![]() |
![]() |
#22 | ||
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
![]() Quote:
![]() Quote:
![]() Seriously, I agree with your hunch that that was a case of biased reporting. In the 333 years that Spain controlled substantial portions of what is now Philippines (i.e., given that the Igorots, the Moros, the Lumad, and other lowland and upland "infieles" were not really subdued), Spain never made money (the government was always on a deficit). The US had the same experience. And so naturally, the on-site bureaucrats' "press release" to the mother country would always be biased lest they (the administrators) be seen in a negative light. When the Filipino national hero José Rizal reconstructed prehispanic Philippines' history for instance, he did not rely on the Spanish friars' accounts. And that's precisely because their accounts were always citing extraordinary events. In the case of the friars, they were recounting always magical and supernatural occurrences among the activities of the natives. While Rizal for sure (and most Filipinos) would not absolutely rule out such phenomenon, I think Rizal saw that the friars' stories have simply too much of those stories. Now the locals' accounts of the overall history will also be biased for sure, to be fair. Thus for me that's the challenge for the historian -- how to meld two half-truths and come out with a more objective account. Last edited by migueldiaz; 1st September 2009 at 06:57 AM. Reason: Refined the wording ... |
||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|