not be elevated to the level of academic and scholarly discourse lest they be lent unwarranted legitimacy. Given our current situation, more than ever, it is imperative — and our responsibility — to defend against negative historical revisionism and negationism.
Read more
Footnotes
[1] Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, Essential Truths about the Economy During the Martial Law Era (1972-1986), Quezon City: Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, 2020.
[2] Cristen Conger, “Introduction to How Revisionist History Works,” Thinker Education, accessed April 24, 2023,; James McPherson, “Revisionist Historians,” American Historical Association, September 1, 2003, accessed April 24, 2023.
[3] “What is Historical Revisionism and How Does it Influence History?” Historyplex, accessed April 24, 2023. The term “Revisionism” can be traced from the Latin word “revidere,” meaning “to view again.”
[4] “What is Historical Revisionism and How Does it Influence History?“
[5] Conger, “Introduction to How Revisionist History Works.” Negationism is derived from the French term “négationnisme” which means denial. It usually refers to instances of denialism, but has also been used to describe other instances of manipulation or distortion of historical record.
[6] Krixia Subingsubing, “Revisionism, denialism: Academics explain views on Marcos era,” Inquirer.net, September 22, 2020, accessed April 24, 2023.
[7] D. D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, accessed April 24, 2023.
[8] Vikram Dodd, “Gas chamber claims impossible, says Irving,” The Guardian, January 13, 2000, accessed April 24, 2023. Irving had omitted all references to the Holocaust by the 1991 version of his book. Richard Rampton, Deborah Lipstadt’s defense lawyer in the libel case referenced later, quoted Irving saying about the revision that “if something didn’t happen, then you don’t even dignify it with a footnote.” Discussions on this during Day 2 of the trial (January 12, 2000) can be read in “Day 2 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial,” Holocaust Denial on Trial, accessed April 24, 2023.
[9] Deborah E. Lipstadt, “Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory” (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), 174. In her book, Lipstadt labels Irving as someone familiar with historical evidence, but “bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.”
[10] Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstadt (2000), High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, EWHC QB 115, British and Irish Legal Information Institute (online), accessed April 24, 2023. Gray also concurred that Irving is an active Holocaust denier, as well as an anti-Semite and racist who frequently associate with right-wing extremists promoting neo-Nazism. In his judgment, he writes that “Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.”
[11] Associated Press, “Scholar who denied Holocaust jailed for 3 years,” NBC News, February 20, 2006, accessed April 24, 2023. Irving briefly disavowed his views on the Holocaust before reverting to them after he was convicted and jailed.
[12] Ambeth R. Ocampo, “Teodoro A. Agoncillo@100,” Inquirer.net, November 8, 2012, accessed April 24, 2023.
[13] “FALSE: Filipino ‘royal family’ ruled over pre-colonial ‘Maharlika kingdom’,” Rappler, February 15, 2019, accessed April 24, 2023. The “Tallano gold” narrative is widely argued as fabricated. There is no evidence to suggest that the Maharlika Kingdom existed, that the Tallanos owned the Philippines, or that Marcos represented them in court to prove the same.
References
- Associated Press. “Scholar who denied Holocaust jailed for 3 years.” NBC News. February 20, 2006. Accessed April 24, 2023.
- Chua, Michael Charleston. “Historical Distortion.” August 2020. Manila STV, 6:08.
- Conger, Cristen. “Introduction to How Revisionist History Works.” Thinker Education. Accessed April 24, 2023.
- Dodd, Vikram. “Gas chamber claims impossible, says Irving.” The Guardian. January 13, 2000. Accessed April 24, 2023.
- “FALSE: Filipino ‘royal family’ ruled over pre-colonial ‘Maharlika kingdom’.” Rappler. February 15, 2019. Accessed April 24, 2023.
- Guttenplan, D. D. “The Holocaust on Trial.” New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001. Accessed April 24, 2023.
- Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstadt (2000), High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, EWHC QB 115. British and Irish Legal Information Institute (online). Accessed April 24, 2023.
- Lipstadt, Deborah E. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Penguin Books, 1993.
- McPherson, James. “Revisionist Historians.” American Historical Association. September 1, 2003. Accessed April 24, 2023.
- Ocampo, Ambeth R. “Teodoro A. Agoncillo@100.” Inquirer.net. November 8, 2012. Accessed April 24, 2023.
- Subingsubing, Krixia. “Revisionism, denialism: Academics explain views on Marcos era.” Inquirer.net. September 22, 2020. Accessed April 24, 2023.
- “What is Historical Revisionism and How Does it Influence History?” Historyplex. Accessed April 24, 2023.