Visual and Documentary Sources in Philippine History

Lesson 1: Visual Sources in the Study of History

History is not recorded only in written texts. Visual sources — photographs, paintings, drawings, maps, and political cartoons — are also primary sources that reveal how people saw, experienced, and represented the world around them.

Like any primary source, visual sources carry the biases and perspectives of their creators. Reading them critically requires asking: Who created this? For what audience? With what purpose?

Political Cartoons as Historical Sources

Political cartoons are illustrations that translate editorial positions into satirical, sarcastic, or burlesque images. They reflect public perception and are powerful indicators of the social climate.

The book Political Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era, 1901–1941 (1985), authored by Alfred McCoy and Alfredo Roces, collects cartoons from local publications and analyzes them as evidence of political culture during the American period.

Key themes depicted in these cartoons:

• Unequal pay — Cartoons from The Independent (1915) and Bag-ong Kusog (1928) criticized the salary gap between American and Filipino workers doing equivalent jobs.
• Power dynamics between colonizer and colonized — A cartoon from Lipag Kalabaw (November 14, 1908) depicted Juan dela Cruz (representing the Filipino) questioning Uncle Sam (representing the United States) about restrictions on freedom of speech. The relative size and posture of the figures visually communicated the colonial power imbalance.
• Anti-friar sentiment — Even as Spanish influence waned politically, cartoonists mercilessly satirized the continued political power of the Catholic friars.
• Filipino politicians and corruption — Manila's political class was repeatedly depicted as self-serving and corrupt.
• Anti-Chinese and later anti-Japanese sentiment — Cartoonists turned critical attention toward Chinese merchants (during the rice crisis of 1919) and later toward Japan's expanding military ambitions.

Juan Luna and the Spoliarium

Juan Luna (1857–1899) was born in Badoc, Ilocos Norte and is remembered as one of the Philippines' greatest painters. His most celebrated masterpiece, the Spoliarium, depicts the aftermath of gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome. The painting measures 4.22 × 7.675 meters and is the largest painting in the Philippines.

Technically, the Spoliarium is notable for its dramatic use of chiaroscuro — the contrasting of light and dark — which highlights mangled bodies against a dark, oppressive background.

Allegorically, José Rizal interpreted the Spoliarium as a representation of the condition of the Philippines under colonial rule — humanity unredeemed, idealism in struggle against injustice. Rizal declared that "genius knows no country; genius sprouts everywhere."

Fernando Amorsolo: Landscape and War

Fernando Amorsolo (1892–1972) was named National Artist in Painting in 1972.

During World War II, Amorsolo shifted from his signature luminous landscapes of rural Filipino life to witnessing and painting the destruction brought by war:

• The Bombing of the Intendencia — painted from his house as he observed the burning of the colonial customs building
• The Burning of Manila — depicts the widespread destruction of the capital during the Japanese occupation

His earlier painting Planting Rice (1951) became iconic — a luminous depiction of women working in ricefields.

---

Lesson 2: Documentaries as Historical Sources

A documentary film occupies a complex place in historical source typology:

• If it contains actual footage, recordings, or interviews from the period being studied, that footage may constitute a primary source
• The documentary itself as a curated, edited work is a secondary source — the filmmaker's interpretation of events
• Like all secondary sources, documentaries must be examined for selection bias, editorial choices, and the perspectives the filmmaker privileges or omits

When evaluating any documentary as a historical source, ask:

• Who made it, and when?
• What primary sources does it draw on?
• Whose voices and perspectives are included? Whose are absent?
• What is the documentary's argument or thesis?
• Does the evidence it presents support its conclusions?