YES TO HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

The recent burial of Ferdinand Marcos at the LNMB has spawned plentiful issues – the legalities of the burial, the Supreme Court’s decision, Martial Law, outcry of the millenials, PRRD’s affinity with the Marcos family and historical revisionism among many others.

I find the last issue muy interesante, and thus, the topic of this latest blog piece.

Anti-Marcos groups cried “historical revisionism” after the Supreme court allowed the LNMB burial of President Marcos. Marcos authored Martial Law in 1972 which resulted to a multitude of human atrocities and it is for this reason that they are against the burial.

In my own understanding, the sentiment of the anti-Marcos people is that the recent burial will rewrite history in the sense that Martial Law will be viewed differently now and consequently its author will be perceived differently as well.

Let us not be too literal about the burial. Only the body was buried – not the historical records, not the human rights violation cases, not the memory of the lives lost, and so and so forth.

I am all for it – HISTORICAL REVISIONISM.

But revisionism in a manner that there will be a multi-angled and multi-perspective approach towards any written or oral discussion about the Martial Law period – not just from the perspective of the victims and their families, the staunch critics, and those Marcos officials who immediately changed political color in February of 1986.

For the longest time, any documentation about ML has always been one-sided.

It is high time to hear from those who supported ML, particularly those who directly implemented it upon the orders of their president. There could be some interesting justifications for Marcos’ ML proclamation in 1972, which are not having chances of being heard since the anti-Marcos voices are way louder.

My point is let us hear from all sides for it is only trough this that we can thoroughly assess ML, and re-validate our impressions about ML.

And finally, I want a revised history that will include all those who are responsible for Martial Law, for Marcos could not have implemented such grand military and political spectacle all by himself.

For the longest time, all fingers were and are being pointed at Marcos as if he was the sole implementer of Martial Law (and the atrocities that resulted from it).

Was Marcos the only government official that time?

History should include all those who were directly involved with Martial Law. Not just the principal author, but the co-authors as well.