I am getting some flak from what I posted last Friday about what Ambeth Ocampo said in his GSIS Historians' Fair lecture regarding Emilio Aguinaldo's mother. But before that, I have something to say about the word "context" because it is central to this…
I am getting some flak from what I posted last Friday about what Ambeth Ocampo said in his GSIS Historians' Fair lecture regarding Emilio Aguinaldo's mother. But before that, I have something to say about the word "context" because it is central to this whole shebang.
What is context? Below are two common definitions:
1) the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). 2) the situation within which something exists or happens, and that can help explain it (Cambridge Dictionary).
Now, going back to the Historians' Fair wherein Ocampo gave a free lecture on history. During the Q and A (in response to a mother about her ten-year-old kid who hates Aguinaldo), he made mention of something that is of high interest to the general public: the real mastermind behind the killing of Gen. Antonio Luna. As we all know, history blames Aguinaldo for the assassination. But Ocampo had something to say about that. See video clip below:
Click on the photo to watch the video clip.
In this short video clip, Ocampo EXPLICITLY declared that he already knew who masterminded Luna's assassination. Let us quote him again in verbatim:
"When you watch the film 'Heneral Luna', you will hate Aguinaldo even more. And then we blame him for the killing of Luna. But in my research, I already know who had Antonio Luna killed. It's not Aguinaldo. It's Aguinaldo's mother."
For those who do not know, the (maiden) name of Aguinaldo's mother was Trinidad Famy y Valero, a native of Noveleta, Cavite.
Upon hearing of that revelation, the entire GSIS Auditorium had a collective gasp, and I almost cursed on my seat. While many historians and history buffs insist that Aguinaldo was the real mastermind behind the killing, the crime still remains a mystery because Aguinaldo himself vehemently denied up to his death bed to have had any hand on its execution (compare this denial to his open admission to Andrés Bonifacio's killing). So upon hearing his declaration, I immediately posted it on my wall, the social media enthusiast that I am:
Little did I know that it would go crazy viral. To be honest, it was really my intention. I really wanted it to go viral, but not to the extent that it had reached: more than a hundred thirteen thousand reactions, more than three thousand polarized comments, and close to sixty thousand shares. I was expecting like maybe only a couple of hundred reactions and shares. Just a couple of hundreds, not thousands.
But my post's virality exceeded my expectations. Which only goes to show that I'm correct: the general public is still heavily invested on this Aguinaldo-Luna affair after all these years. People still talk about it, even those who are not history buffs. To emphasize this point: my late wife, who was not fond of reading, found Luna's mysterious and brutal assassination so intriguing that several years ago, she spent an entire afternoon reading my books and magazines about the issue.
And that is exactly why I thought of posting Ocampo's revelation on my Facebook. Because, as mentioned above, the general public is still invested in this mysterious tragedy in our history. Remember that the assassination happened in 1899. That's one hundred twenty-five years ago. Public interest on the Luna assassination was heightened all the more when the movie Heneral Luna was released almost a decade ago. It was a blockbuster hit. Since then, Filipinos seemed to have never moved on.
Going back to Ocampo's now controversial statement. How did he found out who ordered Luna's assassination? To wit: he said that in his research, he already knew who had Antonio Luna killed. How? In that same video, he continued:
"If you look at it, I found it: it's a small footnote in Teodoro Kálaw that says 'the person involved in Luna's death is a woman who cannot be named'. Who was that? That was Aguinaldo's mother."
Unfortunately, my post was taken the wrong way by some people who, I suspect, still wanted to put the blame on Aguinaldo. Or perhaps they had wanted to cover up their idol Ambeth Ocampo's sensationalist revelation. One such post claimed that Ocampo's statement was just "a matter of probability, not a matter of fact". But the video obviously shows otherwise. It was an explicit claim — "I already know who had Antonio Luna killed... I found it: it's a small footnote in Teodoro Kálaw." Pray, tell, where is the probability there? He stated it in a manner and tone of revealing newfound information. Had he used words and phrases such as "I think I already know" or "my suspicion is that" or "perhaps the one who had him killed" etc. etc. etc., then I would have believed their lame excuse that it his declaration was indeed just a matter of probability and not a matter of fact.
But he said it in a factual manner. He even used the word research. He clearly said it loud and clear: "in my research, I already know who had Antonio Luna killed". When a historian or any researcher for that matter does a research, he pours his entire heart and soul into it. Because it's his intellectual output, it's his "mental baby", so to speak. The researcher's research is his intellectual alter ego in print form. It defines his pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, Ocampo really believed that it was Famy de Aguinaldo who ordered the assassination of Luna.
But his supporters insist that I took his words out of context! Ocampo himself, when I attempted to clear the air with him right after my post went viral, insisted that I took his statement out of context.
"Nobody knows who the mastermind is. There are 'suspects'. I related a source that said it's 'a woman who cannot be named'. There is no smoking gun. It is a guess that needs more research".
Fair enough. But in the lecture, he never said that he made a guess.
Ocampo, in our chat, continued:
"I spoke in the context of sources. Nobody knows who the mastermind is, and I gave an example of how a historian looks at different sources. I looked into this angle based on a lead in one source to find motive."
Later on during our lengthy chat, he claims that he's being bashed by my "one-line, out-of-context" post.
Ocampo and his followers are severely mistaken here. They are misusing the word context (see above definitions). The context in this issue is that passing claim that he made about who masterminded the killing of Luna, nothing else. Although earlier in the lecture (and in many other lectures and books of his), he did mention about how a historian looks at different sources, that was from another context. That was from another part of the lecture. Here, the context is in response to a question thrown at him about the hatred for Aguinaldo. And then he revealed that it wasn't Aguinaldo who had Luna killed. THAT is the context.
Nevertheless, Ocampo's attack dogs are relentless on their pursuit of bringing down my post (if not bringing down my reputation). Later on in the lecture/video, they emphasized that Ocampo did doubt his claim, thus the lame probability excuse. Indeed, Ocampo said "If it's true, if I am correct, and it is (sic) Aguinaldo's mother that had Antonio Luna killed..." But that doesn't mean that his earlier claim was a statement of probability. It simply means that he can be proven wrong by other historians. It's an invitation for anyone to disprove him. Because such is the process in Hegelian dialectics. A thesis is confronted by an antithesis which eventually gets resolved and produces a synthesis, a new contribution to a field of knowledge. And this synthesis can later on be confronted by a new thesis. And the cycle goes on with the hopes of further improving human knowledge.
Obviously (and sadly), Ocampo's attack dogs, most of whom are legit historians themselves, no nothing of this sort. Which makes me question how they even acquired their degrees in history.
So there you have it. No matter how hard Ocampo's attack dogs spin his statement, he had already made a conclusion. When I heard him say that it was Aguinaldo's mother who had Luna killed, I immediately posted it to my wall knowing for a fact that the information comes from a top-notch historian who can be relied upon by the public. He said he did some research, so I trusted his word. And that was my mistake. Because he didn't stand by his word. He failed to MAN UP.
And I think I now know why. Because he made a blunder. He easily assumed that the "woman who cannot be named" in that Kálaw footnote he was referring to was Aguinaldo's mother. Kálaw did not even drop names, but Ocampo still shared to us the certainty of his careless assumption. He even tried to convince the audience at the GSIS Theater that it was indeed Aguinaldo's mother. To continue his "if I am correct" statement...
"But if you think of it on another sense, this is a mother protecting her son."
He was really convinced that it was poor Trinidad Famy who masterminded the dastardly killing of General Antonio Luna. And this now makes him less of a historian and more like the Cristy Fermín of Filipino History.
He probably didn't know that someone would post on social media his Cristy Fermín take on his careless assumption. In the end, I inadvertently exposed his chismis history, and that made him very upset. So now he (together with his blind sheep) is doing his very best to cover his ass, but at my expense.
During our chat last Saturday morning, at the height of my post's virality, we had an agreement to let the storm pass. I agreed. I literally obeyed him. I took down my post, then issued a public apology offering no excuses. I then slept filled with bitterness and shame. But when I woke up in the afternoon, what do I see? Historians sharing screenshots of their chat conversations with their Almighty Ambeth Ocampo. He was virtually talking behind my back, saying to all of them that I misunderstood what he meant on his lecture.
Yesterday, we had another confrontation (via chat). He was upset that I broke our agreement to let the storm pass and even had the gall to guilt-trip me about palabra de honor. But what palabra de honor was he talking about? He was the first to break that agreement by talking behind my back. I had no choice but to defend my integrity over my unfair agreement with him. That is why I took down my apology (which I shouldn't have done in the first place because I did no wrong). and restored my viral post. I am the one who is now being painted as the villain in this controversy, not him. And whatever happens after this storm, his blind sheep will still continue hailing him as their Almighty Ambeth. At acó pa rin ang cauauà.
People, I was just a passenger in Ambeth Ocampo's car. He was driving so fast when he hit a number of passengers. And then his passengers blame me for the accident.
No comments:
Post a Comment