A History of the Philippines

by Samuel K. Tan

A History of the Philippines, herein offered by Dr. Samuel K. Tan...offers a conceptual framework of what he calls "the story of man in the Philippines" in the context of "the specific ecological system" and "distinctive historical experience" that have shaped his "particular character and identity." Dr. Tan provides in this slim volume a picture of Philippine culture which..."ought to be understood from the totality of the ethnolinguitstic varieties which constitute the fabric of Filipino society." Hence he divides Filipino cultural communities into three main groups--the Moros, the Indios, the Infieles--colonial categories, but nevertheless reflective of what evolved in the Philippines as a result of the historical processes that have transpired in the island world of the Filipinos. -Berndardita Reyes Churchill

Genres: History, Nonfiction

136 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

Reviews

[Dav · Rating 2 out of 5]

A History of the Philippines is a short, dense and temporally expansive book. It starts with the Evolution of the Land 100 million years ago and ends in with its second printing 1997. The writing is predominantly dry, dispassionate and academic. It's full of details, and often presumes an existing familiarity with Philippine history and culture, introducing terms with no definition provided. The entire rampage through Manila at the end of WWII got maybe 3 or 4 utilitarian sentences. There is a whole book about that, Rampage: MacArthur, Yamashita, and the Battle of Manila. Sometimes a sentence screams of concealed drama, like "in particular, the military establishment had found the propitious time to show the rationale for their existence" during Marcos' introduction of martial law in the 70s. And that's all he had to say about that. You just know some shit went down.

If you want to study the Philippines as an outsider (which, despite being half Filipino, I am since I'm an American that was adopted by non-Filipinos) I'd say this book is a must have, even if it is just like a BART map, correct in a utilitarian way inasmuch as Glen Park station is the next stop after 24th Street Station, but mostly lacking in both the broad immersive impact and subtle nuances of what that really means to experience those things.

Toward the end, when the events described are contemporaneous with the authoring, it gets a bit less dry and seems to take on a political bias. This guy either really liked Marcos and Ramos, or wanted them to think he did.

[Kale M. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not going to lie, it was quite a dense read. Despite the book being proclaiming to be a "student edition," I would not recommend this book to any student who's curious about Philippine history since it has too many technical terms, cultural groups, and specific events (with absolute no context) that only historians, economist, anthropologist, or ethnohistorians would understand. In addition, I am also warning anyone who's interested in purchasing this book that it is does not have a clear narrative of Philippine history. It just places you in a specific period and explains the socio-economic condition and key events during that time in the country. This book was also written in such a dry and soulless way, which is quite a surprise since it was authored by someone who has contributed so much to Philippine history. It reminded me of a line from the video "On books" by Joe Scott wherein he states that, "No matter how brilliant you are or no matter how great the points you're making might be, if you can't communicate that in a way that other people can grasp and understand, you're masturbating. That's all it is. You're just masturbating. You're wasting your time and and nobody's getting anything out of it. You are failing miserably at the thing you are set out to do and that is to make a point to other people or get something across that people want to could learn from." I do believe that Scott's point fully encapsulates the book because Tan did make a lot of great points, especially on the topic of neocolonialism, however, I believe he could have written it in a better way. If you are new to Philippine history, I would rather recommend "A Question of Heroes" by Nick Joaquin, "Rizal without the Overcoat by Ambeth Ocampo," and even "History with Lourd" by Lourd de Veyra.

On the bright side, I did find the first chapter quite interesting since I have never read upon the Philippine history in the context of the "Cretaceous-Paleogene" period. However, I would like to point out that the last chapters of this book shows the author's clear bias for the Marcos and Ramos administration and his disdain for the Aquino administration. Personally, I just think that if you are writing a book about the general history of a country, you should try your best to be fair and objective and not cherry pick key events and statistics for your own agenda (which is not the case with this book).

All in all, it was able to highlight the exploitative nature of colonialism and imperialism, call attention to the threat that neocolonialism poses in the country and, in a way, achieve its job as "a" history of the Philippines. However, it was dryly written, pretty biased, and too technical for the average Joe.

Notable Lines in the Book
- "In brief, colonialism tended to divide and rule an otherwise culturally and historically related populace through a colonial system that would exploit both the virtues and vices of the people.
- "What was regarded as "civilized" was equated with everything that came under the label "modern." This actually meant anything that was western.
-"The American policy of liberation and respect for individual freedom, except when its exercise would prejudice American interest..."
- "the words of then Senator Lorenzo Tañada, 'ang mga Filipino ay niluto sa kanilang sariling mantika' (The Filipinos were cooked with their own oil)". This quote was was referring to the privileges given to the American banks that "set in motion the neocolonial processes in the country" which hindered the Philippines' economic development.
- In a word, the bond of national unity is as elusive as the reality of peace.

[Kenneth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although the work may be short, this historical survey of the Philippines is packed with much research and socio-cultural insights. It is a fruit of scholarship that stood the test of time. However, there is a strong secularistic ideology that runs through the work to which any person of religious background can easily detect. Although one can never be totally objective with regard to history, the secularist tone leans toward partiality. For a country that is marked by a history of religious influence, initially that of Islam, and then later of Christianity, to be "off-handish" towards religion in speaking of the History of the Philippines is to lose much of what defines the character of being a Filipino. Though the Christian background of the Philippines may not be palatable to all sorts of sensitivities, it is still a background that merits unbiased historical attention.

[Tracy Duvall · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is mostly an overly abstract commentary on the history of the Philippines, as the text assumes that readers already know the outline and some details of Philippines history, geography, and ethnology. It also is clearly partisan, as Marcos gets almost completely favorable treatment, Corazon Aquino and her supporters are consistently criticized, and Ramos is lionized. Then it stops. Almost all of the recommended readings come from the mid-1980s or before. Still, I did learn some interesting things; for example, it became clear that the Spanish operated in the Philippines very similarly to how they colonized the Americas.

[Edward Ferrari · Rating 3 out of 5]

Functional as a good overview and introduction to the history of the archipelago and its people. I would have appreciated help with the pronunciation of unfamiliar words, so would recommend reading alongside Wikipedia. Pleased to see there was a suggested reading section at the end, though disappointed how few solid history books seem to be available on this subject.

[Infinite Library · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you and Prof. Tan were at a dinner party together, and you asked him to give you an overview of Filipino history -- this is how the book reads. As a couple of reviewers already noted, this slim text is more of a *wide* sweep of Filipino history, from pre-history to American neocolonialism, then changes into the author's personal commentary of late-20th century Filipino politics. This book does not read like a general history textbook at all.

Of the latter chapters: The author is remarkably sympathetic to Marcos; critical of Aquino in an unbalanced manner; and makes a hero out of Ramos in a similarly dubious sense.

I started this book with a very vague understanding of Filipino history, so at least the sweeping overviews provided some more context (but not much) of how each period developed.

[emil · Rating 3 out of 5]

it was okay at first but i have difficulty liking a work that is so partisan towards Marcos.

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really like this book.

[Eishiell Conat · Rating 5 out of 5]

This Book is a Good and I will learn a lot from it

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

Brief historical outline of the Philippines from pre-history to the end of the 20th Century. The writing is a bit clunky, but a decent intro to the main themes/events of Philippine history.