The historian writes and educates others about history, but he also has another obligation to the public: to retell the story of history as accurately as possible and to police others into upholding these same standards. In Inventing a Hero, Glenn May does exactly this; he is informing the public about a crime against history: the fabrication of the Filipino nationalist “hero”, Andres Bonifacio.
In his book, May explains how Bonifacio is more than just a historical figure to the Filipinos: he represents Filipino nationalism itself. This was moreover due to the re-creation of his character by Manuel Artigas, Epifanio de los , and Jose P. Santos—historians who fabricated information and doctored documents about a man who was otherwise a blip on the Filipino War for nationalism; it is Aguinaldo and the other illustrados deserve more credit for their work in the Filipino nationalist movement.
However, the story of the illustrados would be capable of capturing the hearts and minds of the Filipino people; the illustrados were typically wealthy, well-educated individuals; your average Filipino was not. May continues by relating the re-creation of Bonifacio to other historical figures, such as George Washington, Thomas Jeffersion, Buffalo Bill, Father , and others. These historical figures—though all a paragon of some ideal—be it truth, intelligence, perseverance, or nationalism—are creations that the average person can relate to; most came from middle- or low-class backgrounds and were forced to work for their wealth or education. Bonifacio was the poor son of a mestiza mother, who peddled fans to support his family—and unlike other Filipino historical figures, Bonifacio did not have wealthy family to bail him when he was in trouble, nor did he have an expensive formal education in a European nation to rely on. Furthermore, there were very few written records about Andrés Bonifacio, which made him the perfect candidate for posthumous recreation.
The myth of Bonifacio was first propagated by the historians de los Santos and Artigas, both of whom clearly had a nationalist agenda; as May writes, their goal was to "...inform Filipinos about their glorious recent past, to promote national pride, and to do some of that by rescuing Andrés Bonifacio from obscurity" (34). Personal and political biases were what motivated Ricarte to piece together his own fabrications about the life of Bonifacio. No matter what the motivations, Bonifacio was crafted into their paragon of nationalism using the same methods: unreliable resources and badly doctored documents.
Before Artigas, de los Santos, and Ricarte began their fabrication of history, there was little written about the hero Bonifacio, and as a result, little for them to work from. A great deal of the information these historians documented were never cited. Those few details that had been were from questionable sources. Valenzuela, who de los cited, was "notoriously unreliable about details" and often changed "his story from one telling to the next" (33). Letters were forged and transcriptions were doctored to make them appear more legitimate.
Furthermore, historians cited one another, both spreading and legitimizing misinformation propagated by the historians that came before them. Ileto sourced an article allegedly written by Bonifacio via ’ biography of the man; no copy of the magazine the article was published in has ever been found and it was never explained where or how he acquired the text.
Though all of May’s allegations are highly substantiated, Bonifacio had already been established as a hero within the Filipino community. Many Filipinos were reluctant to accept that their hero had been almost completely fabricated by the historians who wrote about him; Bonifacio scholars refused to accept that they might have been studying from fraudulent documents. Many were highly suspicious of May’s motivations. Many believed that Inventing a Hero was an attack on Bonifacio and Filipino history.
Inventing a Hero was anything but; in his text, May attempted to promote a more accurate understanding of Bonifacio and Filipino history. He is doing his job as a historian by policing other historians and upholding them to the level of scrutiny as any other historian. May’s own willingness to use beloved American historical figures (such as Buffalo Bill, George Washington, etc.) as examples of instances of re-creation clearly shows that his motivations are anything but nefarious.
But even years after this book’s publication, things remain the same in the ; despite evidence to the contrary, the Filipino people still revere Bonifacio as a hero; the damage has already been done. We can only hope that with the publication of other books written by Bonifacio scholars like May, all Filipino people will in time come to embrace their heroes for what they are—and not for what they have been invented to be.
