THE INTEMPERATE FATHER RANHILIO AQUINO
September 26, 2020
John Nery
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Subject: The Intemperate Ranhilio Aquino, Marcos Apologist
Dear Mr. Nery,
Thank you for calling out Father Ranhilio Aquino with respect to his September 11, 2020 tweet which is revealing of his thoughtlessness and pedantry. Aquino had posted on Twitter:
“The present generation that is loud in its condemnation of Marcos never experienced Marcos. So that rant is directed at their construct of Marcos. Shouldn’t they be studying Derrida and Lyotard more?”
Pointedly—and accurately, I might add—you deconstructed Aquino’s tweet as follows:
“…much of the criticism Aquino received was driven by shock and disgust: Here was a priest, who had lived through the Marcos years, denying the tragic reality of the dictatorship.”
—John Nery, “The Unfortunate Ranhilio Aquino, Marcos Apologist,” Philippine Daily Inquirer (September 15, 2020)
In response to Aquino, Josh @joshdavid had tweeted back, “Naabutan niyo po ba si Hesu Kristo?”
Aquino’s proposition is that the murder, torture, and massacre of many thousands under Marcos and the unchecked plunder of the Marcos regime on a scale that ravaged our economy for decades is a grand narrative that should be repudiated by petit narratives. It is an idea that absurdly invokes by dint of analogical reasoning the claim that the Christian account of Jesus should be accorded the same worth as competing assertions that Jesus was only a man or that he was not crucified. Coming from the mouth of a priest, this kind of reasoning is ridiculous.
Aquino’s remarks serve to propagate the “historical revisionism” funded by the Marcos plunder and to condone the grave negligence in the public education of the Philippine people. Recklessly, this priest throws gasoline on the inflammable lies currently devastating our country.
The priest should say something that advances historical and scientific truth, not something that condones and incites fake news, especially since honest and good governance and the well-being of millions of people are at stake.
Bluntly speaking, one obtuse priest is one too many.
Fortunately, more temperate views circulate freely.
During the “Disinformation in History” webinar that you chaired on September 21, 2020, columnist Gideon Lasco said:
“Historical revisionism is not necessarily a bad thing because many things need to be revised in the way that history is presented. But there is also an argument that revisionism can be a ‘euphemism’ for outright lies.”
In a parallel event the same day, the “Dambana ng Gunita” commemoration hosted by the University of the Philippines (UP) System, former Philippine Science High School teacher and martial law victim Cristina Bawagan observed that “historical revisionism was often necessary to introduce new voices into erstwhile monolithic histories, such as the inclusion of indigenous or Black perspectives.”
She continued, “Such revisions in history are rooted in historical record and evidence, and are therefore ‘legitimate.’ But when we talk about denying that there were thousands killed during martial law, or that billions were stolen from the national coffers, that’s denialism, that’s distortion.”
—Krixia Subingsubing, “Revisionism, Denialism: Academics Explain Views on Marcos Era,” Philippine Daily Inquirer (September 22, 2020)
It is my earnest hope that in our country, sensible, truthful constructions like those of Lasco and Bawagan will advance and prevail over intemperate repudiations the likes of which have been espoused by the unfortunate Ranhilio Aquino.
Joseph I. B. Gonzales
INSURMOUNTABLE EVIDENCE POINTS TO MARCOS AS DICTATOR, PLUNDERER
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 05:01 AM September 24, 2020
Fr. Ranhilio Aquino originally tweeted that the present generation is loud in its condemnation of Marcos. Having not experienced Marcos, he adds that its rant against him is but directed at its construct of Marcos. As to what he means by construct, he explains that “(a) construct is not fiction. It is not false. It is the way we arrange and select and interpret data,” pointing out that “there are rival constructs, rival interpretations, rival selections of data considered significant,” with some constructs prevailing and are favored. He ends up saying that all human knowledge is interpretation.
So what does that make then of Marcos? Is he really a dictator, plunderer, and human rights violator as the present generation condemns him to be? Father Rannie said they never experienced Marcos and thus a different selection and interpretation of data could possibly lead to a different and even contradictory construct of who Marcos really is, i.e. that his being a dictator, plunderer, or human rights violator is but a figment of wild imagination.
What is the truth then insofar as Marcos is concerned? Is he in fact a dictator, plunderer, or human rights violator? As a student of law which all of us are, Father Rannie must grant that the selection or interpretation of data cannot be arbitrary. There are rules for ascertaining the truth respecting matters of fact and that to lawyers goes by the name of EVIDENCE. As a student of philosophy, he must certainly be aware of the principle of non-contradiction, that if one construct sees Marcos as a dictator, plunderer, and human rights violator and a rival contradictory construct sees him otherwise, both constructs cannot be true at the same time.
The present generation may not have experienced Marcos. But can they ignore the body of testimonial evidence of those who suffered during the Marcos dictatorship who to this very day still bear the scars of torture they were subjected to? Can they ignore the body of documentary evidence indisputably proving the thievery of the Marcoses which served as basis for a number of Supreme Court decisions rendered against them?
As a student of the law, Father Rannie must surely be aware of the body of laws of the martial law period which prove without shadow of doubt that Marcos arrogated unto himself all governmental powers establishing one-man rule in this country. Sadly, whatever rival constructs, rival interpretations, and rival selections of data which Father Rannie may have in mind cannot possibly be given any credence at all in the light of these insurmountable evidence that Marcos indeed is a dictator, plunderer, and human rights violator.
Regarding Marcos, one construct of someone who listed the many edifices he built concluded that he is a “nation builder.” Sadly, said construct ignores relevant evidence. My response: the edifices that you credit Marcos for were built out of a people he has oppressed, whose freedoms he has robbed, out of the blood whose lives he has imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Those edifices were built out of loaned money, which he himself has robbed, for which he has earned worldwide the notoriety as one of the most corrupt leaders of the world, which until now we and generations to come will pay for.
It is utter violence to the truth and complete disrespect of facts to imply that one construct is just as good as another.
Severo Brillantes
brillanteslaw@gmail.com
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/133850/insurmountable-evidence-points-to-marcos-as-dictator-plunderer#ixzz6wgXY5sbe
“It is utter violence to the truth and complete disrespect of facts to imply that one construct is just as good as another.”
Gonzalinho
Photo courtesy of Bro. Jeffrey Pioquinto, SJ
ReplyDeletePhoto link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AdMU_students_holding_an_indignational_rally_and_noise_barrage_in_protest_of_the_hero%27s_burial_of_Marcos_%28Bro._Jeffrey_Pioquinto,_SJ_pic%29_-_Flickr.jpg
Gonzalinho