Philippine Normal University: A Brief History

At the turn of the century, a new revolution took place in the country. Filipinos were no longer revolting against the Spaniards but with the new rising power, the United States. During the American occupation of the land, one of the things brought by the new regime was the American style of Education. This was the best tool to control the Filipinos spirit of fighting against the new colonizer. Schools were founded and one of these was the Philippine Normal School (PNS) created on January 21, 1901 by Americans through Act No. 74 of the Philippine Commission. It, however, formally opened on September 1, 1901, as an institution for the training of teachers. The school was used to train young Filipino educators. For more than two decades, PNS offered a two-year general secondary education program. It was only in 1928 when it became a junior college offering a two-year program to graduates of secondary schools and was converted into the Philippine Normal College (PNC) in 1949 through Republic Act 416 (the Charter of the College), the four-year Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education (BSEE) program was introduced. Then, other undergraduate programs ensued such as the Bachelor of Science in Education (BSE) with specialization in Elementary Education; a BSEE major in Home Economics; and a three-year Combined Home Economics diploma. In 1953, the Graduate School was established. Equipped with a legal mandate, PNC included the Master of Arts (MA) in Education curriculum in the academic program. However, the organization of a full-fledged Graduate School came five years later. It was only in 1970 when the Bachelor of Science in Education curriculum, offering major and minor subjects, was introduced. The passage of Republic Act 6515 which amended Republic Act 416 in July 1972 paved the way for the offering and conferment of the Doctor of Education (Ed. D) and the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D.) degrees and the provision of other academic programs relevant to the in-service training of teachers, school supervisors, administrators, researchers, and other educational specialists and personnel. Curriculum development, revision, adaptation played an important role in ensuring high scholastic standards for the institution. As it gained its foothold in teacher education, PNC established branches in Agusan del Sur, Isabela and Negros Occidental. Aside from the creation of campuses, the College expanded its services, most significant of which was its designation as the Curriculum Development Center for Communication Arts (English and Filipino) under the Language Study Center-Educational Development Projects Implementing Task Force (LSC-EDPITAF) Project and afterward as Center of Excellence (CENTREX) in English, Filipino and Values Education. Its major functions included the development of English and Filipino textbooks and teacher manuals for use in public elementary and secondary schools nationwide, and the conduct of national level trainers-training programs for the Bureau of Secondary Education Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the Fund for Assistance to Private Education. The school was elevated to university status on December 26, 1991, under Republic Act 7168. A fourth campus was born in Quezon Province. Since its foundation a century ago, PNU’s dynamism has been vigorously sustained. It continues to serve as collaborative partner in various government and private-sector educational projects. In further recognition of its leadership role, the University was designated as Center of Excellence in Teacher Education (COE) for the National Capital Region and Center of Excellence in Filipino at the national level.

Francisco Balagtas The First Nationalist Epic by Mona Lisa H. Quizon History Researcher II

     NOTE: no parts of the Article were omitted or erased. This is an article from the NHC (national historical commission)

     

      If France has the Song of Roland, England has Beowulf and Spain hasEl Cid; the Philippines has Florante at Laura.  This Filipino literary masterpiece was written by Francisco Baltazar. Known by his pen name Balagtas, Baltazar has been described as the “Prince of Tagalog Poets.” 

      Balagtas was born in the barrio of Panginay, Bigaa, Bulacan on April 2, 1788 to Juan Balagtas and Juana de la Cruz. He obtained his early education at the parochial school in Bigaa, where he learned the cartilla, prayers and catechism. Later, he enrolled at the Colegio de San Jose while working as a helper in Tondo, where he took up humanities, theology, philosophy and canon law. He continued his studies at the Colegio de San Juan de Letran where he became a popular poet. Balagtas used to write poems and love letters to his friends. He met Jose de la Cruz, popularly known as “Huseng Sisiw”, a prominent poet, who helped in editing his works. Balagtas had written various comedias that were staged in Tondo and in other parts of Luzon. Unfortunately, many of Balagtas’ manuscripts were burned when the ancestral house of the Tiambeng Family in Orion, Bataan was destroyed by fire in May 1892.   


    Passionate in his writings as well as expressive of his love for someone, Balagtas wrote love letters, romantic verses, and sweet sonnets. He fell in love many times with different women like Lucena and Bianang of Tondo District. But the one he loved most was Maria Asuncion Rivera. Historical tradition, though, has it that Mariano Capuli, his rich rival for Maria Asuncion’s love, had plotted to put him in prison. 


      While incarcerated, Balagtas lamented the cruelty of his destiny. He wept more upon hearing that Maria Asuncion married Capuli. With all the sorrow and misery of his life, Balagtas wrote Florante at Laura which he dedicated to “Celia” whose real identity was indicated by her initials, M.A.R. Released in 1838, Balagtas went to Bataan and married Juana Tiambeng of Orion. He served as the town’s head lieutenant, judge of seeded lands and then court translator. Unfortunately, Balagtas was sent again to prison for another crime – shaving the head of rich man’s helper. He stayed in prison for four years.  He spent the remaining years of his life writing poetry and translating Spanish documents. He died penniless on February 20, 1862. It is said that his parting words to his wife were, “don’t ever permit any of our children to become poet.” Two of his sons, however, became poets like him – Ceferini and Victor. 


      More than a romantic story; Florante at Laura his poem mirrored the social problems of his time.  Beyond the love story of the protagonists Florante and Laura, and of Prince Aladin and Flerida, Balagtas expressed his angst towards the existing injustices in the society. According to Teodoro Agoncillo, Balagtas was the first Filipino to express the real circumstances of the country under the colonial rule. It was believed that the abuses and evil-doers pointed out by him in his poem were in truth his observations and of his own experiences under the Spaniards.  Balagtas succeeded in awakening his countrymen to the realities of their lot. Years later, Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio and Apolinario Mabini were inspired by Balagtas’ works. Rizal recalled the meaning of Balagtas’ epic poem in his novel, the Noli Me Tangere. Florante at Laura and Noli Me Tangere are somewhat similar; Ibarra, the principal character of the Noli, and Florante both studied in another country, returned to their native lands and were envied by some compatriots. Both loved a woman who made their misadventures more dangerous. The epic of Balagtas and Rizal’s novel were both entwined by colonial oppression. Mabini even wrote down the poem from memory and translated the Florante at Laura into English during his exile in Guam.
 
 
      The poem also shows that Balagtas was ahead of his time in terms of religious tolerance and teaching that religious differences should not be used to discriminate against others. Aladin, who was a Muslim, helps Florante during the latter’s suffering. And even Flerida, Aladin’s lady love, who was also a Muslim, saves Laura from being raped. In this sense Balagtas was a universalist, for his message encompasses culture and religion. In his poem, he found ways to unify divergent beliefs and mores. Perhaps Balagtas was reminding Christian Filipinos the need to reunite with our Muslim brothers in Mindanao. 
 
 
      In commemoration of the 150th Death Anniversary of Francisco Balagtas, let us be inspired and up hold his dedication to his work. Filipinos, young and old, who treasured the poetry of Balagtas, will not forget these immortal lines. 

 
 

      “Ang laki sa layaw, karaniwa’y hubad
      Sa bait at muni’t sa hatol ay salat;
      Masaklap na bunga ng maling paglingap
      Habag ng magulang sa irog na anak”

Sources:
Filipinos in History Vol. 1. by National Historical Institute
Great Filipinos in History by Gregorio Zaide
Poet of the People Francisco Balagtas and the Roots of Filipino Nationalism by Fred Sevilla

A Black American Hero in the Philippines by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung, Senior History Researcher

NOTE: this article was published by National Historical Commission of the Philippines. No part was changed or erased.

 

     
     Heroes and history are a volatile mix. They tend to induce a radical change to an oppressed society dulled into insensitivity by the inequitable system of the ruling class. 
      A hero is an anomaly rising from a society suffering from unbearable social problems that cannot be remedied by the government. When the public begins to remember the legacy of a hero in a regular basis, it becomes a moral sentinel from which all aspect of governance is measured upon. For is not human happiness the ultimate purpose of heroism and the study of history? Peace, racial equality, economic security, and freedom of culture and expression are the values on which humanity base justifiable happiness, without which civilization becomes cancerous and self destructive.   

      In the Philippines, heroes there are many. Jose Rizal exemplified those who fought oppression and were killed for their convictions. 

      Rizal was a fighting writer who unleashed broadside after broadside of scathing articles, essays, and novels dead-aimed to penetrate the armor of indifference that beclouded the minds of colonial officials, to no avail.

      But Rizal’s novels were very effective in releasing the anger within a suppressed and abused people, not only of his country, but of others as well.


      Rizal was also evidently aware of the colonial injustices being enforced on the other people. In his novel, El Filibusterismo, his main character and anti-hero Simoun, after verbally downsizing the imperious friars, is derisively called “American mulatto”, and “British Indian”. Rizal even intimated a sense of consciousness to the discriminating practices being legally enforced upon the North American Indians.

      The term “mulatto” means the first generation of a pure negro and a white, having the yellowish brown color.

      Rizal was no stranger to race issue in the United States. He had visited the country first in 1888, arriving in San Francisco, passing through Sacramento, Reno, Denver, Salt Lake City, Colorado, Missouri, Chicago, Boston, Niagara Falls, and finally New York. 

      With the places he has visited in the United States, it was impossible for him to miss the institutionalized degradation that was bestowed upon American negros. 

      The Black American people during Rizal’s time suffered a more dehumanizing form of social denigration – slavery. Afro-American families were often broken up, the members sold to different white families. A slave’s frequent destiny was to never see his family again once he was sold. Mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, even children were sold as if they were pieces of furnitures to do labor without being paid.

      This generally was the accepted social treatment of black Americans when a regiment of black American soldiers, the Twenty-Fourth Infantry, was sent to the Philippines in 1899.

      Black soldiers had shown their mettle in the short Cuban War of 1898 when they rescued colonel Theodore Roosevelt and his rough riders during the Battle for Santiago.

      In the Philippines, the Afro-American soldier (called Buffalo soldier) now had to contend with the fact the he was now helping impose on another non-white people the same kind of racial oppression which have been abusing him and the likes of him at home. 

      The black soldier undoubtedly felt the united determination of the Filipinos to win their freedom by waging war. Something that black Americans have never done. 

      Black American soldiers and Filipinos usually developed friendly relations partly due to the derision and contempt they both experienced from white soldiers and civilians alike.

      The Filipinos recognizing the sentiments of black American soldiers to racial issues, offered unequivocal brotherly relation and offered military commission to would-be defectors.

      Only a few black American soldiers defected and joined the Filipinos due to the threat of capture (death or long imprisonment for defection). Also the prospect of forgoing all cultural and social ties was a great deterrent to those who entertained the thought of defecting. 

      Corporal David Fagen was the most celebrated black American soldier who defected to the Filipinos. It was still unclear why he defected, but studies reported that “Fagen’s position in the company was extremely uncomfortable”and that “personal difficulties” might have driven him to his decision. His military records cancelled incompetency as the reason for defection.

      He was described as dark brown, five feet six inches, with a carved scar in his chin. He was in the middle twenties. 

      On November 17, 1899, Fagen, assisted by a Filipino officer, jumped into a horse and went galloping into the jungles of Arayat. He was promoted from lieutenant to captain on September 6, 1900 by Gen. Jose Alejandrino, the Filipino commander in Nueva Ecija. He was referred to by his men as General Fagen.

      Newspapers in the United States featured him on front page and brought his exploits to a fascinated audience. Not a few black Americans praised Fagen’s decision to side with the Filipinos. He was described as “cunning and highly skilled guerrilla who harassed and evaded large conventional American units and their Filipino auxiliaries”.

      Often clashing with his former comrades, he once captured a steam launch on the river in Pampanga. He was so elusive that even the then best known guerrilla chaser, Frederick Funston, the man who captured Emilio Aguinaldo, never did capture him. 

      So daring was Fagen that he was reported to have visited   Manila and always escaped dragnets with ease.

      His reputation as a torturer of captured white American soldiers was repudiated by a former prisoner. If he could not be labelled as a butcher, the Americans did call him with other deregatory names. They described him as having a small head, a good for nothing whelp, a bad man, a rowdy soldier, unintelligent ingrate.

      Black American defectors who were captured were indeed executed and there were Edmund Du Bose and Lewis Russell of the Ninth Cavalry for example. They were considered criminals engaged in inciting servile resistance. Also a black officer, Major John Calloway who wrote a friendly letter to a Filipino patriot, Thomas Consunji, was dishonourably discharged from the army. 

      Gen. Alejandrino, however, surrendered in May 1901. He was reported to have asked pardon for Fagen as one of his surrender terms. It was refused by the Americans. Fagen would not be considered a prisoner of war. He was to be court-marshalled and executed. 

      With most of the Filipino generals surrendering, Fagen left the camp with his Filipino wife. They went hiding in the mountains of Nueva Ecija. 

      The Americans hunted him with a vengeance. He was declared a bandit. Six hundred dollars was authorized as a reward for Fagen “dead or alive”.

      On December 5, 1901, a Filipino hunter, Anastacio Bartolome brought a decomposing head of a Negro, together with some weapons, clothing, binoculars, documents and a west point ring of one of Fagen’s former captive.     

      Bartolome’s story was that he and his companion hacked Fagen to death in Dangalan Cove. His wife reportedly jumped into the sea and drowned.

      The evidences were considered strong. The Americans reported a positive identification, but there were no record of reward going to Bartolome.

      However, many expressed doubts about whose head Bartolome had delivered. It was too small. There were talks of Fagen orchestratig the whole thing so he could finally be free of his dogged pursuers. A report about the continued pursuit of Fagen was unearthed months after his supposed killing. 

      Jose Rizal might not have dabbled more seriously with the issue on social discrimination inflicted on black Americans, but his fleeting mention of Simoun being mistaken for an “American mulatto” hints of the kind of degrading racial treatment that was being given to non-white people in America. It was the proverbial tip of the iceberg. 
 
      When a retelling of a social crime disturbs and angers people and moves them to denounce and condemn this particular social occurrence it is often sufficient enough to assuage the hunger for justice that will be generated by the critically reflecting people. 

      Remembering David Fagen and his revolutionary exploits in the Philippines reveals a lot more than the revolution itself. 

      As a country suffused with the memories of heroes who fought against the inhumanities of colonialism, the Filipinos will readily discern the social problems that the likes of Fagen symbolized. 

      For Fagen, by fighting the US, not only fought for the freedom of his adopted homeland, he fought against a most cruel enemy of mankind. He fought against slavery and racism which were then still being practiced in the US.

      Although, outlawed and condemned in the US after a devastating civil war that almost tore that country in half, slavery survived and had been carried out discreetly through legal and extra legal terror. 

      The American Civil War ushered in a euphoric interlude of freedom for most Black Americans. But slavery, though outlawed, survived in other forms. After their emancipation and the reconstruction era, Black Americans now had to suffer segregation. 

      Slavery was evil and unsurpassable in its social malignancy. Family members were separated at will by owners. The slightest resistance was met with inhuman tortures designed to break the toughest of fighting spirit. 

      With the outlawing of slavery; some states devised legal efforts to keep Black Americans intimidated, submissive and “in their place”. Laws were created with mechanisms designed to disenfranchise blacks, and with no political and legal rights black Americans had no real hope for economic advancement. 

      Segregation was legalized. It was a system of norms that dictated every aspect of human behavior between two different races. It was an etiquette system whose purpose was always to imply that blacks were inferior to white men, and that Black Americans were content to be inferior.

      This was the oppressive and unbearable world that David Fagen finally confronted when he joined the Filipinos in their war for independence.

      In honoring the memory of the Philippine Revolution we must remember that there were men who fought not only against colonialism, but also against the tyranny of slavery and racism. 

      For that David Fagen is a monument of a hero