Looking at the history of the HUKS, how would you perceive them? Were they patriots or bandits? Did the history books do them justice or were they much maligned? (10 points)
During the Japanese Occupation, the Filipinos responded in different ways – some responded by means of compliance (like the MAKAPILI), through newspapers, propaganda, and arts, and through rebellion or guerilla movements. At that time, many guerilla movements had been formed, one of the most popular being the Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon, more popularly known as the HUKBALAHAP, or Huks.
The Huks aimed for different specific things, but it primarily fought against the presence of the Japanese in the Philippines. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether these people were purely bandits or purely patriots. However, given their main goal, and considering this is the only thing that matters, for this mere purpose, it is sufficient to say that the Huks are patriots, more than bandits. This is because while it is true that their means of achieving their goal are similar to those of bandits who fight by means of “crime,” and were seemingly the opponents of the collaborators and/or government officials who felt there was no choice but to comply with the Japanese, their goal was nationalistic and chauvinistic. They were coming from the will for independence and freedom for the Philippines. It seems that they had the same goals as that of the leaders at that time (to lead the country to independence and drive away foreign rule), but they differed in execution to achieve that goal (radical fighting as opposed to slow liberation).
After having studied a considerable amount of information regarding the Huks and their contribution to Philippine history, and after having understood their aims and analyzing it critically, it can be said that history books seemingly do not give justice to the entirety and most intrinsic purpose of the Huks. Most history books show its readers that the Huks were merely rebels, those that the government had to deal with and give amnesty to, and those that the government had a problem keeping peace and order because of. Most history books failed to paint a picture of the main goal of this group of people, and the most intrinsic cause they were fighting for. Because given all that the Huks were fighting for, and the amount of effort they put and lives they sacrificed, it is evident that there is more to their cause than merely creating unrest in society.
In Agoncillo’s A History of the Filipino People, he concludes his chapter about the Huks with a macroscopic view of the Huks, their aims, and how they have influenced the present. He creates an understanding for the readers about who the Huks really were, and their implications and importance in the history of Philippine politics. The conclusion he made in his chapter about the Huks is commendable and noteworthy, for given that perspective, we understand more the contribution of the Huks beyond merely the “chaos” they caused. We appreciate more the plight that they fought for, and today, given the political situation of our country, and the presence of the new day Huks (the NPA), we come from a deeper and more holistic understanding of what certain groups fight for. This way, we come out more critical citizens, understanding events in both microscopic and macroscopic perspectives and reducing labeling and stigmatizing those who fight for a cause.
If only other history books would give its readers a more holistic perspective of the causes for which groups of people fight for, the present, as well as the future, would be more fathomable.