Showing papers by "Filomeno V. Aguilar published in 2020"
TL;DR: In this article, the authors reconstruct the chronology of the Philippine government's response to the Covid-19 pandemic during the early phase, focusing on three issues: virus importation, testing, and contact tracing.
Abstract: Was the Philippines prepared for the Covid-19 pandemic? Did the government take early and effective action that can be characterized as strategically agile? This article answers these questions by reconstructing the chronology of the Philippine government’s response to the pandemic during the early phase. It focuses on three issues: virus importation (specifically the first Covid-19 case), testing, and contact tracing. The Philippine response is contrasted with those of Thailand and Vietnam, which, unlike the Philippines, have succeeded in lowering per capita mortality rate. Deficient in strategic agility, the Philippines failed to consider early on a scenario of extreme disease outbreak. KEYWORDS: COVID-19 PANDEMIC • AGILE GOVERNANCE • DISEASE SURVEILLANCE • CONTAINMENT STRATEGY • HEALTH SECURITY
8 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors of The Revolt of the Masses published in 1956 are examined to understand the author's explanation of what made "the masses" revolutionary and find a profound incoherence: Agoncillo posited literacy and political consciousness in explaining the explosion in the Katipunan's membership, but throughout the book the dominant characterization of the masses was one of ignorance, gullibility, impulsiveness, irrationality and treachery.
Abstract: Regarded as a classic in Philippine historiography, Teodoro Agoncillo’s The Revolt of the Masses published in 1956 is examined to understand the author’s explanation of what made “the masses” revolutionary The study finds a profound incoherence: Agoncillo posited literacy and political consciousness in explaining the explosion in the Katipunan’s membership, but throughout the book the dominant characterization of the masses was one of ignorance, gullibility, impulsiveness, irrationality, and treachery The study explains this contradiction in light of Agoncillo’s blending of literature and history, the educated elite’s unquestioned assumptions about ignorance, and the ethos of the postwar “proletarian” writer KEYWORDS: THE MASSES • PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION • HISTORIOGRAPHY • LITERATURE • CLASS ANALYSIS • EDUCATION
6 citations
TL;DR: The concept of Covidscapes captures the simultaneous sharing of a global phenomenon along with diversity and difference as discussed by the authors, taking a cue from Arjun Appadurai, and is used to describe the Covid-19 pandemic.
Abstract: This introductory essay develops the notion of Covidscapes, taking a cue from Arjun Appadurai. Despite mutations, a single type of coronavirus has gone around the world causing the Covid-19 disease. Yet experiences with the pandemic have varied widely across and even within countries for reasons that go beyond the pathogen. The concept of Covidscapes captures the simultaneous sharing of a global phenomenon along with diversity and difference. Covidscapes are profoundly perspectival and disjunctive. State–societal factors suggest countries can have their own Covidscapes. The contributions in this issue shed light on the peculiar dynamics and contradictions of the Philippine Covidscape. KEYWORDS: COVID-19 • MIGRATIONS • HISTORY • STATE RESPONSE • MUTUALITY • ETHICS OF CARE
3 citations
TL;DR: The Inventing a Hero: The Posthumous ReCreation of Andres Bonifacio (May 1996, 1997) as mentioned in this paper is a controversial book published in 1996 in the United States, and a Philippine edition came in early 1997.
Abstract: Glenn Anthony May will most probably be remembered in Philippine historiography for his controversial book published amid the fervor for the centenary of the Philippine revolution against Spain. The book appeared in 1996 in the United States, and a Philippine edition came in early 1997. An exercise in historical methodology, Inventing a Hero: The Posthumous ReCreation of Andres Bonifacio (May 1996, 1997) questioned the historical basis for the conventional knowledge about Andrés Bonifacio, asserting this image was founded on unverifiable or forged documents. The “Bonifacio myth,” May said, was a fabrication. Not surprisingly, the book became the object of irate reactions for its perceived irreverence against the nation’s icon. In 1999 the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies invited me to review the book, and I scored it for its inconsistencies in logic (Aguilar 1999). Rather than getting annoyed with me, Glenn, whom I did not know personally at that time, reached out to me. My critique had become a bridge. That experience was an eye-opener to the possibility that individuals could disagree at the level of ideas but be collegial in person. In this part of the world not too many make that distinction. May was a veteran at upsetting his readers. After initially enduring “the most boring five months” of his life reading legal cases at the Stanford Law School (as he said in an email on 11 March 2011), he returned to Yale Obituary
2 citations