Jump to content

Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Marcos propaganda)
This article is about self-aggrandizing propaganda perpetuated by Marcos, his family, or his followers during his lifetime. For historical distortion, denialism, and negationism after the events of Marcos's life, see Historical distortion regarding Ferdinand Marcos.

This article is part of a series
about
Ferdinand Marcos

Presidency

First term
Second term
Martial law
Third and fourth terms

Family

Unexplained wealth

Legacy

Related


President of the Philippines

Ferdinand Marcos developed a cult of personality as a way of remaining President of the Philippines for 20 years,[1][2] in a way that political scientists[who?] have compared to other authoritarian and totalitarian leaders such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler,[3] but also to more contemporary dictators such as Suharto in Indonesia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the Kim dynasty of North Korea.[4]: p114 

The propaganda techniques used, either by himself or by others, to mythologize Ferdinand Marcos, began with local political machinations in Ilocos Norte while Ferdinand was still the young son of politician and Japanese collaborator Mariano Marcos,[5] and persist today in the efforts to revise the way Marcos is portrayed in Philippine history.[6] According to members of his administration, such as Adrian Cristobal, Marcos's intent was to project an image of himself "the only patron, the king" of Philippine society, which he still saw as a society of tribes."[7] Cristobal furthers that "Marcos and the First Lady wanted more than anything else [...] to be king and queen. They wished to shape the kingdom in their own image; [...] Marcos wanted to be able to say, 'L'État, c'est moi.'"[7] In some extreme cases where Marcos encouraged the formation of cults so that they could serve as a political weapon, Marcos came to be thought of as a God.[8]

These propaganda narratives and techniques include: using red scare tactics such as red-tagging to portray activists as communists and to exaggerate the threat represented by the Communist Party of the Philippines;[9]: "43"  using martial law to take control of mass media and silence criticism;[10] the use of foreign-funded government development projects and construction projects as propaganda tools;[11] creating an entire propaganda framework around a "new society" in which he would rule under a system of "constitutional authoritarianism";[12][6][13] the perpetuation of hagiographical books and films;[14][15] the perpetuation of propaganda narratives about Marcos's activities during World War II, which have since been proven false by historical documents;[16][17] the creation of myths and stories around himself and his family;[18][19] and portrayals of himself in coinage and even a Mount Rushmore type monument;[20] among others."

Since Ferdinand Marcos's death, propaganda efforts have been made to whitewash his place in Philippine history,[21][22] an act of historical negationism[23] commonly referred to using the more popular term "historical revisionism."[24]

Terminology

[edit]

While the widely used term for a supporter of Ferdinand Marcos or the other members of the Marcos family is "Marcos loyalist,"[25] the term "cult of personality" around Ferdinand Marcos is often used not to refer to people specifically, but in a broader sense to the mechanism, including the techniques and structures, used to create a heroic or idealized image of Marcos as a ruler.[26] Meanwhile, the term "Marcos revisionism"[27] or "Marcos Historical negationism"[28][29] have been used to refer to the Marcos family's propaganda after their return to Philippine politics, specifically to those materials intended to distort or reframe the historical facts of Marcos's life and rule.[30][24]

Early political career (1949–1965)

[edit]

Clientelism

[edit]
Main article: Cacique democracy

As with most Philippine politicians of his era Ferdinand Marcos achieved success largely by taking advantage of the client-patron relationships which dominated Philippine politics after Philippine independence.[31]: 96 

Among Ilocos politicians

[edit]

Once he achieved government authority, he used it to reward his supporters[31]: 96, 76  while limiting the power of other social groups and institutions.[31]: 76  He styled himself as the Ilocos region's ticket to political prominence. In his first campaign, running for congressman of his family's already-established bailiwick Ilocos Norte, he stated "This is only a first step. Elect me a congressman now, and I pledge you an Ilocano president in 20 years."[32][33] In fact, Elpidio Quirino became the first Ilocano president 17 years before Marcos.

In the Philippine military

[edit]

On a more personal level, Marcos established relationships with the graduate officers and junior officers of the Philippine Military Academy early on.[31]: 96  When he became president, Marcos appointed mostly Ilocano commanders to head the armed forces, such that 18 out of 22 generals of the Philippine Constabulary came from the Ilocos region and House Speaker Jose B. Laurel was alarmed enough to file a 1968 bill calling for the equal representation of all regions in the armed forces.[31]: 96 [34]

Among the Marcos cronies

[edit]
Main article: Marcos cronies

He also established a small group of supporters in the business sector, whom he would later enable to establish monopolies in key economic sectors, wresting control from the political families which held them prior.[31]: 96 

Exaggerations of WWII exploits

[edit]
Main article: Military career of Ferdinand Marcos

One early propaganda technique used by Marcos was to exaggerate his wartime activities during World War II.[35]: 293 

Marcos claimed to have led a guerrilla force called Ang Mahárlika (Tagalog, "The Freeman") in northern Luzon after the fall of Bataan.[36] According to Marcos's claim, this force had a strength of 9,000 men.[36] His account of events was later cast into doubt after a United States military investigation that exposed many of his claims as either false or inaccurate.[37] Meanwhile, Marcos claimed that he was able to get the United States Adjutant General to recognize 3,500 individual claims of soldiers then under his command.[38]: 261  Marcos also used Maharlika as his personal nom de guerre, and in 1970, a film entitled Maharlika was produced to feature his "war exploits".[39][40] Communications from American military officers detailed their disapproval in recognizing the guerrilla unit. A memorandum sent to the Adjutant General, Lt. Col. Parker Calvert relayed the order of Col. Russell Volckmann to inform Marcos that his request for release from the 14th Infantry to rejoin his guerrilla group was disapproved. This was precisely because the "Ang Manga Maharlika" was not among the units recognized by the higher headquarters of the military.[41] This was reiterated by Major R.G. Langham on behalf of the Regimental Commander of the 5th Cavalry. In a May 1945 memorandum, Langham wrote to the Commanding General for Ang Mga Maharlika not to be "recommended for recognition because of the limited military value of their duties."[42]

In 1962, Marcos would claim to be the "most decorated war hero of the Philippines" by garnering almost every medal and decoration that the Filipino and American governments could give to a soldier.[38]: 246  Among his 27 supposed war medals and decorations were the Distinguished Service Cross (allegedly pinned by General Douglas MacArthur) and the Medal of Honor (allegedly pinned by General Jonathan M. Wainwright).[43]

Researchers later found that stories about the wartime exploits of Marcos were mostly propaganda,[44][45] being inaccurate or untrue.[46][47][48] The following discredit the claims made about his supposed exploits:[43]

  • Marcos was not on General Douglas MacArthur's "List of Recipients of Awards and Decorations" issued from December 7, 1941, to June 30, 1945, that was compiled in Tokyo, nor on General Jonathan Wainwright's list of 120 Americans and Filipinos who were awarded during the Bataan campaign by the War Department shortly before his surrender.[49][50]
  • Colonel Manriquez and Adjutant Captain Rivera who were the commanders of the 14th Infantry, whom Marcos claimed to have served under, attested that Marcos was not a soldier, but was a noncombatant and a Civil Affairs officer. Marcos only received campaign ribbons given to all combatant and noncombatant participants "in the defense of Bataan and in the resistance."[51]
  • Marcos's claim of having received the Order of the Purple Heart has also been shown to have been false. His name does not appear on the official roster of recipients.[52][53]

In 1986, research by historian Alfred W. McCoy into United States Army records showed that most of Marcos's medals were fraudulent.[43][54] According to Dr. Ricardo T. Jose, former chair of the department of history of the University of the Philippines, Marcos's claims in his self-commissioned autobiography Marcos of the Philippines that Gen. Douglas MacArthur pinned on him the Distinguished Service Cross medal for delaying Japanese at Bataan for 3 months was highly improbable.[55] Marcos claimed he received the medal from MacArthur in 1945, but the latter, following his retreat to Bataan, then to Australia, was only able to return to the Philippines in 1944, when his troops landed in Leyte. The following year, after the surrender of Japan, MacArthur was installed as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces and was tasked with demobilizing Japan and framing its constitution, allowing little to no time to meet Marcos. No archival sources or published works related to MacArthur allude to him personally pinning the medal on Marcos as well.[56] Jose further said that if Marcos did indeed single-handedly delay the advances of the Japanese, he would have likely been bestowed with the Medal of Honor, as was the case with Jose Calugas, whose actions in 1942 impeded Japanese forces by two days.[56][57] Indeed, as of August 2021, searching through the list of recipients of the Medal of Honor, Purple Heart, and Silver Star yields no result for Ferdinand Marcos.[58][59][60]

John Sharkey of The Washington Post found records that Marcos was on the list of those that were released due to either "having severe health problems and those whose families have cooperated with the Japanese military authorities."[50] Since Marcos's name did not appear in the 1942 Manila Tribune list of ailing prisoners that were released by the Japanese, Sharkey believed that Marcos may have been freed due to his connections with his father. Mariano Marcos was known to have collaborated with Japanese authorities, and at the end of the war was caught by Filipino guerrillas and was tied to four water buffalos and was quartered. His remains were also displayed in public by the guerrillas.[61]

Ferdinand Marcos in turn had strong affiliations with the Japanese-sponsored President Jose P. Laurel. There are accounts of Marcos being a member of Presidential Security Group. It was Laurel who single-handedly penned the reversal of the conviction of the young Marcos's case over the murder of Julio Nalundasan.[62] American guerrillas who operated in the Ilocos region, the likes of Robert Lapham also wrote that Ferdinand Marcos was not a guerrilla leader of a group called Ang Maharlika, but a Japanese collaborator propagandist.[63]

Election propaganda book and film

[edit]
See also: 1965 Philippine presidential election

A notable propaganda technique used by both candidates in the 1965 Philippine presidential election was the use of hagiographies, so much so that it was dubbed a "battle of books and film." Marcos was the first to use this tactic with the book "For Every Tear a Victory: The Story of Ferdinand E. Marcos," which was quickly followed by a film adaptation "Iginuhit ng Tadhana (Written by Destiny)." One of the highlights of the film was that it portrayed Ferdinand Marcos's alibi for the murder of Julio Nalundasan; the film showed how Ferdinand was supposedly studying for his law classes at the time.[64] Historian Vicente Rafael argued that Marcos use the film to establish the idea that he is destined to lead the Philippines.[65] Diosdado Macapagal countered with his own propaganda film, "Daigdig ng Mga Api (World of the Oppressed)," but it was Marcos who won the election.[66]

Marcos repeated this strategy in the 1969 elections through the film "Pinagbuklod ng Langit". The film chronicles the life of the Ferdinand Marcos and his family while living in Malacanang Palace.[67] Another film that Marcos commissioned before the 1969 elections is Maharlika. The film is loosely based on Marcos' exaggerated wartime exploits.[68][69][70] It features Paul Burke as Marcos stand-in Bob Reynolds, who leads a group of guerrillas called Ang Mga Maharlika against the Japanese. It was completed in 1970 but was not released in theaters due to Marcos' love-affair with the film's lead actress Dovie Beams.[71] It was finally released in 1987 as Guerilla Strike Force to negative reviews and poor box office performance.[72]

First two presidential terms (1965–1972)

[edit]

Early "Macho" persona

[edit]

Generally recognized as a "master of populist imagery,"[66]: 123  Marcos actively sought to create a "macho" image,[73][74] associating his public image with symbols of masculinity, indirectly through stories of wartime escapades[75] and by making sure he was photographed joining farmers in planting their rice crops;[66]: 123  and more directly by casting himself in masculine roles in commissioned works of art,[75] including poems, paintings, and photographs.[73][75]

Marcos also associated himself and his wife Imelda with the Filipino creation myth of "Malakas and Maganda." One often-cited instance of this was an Evan Cosayco painting the couple commissioned in which Marcos was portrayed as the muscular Adam-figure Malakas ("malakas" means strong in the Tagalog language), and Imelda was portrayed as the pure and beautiful Eve-figure Maganda ("maganda" means "beautiful" in Tagalog).[76][77]

Presidential Arm on Community Development

[edit]

In an effort to strengthen the influence of the Office of the President and simultaneously weaken the strong patronage bonds which rural Filipinos had with their local leaders, Marcos created the "Presidential Arm on Community Development" (PACD), which would initiate development projects at the barrio level without going through the Barrio and Municipal governments.[66]

Construction projects as propaganda

[edit]
Main article: Edifice complex

Marcos projected himself to the Philippine public as having spent a lot on construction projects.[66]: 128  This focus on infrastructure, which critics saw as a propaganda technique, eventually earned the colloquial label "edifice complex".[78][79][11]

Most of these infrastructure projects and monuments were paid for using foreign currency loans[80][78] and at great taxpayer cost.[79][13]: 89  This greatly increased the Philippines's foreign deficit – from $360 million when Marcos became president, to around $28.3 billion when he was overthrown.[81]

The earliest examples of the Marcos era edifice complex projects include the buildings of the Cultural Center of the Philippines Complex (conceived in 1966), and the San Juanico Bridge (conceived in 1969). Later examples include the Philippine International Convention Center (conceived in 1974),[82] the Philippine Heart Center (conceived in 1975), the National Arts Center in Los Baños, Laguna (inaugurated in 1976), the Coconut Palace (conceived in 1978), the Lung Center of the Philippines (conceived in 1981), the National Kidney and Transplant Institute (conceived in 1981), and Terminal 1 of Manila International Airport (completed in 1981).[83] The "designer hospitals" were particularly criticized as wrongly prioritized healthcare projects, draining public funds for the benefit of only a handful of patients, while underfunded basic health institutions, such as the Quezon Institute for Tuberculosis Patients, were overflowing and underfunded.[83]

The 1976 Tondo evictions which were part of the "Tondo Urban Renewal Project" and the deaths of construction workers at the Manila Film Center are also associated with the "edifice complex" phenomenon.[84]

"Red scare" tactics

[edit]
See also: Red Scare and Communism in the Philippines

When Marcos became president in 1965, Philippine policy and politics functioned under a post–World War II geopolitical framework.[85] After gaining independence from the US after the war, the Philippines had retained strong economic, political and military ties to the United States,[86] manifested in a mutual defense treaty, military assistance agreement, a US military advisory group, and the presence of bases where the US military could conduct "unhampered US military operations" for 99 years (later reduced to 50).[87] Filipino presidents were very politically dependent on US Support, and this did not change until the end of the Cold War in 1989, and the termination of the 1947 US Military Bases Treaty, in 1992.[88][89][90]

With its close ties to the US, the Philippines was ideologically caught up in the anticommunist scare perpetuated by the US during the Cold War.[91] The government was not yet strongly-established, and it was "fearful of being swept away by [communism]'s rising tide",[92] so in 1957, it passed Republic Act No. 1700, known as the "Anti-Subversion Act of 1957", which made mere membership in any communist party illegal. The Philippines would take three and a half decades to repeal it, through Republic Act 7636, in 1992.[92]

The Anti-Subversion Act was originally meant to counter the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) and its armed force, the Hukbalahap, also called the Huks. The campaign against the PKP and the Huks was bloody, but it had basically ended by 1954.[93] Throughout the 1960s, the remnants of the PKP pursued "a course of peaceful action" while working to rebuild their organization,[93] but, this was later challenged by a youth-based Maoist group within the organization created by university professor Jose Maria Sison, who joined the PKP in 1962.[94] Clashing with the PKP party leaders's view that armed struggle was an exercise in futility, Sison and his group were expelled from the PKP in 1967, and on December 26, 1968, founded the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) along Maoist lines.[94] While the PKP sought to marginalize this new group, it soon became the leading communist party in the Philippines.

By the time Marcos became president in 1965, the PKP was a weakened organization, and the Hukbalahap reduced to "what amounted to banditry."[95] But Marcos immediately made noise about the supposed "communist threat" – drawing on images of the bloody Huk encounters of the 1950s, and courting the Johnson administration's political support in light of the Us's recent entry into the Vietnam war.[95][96]

Marcos continued using communism as bogeyman after 1968, as the PKP faded into obscurity and the nascent CPP became more prominent. The Armed Forces of the Philippines did likewise in 1969, when the CPP allied with Huk commander Bernabe Buscayno to create the nascent New People's Army (NPA). Although the NPA was only a small force at the time, the AFP hyped up its formation,[9]: "43"  partly because doing so was good for building up the AFP budget.[9]: "43" [95] As a result, notes Security Specialist Richard J. Kessler, "the AFP mythologized the group, investing it with a revolutionary aura that ony attracted more supporters."

Even in the days immediately before Marcos's declaration of Martial Law on September 23, 1972, the Philippine National Security Council did not consider the two communist movements to represent a sizable threat. At around that time, the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations received notice that as of September 19, 1972, the Philippine Council had set their threat assessment at "between 'normal' and 'Internal Defense Condition 1'" on a scale where 3 was the highest Defense condition.[97][98] One of the generals serving under General Fabian Ver of the National Intelligence and Security Authority later recalled that "even when Martial Law was declared, the communists were not a real threat. The military could handle them."[95]

"Today's Revolution: Democracy"

[edit]

1971 saw the publication of "Today's Revolution: Democracy," purportedly written by Marcos himself but later revealed to have been written by a ghostwriter.[99]

Noted as an early effort to lay down the justifications for martial law,[100] "Today's Revolution: Democracy" portrayed Marcos as heroically trying to create a viable economy despite opposition from his supposed enemies: communists, oligarch families and elitist politicians[100] despite the fact that Marcos himself was friends with oligarchs and allied with elitists. Coming on the heels of the First Quarter Storm, it was also an effort to capture the discourse of "Unfinished Revolution" which was the catchphrase of the activist youth of the period, attempting to project Marcos as the rightful heir to the Philippine Revolution.[99]

During Martial Law (1972–1981)

[edit]

An ideology of "constitutional authoritarianism"

[edit]
See also: Authoritarian democracy

Among Marcos's rationalizations for the declaration of martial law were the linked ideologies of the "Bagong Lipunan" ("new society")[101]: "66"  and of "constitutional authoritarianism."[12]

Marcos said that there was a need to "reform society"[101]: "66"  by placing it under the control of a "benevolent dictator" in a "constitutional authority" which could guide the undisciplined populace through a period of chaos.[101]: "29" [102]

Social engineering under the "Bagong Lipunan"

[edit]

President Marcos supported the ideology of "constitutional authoritarianism" with various exercises in social engineering, united under the banner of the "bagong lipunan" or "new society."[103]: 13 

The Philippine education system underwent a major period of restructuring in after the declaration of Martial Law in 1972,[104] in which the teaching of civics and history was reoriented[104][105] so that it would reflect values which supported the Bagong Lipunan and its ideology of constitutional authoritarianism.[12][106]: 414  In addition, it attempted to synchronize the educational curriculum with the administration's economic strategy of labor export.[104]

The Marcos administration also produced an array of propaganda materials – including speeches, books, lectures, slogans, and numerous propaganda songs – to promote it.[103]: 13 [107][12]

Control of mass media

[edit]

Marcos took control of the mass media to silence public criticism during what was considered the "dark days of martial law."[108] Upon declaring martial law, Marcos arrested journalists and took control of media outlets. This allowed him to dictate what information and opinions were published or broadcast.[109] Through the crony press, the Marcos dictatorship suppressed negative news and exaggerated positive news, thus creating a perception of progress and relative calm in the earlier part of martial law.[110]

According to journalism professor Luis Teodoro, the martial law period savaged the Bill of Rights and institutions of liberal democracy, such as the press.[111] Challenges to the dictatorship in the media would come from the underground press[112] and, later on, from the above-ground mosquito press.[113]

Shutdown of media outlets and the attack on journalists

[edit]

On the morning of September 23, 1972, Marcos's soldiers arrested journalists and raided and padlocked media outlets across the Philippines.[114] Joaquin Roces, Teodoro Locsin Sr., Maximo Soliven, Amando Doronila, and other members of the media were rounded up and detained in Camp Crame together with members of the political opposition.[115]

Marcos's order to take over newspapers, magazines, radio and television facilities under Letter of Instruction No. 1 was done with the express purpose of preventing the undermining of the people's faith and confidence in the regime.[116][117]

During martial law, in another blow to press freedom, Marcos ordered shut down 7 major English and 3 Filipino newspapers, 1 English-Filipino newspaper, 11 English weekly magazines, 1 Spanish daily, 4 Chinese newspapers, 3 business publications, 1 news service, 7 television stations, 66 community newspapers, and 292 radio stations around the country.[118] Journalists were jailed, tortured, killed, or "disappeared" by the dictatorship.[119][120]

The crony press and censorship

[edit]

The dictatorship also exercised blanket censorship through Letter of Instruction No. 1 and the Department of Public Information's Order No. 1, issued on September 25, 1972.[121] Only news outlets owned by Marcos's cronies were allowed to resume operations, such as the Philippine Daily Express owned by crony Roberto Benedicto.[122]

Rewriting of Philippine history

[edit]

The "Apo" persona

[edit]

Taking off from his early efforts to portray himself as a virile, macho figure, Marcos later associated himself with idealized images of the leaders of precolonial Philippine settlements – the "Apo", "Datu", "Rajah" ,and "Lakan".[75] He furthered this image of himself as the strong masculine leader by glamorizing the early historical Barangay settlements[123] and the Maharlika warrior class.[39][124][125]

The "Tadhana" History Project

[edit]

In the 1970s, the Marcos administration embarked on a project to publish multi-volume "new history of the Filipino people" called "Tadhana" (Destiny) which, along with the ideology of constitutional authoritarianism and Marcos's efforts to cast himself in the vein of the archipelago's precolonial leaders, was intended to help lend legitimacy to the legitimacy of Marcos's authoritarian rule.[126] Three volumes from the project, which was never completed, were eventually published – with Volume 1 and 2 published in several separate parts in 1976, 1977, and 1980, and a "compressed" volume published under the title "Tadhana: The Formation of the National Community (1565–1896)" published in 1976.[127]

Historiographers agree that the publication of Tadhana did contribute to the growth of the discourse of Philippine history, but that the project was ultimately flawed due to its explicitly political nature.[128]

Propaganda as "The King of Maharlika"

[edit]

Marcos's purpose in rewriting Philippine history is expounded upon by his primary speechwriter, Adrian Cristobal, as quoted by journalist Ian Baruma:[7]

Marcos sees the Philippines as a society of tribes. And he sees himself as the great tribal chief, the "datu" of pre-Spanish times. He destroyed much of the old network of family and regional loyalties to become the one and only patron, the king of Maharlika.[7]

Baruma further cited Cristobal, saying "…what Marcos and the First Lady wanted more than anything else was to be king and queen. They wished to shape the kingdom in their own image; like the Sun King, Louis XIV, Marcos wanted to be able to say, 'L'état c'est moi.'"[7]

Martial law propaganda books

[edit]

"Today's Revolution:Democracy" was later followed by several books published under Marcos's name from 1970 to 1983, which are believed to have been written by ghostwriters, notably Adrian Cristobal.[99][129][130]

One final book would be published after his death, in 1990.

The five peso Bagong Lipunan coin

[edit]
Marcos maintained his cult of personality through the issuance of a five peso coin that was in circulation until 1998.

From 1975 to 1982, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) introduced a five peso coin in line with the new 'Ang Bagong Lipunan' series issued in commemoration of Marcos's declaration of Martial Law. The obverse bears the inscription 'Ang Bagong Lipunan,' year of minting, and a profile of Marcos, who was the president throughout the circulation of the coins, faced to the left. Marcos himself approved the coins with his own face. The denomination, the inscription 'Republika ng Pilipinas', and the official coat of arms are all on the reverse.[131] The coin along with the other denominations of the Ang Bagong Lipunan Series were demonetized by the BSP on January 2, 1998.

The Marcos bust

[edit]
Main article: Bust of Ferdinand Marcos

Among the most prominent symbols of Marcos's rule over the Philippines was the 30-metre (98 ft) concrete bust of himself constructed in 1978 by the Philippine Tourism Authority near the peak of Mt. Shontoug in Tuba, Benguet, along the Aspiras-Palispis Highway on the tourist route to Baguio.[132] Controversial as a symbol of self-glorification, its construction was noted for having displaced indigenous Ibaloi from their lands.[133]

The bust was destroyed on December 29, 2002, by suspected treasure hunters who thought that the bust contained parts of the rumored Yamashita treasure, although early speculation was that the New People's Army was behind the bombing of the monument.[134]

During the Fourth Republic (1981–1986)

[edit]

Concealing of illness

[edit]

Towards the end of his 21-year administration, Marcos's health began to degrade. But because he had built his image around the mythical Filipino Adam-figure "Malakas," his administration continued to portray him as a "Filipino superman," going to great lengths to conceal his illnesses.[135]

Suppressing coverage of the Ninoy Aquino assassination

[edit]

The Marcos administration also attempted to control media coverage of the Ninoy Aquino assassination, pushing the idea that Aquino's assassin Rolando Galman did so as part of a communist conspiracy, and attempting to ridicule any of those who were calling Aquino a hero or martyr.[136]

Global Reputation

[edit]

It is also common among Marcos propagandist and historical revisionist to portray Marcos as "the only President who stood up against the United States of America." This is a post-colonial mindset makes a presumption that the Philippines was not respected among the community of nations, and portray Marcos as a foreign policy genius. However, one can clearly look at the relations of Marcos and the various US presidency, especially with Ronald Reagan and it was clear that Marcos deferred to Washington during the latter part of his presidency. It was CIA Director Adm. William Casey himself who suggested that Marcos should hold a snap election, and Sen. Paul Laxalt during the last night of the EDSA Revolution for Marcos to "Cut. Cut clean. The time has come."[137][editorializing]

Interestingly, Marcos in 1988 published his own account of the EDSA Revolution titled "A Trilogy on the Transformation of Philippine Society." Marcos himself would write that he would consult the US Ambassador Stephen Bosworth and Washington on critical decisions that came about in the early part of 1986.[138]

Distortionism and propaganda after Marcos's death

[edit]
Main article: Historical distortion regarding Ferdinand Marcos

After Ferdinand Marcos's death in 1989, propaganda efforts[139] have been made to whitewash his place in Philippine history[21][22] and facilitate the Marcos family's return to power – an act which human rights advocates and historiographers refer to as historical distortionism[140] or historical denialism[23][141] (often wrongly using the academically imprecise term "historical revisionism").[24]

At first, this mostly involved simple denial or trivializing of the human rights violations and economic plunder that took place during the Marcos administration, as well as the role played by the Marcos children in the administration.[142][143][144]

With the popularization of social media during the 2010s, several bloggers and content creators have made videos and articles supposedly debunking the corruption and atrocities of Marcos. Notable examples include the political blog Get Real Philippines and YouTube channel Pinoy Monkey Pride. A 2018 study later discovered that these efforts at historical distortion were linked to a "professionalized and hierarchized group of political operators," with advertising and Public Relations executives at the top, "who design disinformation campaigns, mobilize click armies, and execute innovative "digital black ops" and "signal scrambling" techniques for any interested political client."[145][146]

Historical denialism

[edit]

After Ferdinand Marcos's death, the remaining members of the Marcos family returned to the Philippines and re-entered politics and public life.[147][148][6] They and their followers have been noted for instances of historical revisionism, and the denial or trivializing of the human rights violations and economic plunder that took place during the Marcos administration, as well as the role played by the Marcos children in the administration.[142][143][144]

Distortionism and disinformation efforts

[edit]
Main article: Historical distortion regarding Ferdinand Marcos

Organized "networked disinformation"

[edit]
See also: Burial of Ferdinand Marcos and Fake news in the Philippines

In 2018, Dr. Jason Cabañes of the University of Leeds School of Media and Communication and Dr. Jonathan Corpus Ong of the University of Massachusetts Amherst released a study of organized disinformation efforts in the Philippines, titled "Architects of Networked Disinformation: Behind the Scenes of Troll Accounts and Fake News Production in the Philippines."[146][149][150] Based on participant observation in Facebook community groups and Twitter accounts, as well as key informant interviews with 20 "disinformation architects," conducted from December 2016 to December 2017, the study described a "professionalized and hierarchized group of political operators who design disinformation campaigns, mobilize click armies, and execute innovative "digital black ops" and "signal scrambling" techniques for any interested political client."[145] This network had "ad and PR strategists at the top."[146]

One of the revelations from the Ong and Cabañes's 2018 study was that techniques for "personal branding" were used to "tell a revisionist account of the 20-year Marcos regime as 'the golden age of the Philippines,'" using such tools as YouTube videos "in a bid to restore the political luster of the Marcos family."[145]

It also revealed the existence of "Ilibing Na" ("Bury now") campaign designed to create public support for a hero's burial for Ferdinand Marcos using "diversionary tactics to elude allegations of human rights violations and corruption during the term of Ferdinand Marcos"[145] and launching "digital black ops that targeted prominent critics" of the Marcoses, particularly vice president Leni Robredo.[145]

Spread of disinformation using social media

[edit]

Although there is a perception that disinformation about the Marcos regime comes mostly from "propaganda books" written by Marcos allies, a 2020 study noted that an estimated 72% of confirmed Marcos disinformation originated directly from social media, rather than print sources.[151]

The study examined 119 claims about the Marcoses which had been debunked by various news organizations. The study found that 21% of these were "distributed via social media" and "not attributable to pro-Marcos books"; 20% of them came from a person quoted by Media, which cannot traced to a preexisting text; and about 31% were about recent events. Only about 15% could be traced to text in various propaganda books, while a remaining 13% consisted of "general claims."[151]

Common propaganda narratives

[edit]

"Golden Age" propaganda

[edit]
See also: Economy of the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos

Various Marcos supporters, most notably his immediate family,[152] have also denied the negative economic impacts of authoritarian rule, and of Marcos's policies specifically, portraying the initial gains in the period immediately following the declaration of Martial Law as proof of a Philippine economic "golden age" while downplaying the series of economic collapses that began in the mid to late 1970s.[152][153][154]

The 2018 study of Networked Disinformation by Ong and Cabañes has identified "Golden age" propaganda as one of the tactics used by professional propagandists to further the political comeback of the Marcos siblings during the mid-2010s.[145] Investigative journalists and media organizations have also agreed that "Golden age" propaganda as intentional disinformation.[155]

The propagation of "Golden age" propaganda has led numerous groups of economists, historians, and other academics to debunk it,[155][156] but some reports have noted that the use of "deceptive nostalgia" as propaganda has been effective in misleading the public.[157][156]

"Regional military power" propaganda

[edit]

The Philippines was not a regional military power during the Marcos years but neither was it the weakest, with the Armed Forces of the Philippines saying it "was one of the most well-equipped militaries in Asia" at that time.[158] While Marcos did invest heavily in the military during his term, other countries in Asia such as Thailand and Cambodia were ahead of the Philippines in terms of military capabilities at that time. The Philippines also depended greatly on the United States for its own external defense then.[159]

According to a 2004 paper by Andrew Tan for the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies Singapore, the militaries of Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines "could be described as militarily weak, with small numbers of major weapon systems." Tan, a strategic analyst who specializes in defense and security studies, cites "The Military Balance 1974–75" for a snapshot of military capabilities of Southeast Asian states in 1974 that shows the Philippines trailing Thailand in personnel, 274,000 to 396,000.

The AFP was also behind the militaries of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Singapore in combat aircraft. The Philippine Air Force had 36 aircraft units in 1974, putting at par with Malaysia. Thailand had 105 combat aircraft. Laos, which was fighting a civil war at the time, had 85 planes, with "most of the combat aircraft consisted of US-supplied T-28 ground attack aircraft," wrote Tan. Singapore had 65 and Cambodia had 64.[160]

Comparative military capabilities of the southeast Asian states (1974)[160]
Country Military Manpower Tank Armored Personnel Carrier 155mm Howitzer Combat Helicopter Combat Aircraft Missile Craft
 Burma 159,000 0 ? 0 0 11 0
 Brunei ... ... ... ... ... ... ...(3)
 Cambodia 220,000 ? 175 20 16 64 0
 Indonesia 270,000 ? ? 0 0 ...(2) ...(2)
 Laos 63,000 10 ? ? 0 81(5) 0
 Malaysia 92,000 0 700 0 0 36 8
 North Vietnam ...(4) ...(4) ...(4) ...(4) ...(4) ...(4) ...(4)
 Philippines 274,000 8 20 5 0 36 0
 Singapore 52,000 75 ? 0 0 65 6
 Thailand 396,000 195 200 12 0 105 0

In a joint 1973 study conducted by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), America's security establishment also said that the "Philippines has little capability to provide material for its armed forces…. All other military material is imported primarily through the US Military Assistance Program." The joint DIA-CIA study noted as well that the Philippine military has been "plagued continuously by serious deficiencies in their supply and maintenance system, including an ineffective accounting system, haphazard distribution, inadequate storage facilities, and poor maintenance."[159]

A 2017 article published by the Philippine Star also said US military presence, particularly in Clark and Subic, and the assistance resulting from that presence represented the "biggest weapons in Marcos's arsenal".[158]

"Tallano gold" social media propaganda

[edit]

There are social media posts that falsely claim that Marcos and an associate were paid 640,000 metric tons in gold by a client in 1949, supposedly making them the richest men in the world.[161][162] The gold was supposedly paid to Marcos by the Tallano royal family, who is said to have ruled over a kingdom called Maharlika before Spain colonized the Philippines.[162] However, there are no historical documents that will substantiate that a royal family called Tallano ruled over a kingdom called Maharlika or that Marcos lawyered for such a family.[162]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Root, Hilton L., Three Asian Dictators: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (January 16, 2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2716732
  2. ^ Mark M. Turner (1990) Authoritarian rule and the dilemma of legitimacy: The case of President Marcos of the Philippines, The Pacific Review, 3:4, 349–362, DOI: 10.1080/09512749008718886
  3. ^ Bautista Maximiano, Jose Mario (July 17, 2018). "Strongmen Hitler, Stalin, Marcos – a character study". INQUIRER.net USA. Retrieved June 28, 2021.
  4. ^ Raymond, Walter John (1992) Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms. ISBN 9781556180088
  5. ^ "File No. 60: A family affair". Philstar.com. Retrieved June 28, 2021.
  6. ^ a b c de Ynchausti, Nik (September 23, 2016). "Why has Marcos' propaganda lived on?". Esquire Magazine Philippines. Archived from the original on September 27, 2016. Retrieved September 27, 2016.
  7. ^ a b c d e Buruma, Ian (January 16, 1986). "Who Can Redeem Mother Filipinas?". The New York Review of Books. ISSN 0028-7504. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
  8. ^ Guerrero, Eileen (September 10, 1993). "Cults Began as Political Weapon, Ended Up Deifying Ferdinand Marcos With AM-Marcos Funeral".
  9. ^ a b c Kessler, Richard John (1989). Rebellion and repression in the Philippines. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-04406-5. OCLC 19266663.
  10. ^ San Juan Jr., E. (1978) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064227808532787
  11. ^ a b Lico, Gerard (2003). Edifice Complex: Power, Myth, and Marcos State Architecture. University of Hawaii Press.
  12. ^ a b c d Navera, G.S. (2019). "Metaphorizing Martial Law: Constitutional Authoritarianism in Marcos's Rhetoric (1972–1985)". Philippine Studies. 66 (4).
  13. ^ a b Romero, Jose V. Jr. (2008). Philippine political economy. Quezon City, Philippines: Central Book Supply. ISBN 978-971-691-889-2. OCLC 302100329.
  14. ^ Curaming, Rommel A. Power and Knowledge in Southeast Asia: State and Scholars in Indonesia and the Philippines ISBN 9780429438196
  15. ^ McCallus, J. P. (1989): "The Myths of the New Filipino: Philippine government propaganda during the Early Years of Martial Law." Philippine Quarterly of. Culture and Society 17(2): 129–48.
  16. ^ Gerth, Jeff; Brinkley, Joel (January 23, 1986). "Marcos's Wartime Role Discredited in U.S. Files". The New York Times.
  17. ^ "File No. 60: Debunking the Marcos war myth". Vera Files. July 4, 2016. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  18. ^ "The art of deception | 31 years of amnesia".
  19. ^ Rafael, Vicente L. (April 1990). "Patronage and Pornography: Ideology and Spectatorship in the Early Marcos Years". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 32 (2): 282–304. doi:10.1017/S0010417500016492. ISSN 1475-2999. S2CID 144809573.
  20. ^ Cimatu, Frank; Santos-Doctor, Joya (January 1, 2003). "Philippines's 'Ozymandias's still haunts". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
  21. ^ a b "Philippine government faces backlash amid claims it is trying to whitewash history of late dictator Marcos". The Straits Times. September 12, 2016.
  22. ^ a b Villamor, Felipe (November 8, 2016). "Philippines Can Give Hero's Burial to Ferdinand Marcos, High Court Rules". The New York Times.
  23. ^ a b "A Manual for Historical Revisionists". Esquiremag.ph.
  24. ^ a b c "Martial law and historical revisionism: A holistic understanding". April 30, 2016.
  25. ^ Galam, Roderick G. (2008). "Narrating the Dictator(ship) Social Memory, Marcos, and Ilokano Literature after the 1986 Revolution". Philippine Studies. 56 (2): 151–182. ISSN 0031-7837. JSTOR 42633953.
  26. ^ Popan, Adrian Teodor (August 2015). The ABC of sycophancy: structural conditions for the emergence of dictators's cults of personality (Thesis). University of Texas. doi:10.15781/T2J960G15. hdl:2152/46763.
  27. ^ "EDSA People Power: Inadequate Challenge to Marcos Revisionism". Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. March 10, 2016. Retrieved July 11, 2020.
  28. ^ "Filipinos urged to 'fight historical revisionism'". The Star. Retrieved July 11, 2020.
  29. ^ Pangalangan, Raphael Lorenzo A.; Fernandez, Gemmo Bautista; Tugade, Ruby Rosselle L. (December 18, 2018). "Marcosian Atrocities: Historical Revisionism and the Legal Constraints on Forgetting". Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law. 19 (2): 140–190. doi:10.1163/15718158-01902003. ISSN 1571-8158. S2CID 195518968.
  30. ^ "Against Rewriting History: Inquirer on the Marcoses's Revisionism". January 8, 2019.
  31. ^ a b c d e f Celoza, Albert F. (1997). Ferdinand Marcos and the Philippines: The Political Economy of Authoritarianism. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 978-0-275-94137-6.
  32. ^ "FERDINAND MARCOS DIES IN HAWAII AT 72". The Washington Post. September 29, 1989. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  33. ^ "Marcos Was More Than Just Another Deposed Dictator". Chicago Tribune. September 29, 1989.
  34. ^ Woo, Jongseok (2011). Security challenges and military politics in East Asia: from state building to post-democratization. New York: Continuum. ISBN 978-1-4411-9927-0. OCLC 709938449.
  35. ^ Cull, Nicholas John; Culbert, David Holbrook; Welch, David (2003). Propaganda and Mass Persuasion: A Historical Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-820-4.
  36. ^ a b Scott, William Henry (1992). Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino and Other Essays in the Philippine History. Quezon City: New Day Publishers. ISBN 971-10-0524-7.
  37. ^ McCoy, Alfred W. (1999). Closer than brothers: manhood at the Philippine Military Academy. Yale University Press. pp. 167–170. ISBN 978-0-300-07765-0.
  38. ^ a b Primitivo, Mijares (2017). The conjugal dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos: revised and annotated (Revised ed.). Quezon City. ISBN 978-971-550-781-3. OCLC 988749288.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  39. ^ a b Morrow, Paul (January 16, 2009). "Maharlika and the ancient class system". Pilipino Express. Archived from the original on January 19, 2009. Retrieved July 18, 2012.
  40. ^ Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert. Filipino nationalism is a contradiction in terms, Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism, Part One of Four, "Kasama" Vol. 17 No. 3 / July–August–September 2003 / Solidarity Philippines Australia Network, cpcabrisbance.org
  41. ^ National Historical Commission of the Philippines. "Why Ferdinand E. Marcos should not be Buried at Libingan ng mga Bayani." 8–9. July 12, 2016. RetrievedAugust 26, 2021.
  42. ^ Maj. R.G. Langham. "Recognition of Guerrilla Unit." In National Historical Commission of the Philippines. "Why Ferdinand E. Marcos should not be Buried at Libingan ng mga Bayani." 9. July 12, 2016. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
  43. ^ a b c Gerth, Jeff; Brinkley, Joel (January 23, 1986). "Marcos's wartime role discredited in U.S. files". The New York Times.
  44. ^ "PCIJ findings: What's flawed, fuzzy with drug war numbers?". Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. June 8, 2017. Archived from the original on September 21, 2014. Retrieved August 23, 2020.
  45. ^ Bulatlat piece questioning the Marcos exploits during the war: ARTURO P. GARCIA. "The Real Heroes of Bessang Pass". Bulatlat. V (19).
  46. ^ "Marcos medals: Only 2 of 33 given in battle". Global Balita. April 28, 2011.
  47. ^ "U.s. Army Years Ago Labeled Marcos' Wwii Tales As Lies". Orlando Sentinel. January 23, 1986.
  48. ^ "Marcos Fake Medals Redux (Part III)". Asian Journal. May 13, 2017. Archived from the original on July 14, 2014.
  49. ^ Maynigo, Benjamin. "MARCOS FAKE MEDALS REDUX (Part I)". Asian Journal USA. Archived from the original on February 8, 2017. August 15, 2016
  50. ^ a b Sharkey, John. "The Marcos Mystery: Did the Philippine Leader Really Win the U.S. Medals for Valor?He Exploits Honors He May Not Have Earned". The Washington Post. December 18, 1983
  51. ^ Bondoc, Jarius (April 29, 2011). "Marcos medals: Only 2 of 33 given in battle". Phil Star Global.
  52. ^ "Historian: Marcos' war exploits 'full of lies'". cnn. Archived from the original on May 1, 2018. Retrieved March 2, 2018.
  53. ^ "Marcos' World War II 'medals's explained". Rappler. Retrieved March 2, 2018.
  54. ^ "Alfred W. McCoy Biography". University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of History. Archived from the original on August 28, 2011.
  55. ^ Robles, Raissa (May 17, 2011), Eminent Filipino war historian slams Marcos burial as a "hero", Raissa Robles: Inside Politics and Beyond
  56. ^ a b National Historical Commission of the Philippines. "Why Ferdinand E. Marcos should not be Buried at Libingan ng mga Bayani." 5–6. July 12, 2016. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
  57. ^ Congressional Medal of Honor Society. Jose Calugas. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
  58. ^ Congressional Medal of Honor Society. Recipients. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
  59. ^ National Purple Heart Hall of Honor. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
  60. ^ U.S. Military Awards for Valor. Retrieved August 26, 2021.
  61. ^ Ariarte, Joel; Reyes, Miguel Paulo (July 3, 2016). "File No. 60: A family affair". Vera Files. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  62. ^ Samonte, Mauro Gia (June 9, 2019). "Dr. Jose P. Laurel: Beyond prejudice". The Manila Times. Retrieved June 12, 2021.
  63. ^ Sharkey, John (January 24, 1986). "New Doubts on Marcos' War Role". Washington Post. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  64. ^ Kravchuk, Max. "Why Philippine Cinema Flourished During Martial Law: Oppression Gives Life To The Arts, Say Filmmakers". OneNews.ph. Retrieved September 21, 2020.
  65. ^ Rafael, Vicente L. (1990). "Patronage and Pornography: Ideology and Spectatorship in the Early Marcos Years". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 32 (2): 282–304. doi:10.1017/S0010417500016492. ISSN 0010-4175. JSTOR 178916. S2CID 144809573.
  66. ^ a b c d e Magno, Alexander R., ed. (1998). "Democracy at the Crossroads". Kasaysayan, The Story of the Filipino People Volume 9:A Nation Reborn. Hong Kong: Asia Publishing Company Limited.
  67. ^ Garcia, Eddie (July 27, 1969), Pinagbuklod ng langit (Drama), United Brothers Productions, retrieved April 7, 2022
  68. ^ Hopper, Jerry (April 9, 1987), Maharlika (Action, War), Roadshow Films International, Solar Films, retrieved April 7, 2022
  69. ^ "Guerilla Strike Force aka Maharlika 1970". www.rarewarfilms.com. Retrieved April 7, 2022.
  70. ^ "MAHARLIKA (1969)". BFI. Archived from the original on April 7, 2022. Retrieved April 7, 2022.
  71. ^ Studies, Kasarinlan Philippine Journal of Third World (2013). "Appendix 5.1: Letter from Luis Nepomuceno to Imelda Marcos on the Film Maharlika". Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies. 27: 589–592. ISSN 2012-080X.
  72. ^ "Manila Standard - Google News Archive Search". news.google.com. Retrieved April 7, 2022.
  73. ^ a b Tolentino, Rolando B. (2000). "National Bodies and Sexualities". Philippine Studies. 48 (1): 53–79. ISSN 0031-7837. JSTOR 42634353.
  74. ^ "Marcos Dies in Bitter Exile in Honolulu at 72: Deposed Philippine Ruler Had Kidney, Heart, Lung Ailments". September 29, 1989. Retrieved August 18, 2020.
  75. ^ a b c d McCoy, Alfred W. (2000). "Philippine Commonwealth and Cult of Masculinity". Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints. 48 (3): 315–346. ISSN 2244-1638.
  76. ^ Adel, Rosette. "The art of deception – 31 years of amnesia". Retrieved August 18, 2020.
  77. ^ Sumayao, Marco (September 24, 2018). "Painting the Marcos Myth with Ferdinand as Malakas, Imelda as Maganda". Esquire Philippines. Retrieved August 18, 2020.
  78. ^ a b Sudjic, Deyan (November 3, 2015). The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World. The Penguin Press HC. ISBN 978-1-59420-068-7.
  79. ^ a b Lapeña, Carmela G.; Arquiza, Yasmin D. (September 20, 2012). "Masagana 99, Nutribun, and Imelda's 'edifice complex' of hospitals". GMA News.
  80. ^ Eduardo C. Tadem (November 24, 2016). "The Marcos debt". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on November 8, 2017. Retrieved July 30, 2020.
  81. ^ Afinidad-Bernardo, Deni Rose M. "Edifice complex | 31 years of amnesia". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on March 4, 2017. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  82. ^ Marcelo, Sam (April 13, 2012). "Power structures". BusinessWorld. Archived from the original on May 5, 2018. Retrieved May 5, 2018.
  83. ^ a b Manapat, Ricardo (1991). Some are smarter than others: the history of Marcos' crony capitalism. Aletheia Publications. ISBN 978-971-91287-0-0. OCLC 28428684.
  84. ^ "Edifice Complex: Building on the Backs of the Filipino People". Martial Law Museum. Retrieved May 5, 2018.
  85. ^ Toussaint, Eric (October 7, 2014). "The World Bank and the Philippines". www.cadtm.org. Archived from the original on November 9, 2009. Retrieved June 14, 2018.
  86. ^ Magno, Alexander R., ed. (1998). "Bandits, outlaws, and Robin Hoods". Kasaysayan, The Story of the Filipino People Volume 9:A Nation Reborn. Hong Kong: Asia Publishing Company Limited.
  87. ^ Agustin, Carlos L., Commodore (2012). "A Brief Historical Overview of the Armed Forces of the Philippines". Transformation: a security sector reform reader. Pasig, Philippines: International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance. ISBN 978-971-93923-1-6. OCLC 815836447.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  88. ^ "Formal Democracy and its Alternatives in the Philippines". Transnational Institute (in Spanish). July 26, 2005. Retrieved June 14, 2018.
  89. ^ Karnow, Stanley (March 19, 1989). "REAGAN AND THE PHILIPPINES: Setting Marcos Adrift". The New York Times.
  90. ^ Francisco, Katerina (September 16, 2016). "Look Back: When the Senate Said 'No' To US Bases Renewal".
  91. ^ Sen, Rabindra (June 2005). "Philippines – U.S. Special Relationship: Cold War and Beyond". Jadavpur Journal of International Relations. 9 (1): 85–92. doi:10.1177/0973598405110005. ISSN 0973-5984. S2CID 157525312.
  92. ^ a b "Speech of President Ramos at the Signing of the Bill repealing the Anti-Subversion Law". Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. September 2, 1992. Retrieved June 8, 2018.
  93. ^ a b "A Short History of the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas". Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-1930. Archived from the original on November 7, 2017. Retrieved November 5, 2017.
  94. ^ a b Abinales, P.N. (n.d.). "Jose Maria Sison and the Philippine Revolution: A Critique of an Interface" (PDF). University of the Philippines Diliman. Retrieved November 6, 2017.
  95. ^ a b c d Robles, Raissa (2016). Marcos Martial Law: Never Again. FILIPINOS FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES , INC.
  96. ^ Richburg, Keith B.; Branigin, William (September 29, 1989). "FERDINAND MARCOS DIES IN HAWAII AT 72". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved August 16, 2018.
  97. ^ Celoza, Albert F. (1997). Ferdinand Marcos and the Philippines: The Political Economy of Authoritarianism. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-275-94137-6.
  98. ^ Schirmer, Daniel B. (1987). The Philippines reader: a history of colonialism, neocolonialism, dictatorship, and resistance (1st ed.). Boston: South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-276-2. OCLC 14214735.
  99. ^ a b c Reyes, Miguel Paolo (June 2018). "Producing Ferdinand E. Marcos, the Scholarly Author". Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints. 66 (2). Ateneo de Manila University: 173–218. doi:10.1353/phs.2018.0017. S2CID 149840669. Retrieved April 30, 2020.
  100. ^ a b "September 1972: Recalling the last days and hours of democracy". September 21, 2016.
  101. ^ a b c Brillantes Jr., Alex B. (1987). Dictatorship & martial law: Philippine authoritarianism in 1972. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Diliman School of Public Administration. ISBN 978-971-8567-01-2.
  102. ^ Beltran, J. C. A.; Chingkaw, Sean S. (October 20, 2016). "On the shadows of tyranny". The Guidon. Archived from the original on July 31, 2020. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
  103. ^ a b Onyebadi, Uche (February 14, 2017). Music as a platform for political communication. Hershey, PA. ISBN 978-1-5225-1987-4. OCLC 972900349.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  104. ^ a b c Maca, Mark (April 2018). "Education in the 'New Society' and the Philippine Labour Export Policy (1972–1986)". Journal of International and Comparative Education. 7 (1): 1–16. doi:10.14425/jice.2018.7.1.1.
  105. ^ Abueva, Jose (1979). "Ideology and Practice in the 'New Society'". In Rosenberg, David (ed.). Marcos and Martial Law in the Philippines. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. pp. 35–36.Jose Abueva, "Ideology and Practice in the 'New Society'", in Marcos and Martial Law in the Philippines, edited by David Rosenberg (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979), pp.35-—36
  106. ^ Ricklefs, M. C. (2010). New History of Southeast Asia. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-01554-9. OCLC 965712524.
  107. ^ "Listen to 'Bagong Silang,' the Most Famous of Marcos-Era Propaganda Songs". Esquire Philippines. September 11, 2018.
  108. ^ Productions, Kodao (November 22, 2016). "Statement: Treacherous burial mocks struggle for press freedom during Martial Law". Kodao Productions. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
  109. ^ "Breaking the News: Silencing the Media Under Martial Law". Martial Law Museum. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
  110. ^ Lapeña, Carmela (September 20, 2012). "Balikwas: Literature and the media under Martial Law". GMA News Online. Retrieved October 11, 2022.
  111. ^ Teodoro, Luis (September 21, 2015). "Martial Law and the Media". AlterMidya. Retrieved July 29, 2020.
  112. ^ Olea, Ronalyn V. (September 28, 2012). "Underground press during martial law: Piercing the veil of darkness imposed by the dictatorship". Bulatlat. Retrieved July 29, 2020.
  113. ^ Soriano, Jake (March 3, 2015). "Story of Marcos-era mosquito press relevant as ever". Yahoo News Philippines. Retrieved July 29, 2020.
  114. ^ Plaza, Gerry (May 7, 2020). "In Focus: Memoirs Of The 1972 ABS-CBN Shutdown". ABS-CBN. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
  115. ^ "Declaration of Martial Law". Official Gazette. Archived from the original on July 8, 2017. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
  116. ^ "Letter of Instruction No. 1, s. 1972". Official Gazette. September 22, 1972. Archived from the original on September 28, 2022. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
  117. ^ "FALSE: Filipinos 'free to roam, can watch news's during Martial Law". Rappler. September 22, 2018. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
  118. ^ Dizon, Nikko (February 28, 2016). "Palace fighting 'disinformation' about Marcos rule". Inquirer. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
  119. ^ Gonzales, Iris (September 24, 2012). "Marcos atrocities: the pain continues". New Internationalist. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
  120. ^ "Writers, journalists as freedom heroes". Inquirer. August 29, 2016. Retrieved July 25, 2020.
  121. ^ San Juan, E. (May 1, 1978). "Marcos and the Media". Index on Censorship. 7 (3): 39–47. doi:10.1080/03064227808532787. S2CID 143398002.
  122. ^ Pinlac, Melanie Y. (September 1, 2007). "Marcos and the Press". Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. Retrieved July 29, 2020.
  123. ^ Pante, Michael D. (September 21, 2018). "The role of the barangay in Marcos' "new society"". CNN Philippines. Archived from the original on November 4, 2021. Retrieved August 18, 2020.
  124. ^ Wolfgang Bethge. "King Philipp II and the Philippines". Literary Bridge Philippines. Retrieved November 6, 2013.
  125. ^ Nathan Gilbert Quimpo (2003). "Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism". Kasama. 17 (3).
  126. ^ Abinales, Patricio (June 11, 2016). "Historians and the distortions of 'that Martial Law thingy'". Rappler. Retrieved September 7, 2020.
  127. ^ Curaming, Rommel A. (2018). "Official History Reconsidered: The Tadhana Project in the Philippines". In Bevernage, Berber; Wouters, Nico (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of State-Sponsored History After 1945. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 237–253. doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95306-6_12. ISBN 978-1-349-95305-9.
  128. ^ Curaming, Rommel Argamosa (2019). Power and knowledge in Southeast Asia: state and scholars in Indonesia and the Philippines. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-79630-2. OCLC 1110656244.
  129. ^ "Presidential Communications Reforms". Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. Archived from the original on March 25, 2018. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  130. ^ Curaming, Rommel Argamosa (October 10, 2019). "2. Genesis of Tadhana Project (Footnote 47)". Power and knowledge in Southeast Asia: state and scholars in Indonesia and the Philippines. Abingdon, Oxon. ISBN 978-0-429-79630-2. OCLC 1110656244.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  131. ^ "5 Piso, Philippines". numista.com. Retrieved September 7, 2020.
  132. ^ Cimatu, Frank; Santos-Doctor, Joya (January 1, 2003). "Philippines's 'Ozymandias's still haunts". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
  133. ^ Dumlao, Artemio (December 30, 2002). "Marcos bust blasted". The Philippine Star. Retrieved February 5, 2019.
  134. ^ Arzadon, Cristina (January 18, 2003). "Marcos family not keen on busted bust's repair". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Laoag. Retrieved February 27, 2015 – via Google News.
  135. ^ "When Ferdinand Marcos hid his illness from Filipinos". Retrieved September 26, 2020.
  136. ^ Marcos Regime Research (MRR) program, UP Third World Studies Center (UP TWSC). "How Marcos suppressed the truth behind Ninoy Aquino's assassination – Diktadura – The Marcos Regime Research". diktadura.upd.edu.ph. Retrieved March 7, 2024.
  137. ^ Mohr, Charles (July 18, 1986). "Laxalt says C.I.A. Chief suggested Marcos call early vote". The New York Times. Retrieved June 14, 2021.
  138. ^ "Folder Title:CO 125 (Philippines) 589090 (1) Box: 153" (PDF). Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Retrieved June 14, 2021.
  139. ^ "Networked propaganda: False narratives from the Marcos arsenal". Rappler. Retrieved August 30, 2021.
  140. ^ De Vega, Jose Mario (May 27, 2021). "Historical Distortionism is the Destruction of the Nation's Foundation". Human Rights Online Philippines. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
  141. ^ Subingsubing, Krixia (September 22, 2020). "Revisionism, denialism: Academics explain views on Marcos era". INQUIRER.net. Retrieved October 19, 2020.
  142. ^ a b "Report of an Amnesty International Mission to the Republic of the Philippines 22 November – 5 December 1975" (PDF). Amnesty International Publications. September 1976.
  143. ^ a b "PCGG welcomes Singapore court decision on Marcos' Swiss funds". Rappler. January 4, 2015.
  144. ^ a b Ayee Macaraig (August 26, 2015). "Marcos on dad's regime: What am I to apologize for?". Rappler.
  145. ^ a b c d e f Ong, Jonathan Corpus; Cabañes, Jason Vincent (2018). Architects of Networked Disinformation (PDF).
  146. ^ a b c "Fake news production and social media 'trolls'". February 12, 2018.
  147. ^ "EDSA People Power: Inadequate Challenge to Marcos Revisionism". Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. March 10, 2016. Retrieved September 23, 2018.
  148. ^ Hernando-Malipot, Merlina (September 7, 2018). "UP faculty vows to fight historical revisionism". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on September 24, 2018. Retrieved September 24, 2018.
  149. ^ Gaea Katreena Cabico (February 12, 2018). "Ad, PR execs are 'chief architects' of disinformation in Philippines — study". Philstar.com. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  150. ^ "Chief disinformation architects in the PH: Not exactly who you think". Rappler.com. February 11, 2018. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  151. ^ a b Berdos, Enrico (December 11, 2020). "Propaganda web: Pro-Marcos literature, sites, and online disinformation linked". ABS CBN News and Public Affairs. Retrieved August 30, 2021.
  152. ^ a b Macaraeg, Pauline (September 21, 2020). "How Did the Declaration of Martial Law in 1972 Impact the Economy?". Esquire Philippines. Archived from the original on October 4, 2020. Retrieved February 23, 2021.
  153. ^ Guido, Edson Joseph; de los Reyes, Che (2017), "The best of times? Data debunk Marcos's economic 'golden years'", ABSCBN News and Public Affairs
  154. ^ Galang, Ping (September 21, 2009). "Martial law: costly lessons in economic development". GMA News Online. Retrieved December 15, 2018.
  155. ^ a b "VERA FILES FACT SHEET: Must reads on the Philippine economy under Marcos". Vera Files. September 21, 2017. Retrieved June 28, 2021.
  156. ^ a b "'DECEPTIVE NOSTALGIA': UP history profs warn public vs. 'golden age' claims under Marcos". GMA News Online. March 30, 2016. Retrieved June 28, 2021.
  157. ^ Whaley, Floyd (February 23, 2016). "30 Years After Revolution, Some Filipinos Yearn for 'Golden Age' of Marcos". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 28, 2021.
  158. ^ a b "Was the Philippines a regional military power under Marcos?". Philippine Star.
  159. ^ a b "FALSE: Military under Marcos was most advanced in Asia". Rappler. November 17, 2020. Retrieved July 21, 2021.
  160. ^ a b "MILITARY BALANCE 1974–1975 – Stanford University" (PDF). Stanford University.
  161. ^ "Posts make false claim about how ex-Philippine dictator Marcos acquired his wealth". Fact Check. September 21, 2021. Retrieved February 10, 2022.
  162. ^ a b c "False: Filipino 'royal family' ruled over pre-colonial 'Maharlika kingdom'". Rappler. February 15, 2019. Retrieved February 10, 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos%27s_cult_of_personality&oldid=1247404793"