HomeThe Journal of Historyvol. 12 no. 1 & 2 (1964)


Usha Mahajani

Discipline: History, Philippine History



The term nationalism has been amply defined by political scientists. It is adequate to point out its basic dual character — passive and active. The former indicates an awareness of com­mon bond among people centred on a motherland; it may be categorised into religious, literary, educational, symbolic and eco­nomic nationalism. Active nationalism is aroused as a reaction against a threat to the nation. Its form and intensity, as a stra­tegy to remove the external element, varies according to the type of external pressure. In a close interaction, passive national­ism, often aroused and crystallized by active nationalism, in turn reinforces it. Both these elements have been present in Philip­pine nationalism which, notwithstanding its unique chronologi­cal pattern has all along possessed characteristics similar to those in other nationalist movements.1 Like the Burmese in the 1930's Filipinos developed a marked socialistic economic nationalism. Like the Indian National Congress, the Nacionalista party in the Philippines spearheaded the struggle for independence. Like the Indonesian armed struggle against the Dutch, the Philippine revolution of 1896 was launched, first against the Spanish, and later, against the Americans.

All Comments (1)