Nationalism in the Philippines is undergoing the fate of ideologies and ideas that have passed from the vocabulary of critical and original thinkers, into the language of popular discussion. As a concept and as a political force, therefore, nationalism is in the process of losing in precision what it is gaining in popular appeal. Its triumph in Filipino politics is pointedly shown by the diligence with which partisans of opposing political interests and orientations all claim to be the faithful and discerning interpreters of nationalism. Its triumph as an idea is similarly shown by the indiscriminate use of the term by social commentators who have no more than vague and hazy impressions of ideological distinctions.

American entry into the ranks of colonial powers as an aftermath of the Spanish American War was sudden, unexpected, and, chronologically speaking, late in the game of colonial empire building. Prior to the last decade of the 19th century, United States had shown no lack of territorial acquisitiveness, but national expansion was exclusively in terms of organic growth of the whole nation. There was no interest in, nor attempts at building a “colonial empire” along conventional lines in which territories and their inhabitants were placed “permanently” under control but not under a shared set of political institutions. Up to 1898, all “civilized” inhabitants of new territories were immediately given the status of United States citizens with all rights and privileges thereof.

For this International Conference of South-East Asian Historians, it is my honour to contribute a paper on “Dr. Jose Rizal, Father of Filipino Nationalism,” for several reasons. First, Dr. Rizal himself was very much interested in the history of this part of the world. Second, this year 1961 has been proclaimed by the President of the Philippines as the Rizal Centenary Year, for our hero was born in 1861. Third, if Rizal were alive today, he would have been happy to receive an invitation to attend our Conference because our hero was the organizer of the International Association of Filipinists in Europe in 1889. Fourth, Dr. Rizal has been ranked by his biographers, both Filipinos and foreigners, as one of the great intellectual leaders of Asia, together with Mahatma Gandhi of India and Dr. Sun Yat-sen of China. Lastly, Dr. Rizal visited this city of Singapore no less than three times in the course of his many travels to foreign lands.

The history of mankind is studded with narratives of human conflicts, inspired largely by man's desire of domination. Domination gave rise to resentment and agitation and finally gave way to freedom. Thus the struggle between man's desire to dominate and yet to be free determined the changing patterns of society and the course of human civilization. With the march of time and growth of experience the frontiers and concepts of loyalties widened and the tribal and clan conflicts developed into organised and highly mechanised national warfare. Consequently at the turn of this century most of the world lay humble at the feet of a few industrially and technologically advanced nations of the West. South East Asia belonged to the majority community of the humbled. Known as the “economic bulwark of western Imperialsm”, its economic wealth had, in fact, attracted over a period of centuries peoples of various cultures and races. The Europeans were only the last to come; before them had come the Indian, Chinese and Arab merchants. Of all these the Europeans were the most organised and persistent intruders. Their commercial rivalries through a process of political intrigues and military strifes inevitably led to the colonisation of South East Asia for several centuries. Except Thailand, all the nations of this region suffered a period of European domination; even Thailand's independence remained at its best precarious. Some remnants of this domination are still to be seen, for instance, in West Irian and Timor.

Our generation has witnessed in a relatively recent past the almost simultaneous emergence of national states in Southeast Asia. These great events have been preceded by a historical process having nationalism as its moving force. In other parts of the world nationalism has also been playing a more and more important role.

A glance at a bibliography of the history of the Vereenigde Oost Indische Campagnie is sufficient to give one an idea of the treasure house of source material that must be extant to have made possible studies of such wide and varied nature. Those who have even a nodding acquaintance with this material will confirm that even more is waiting to be explored. From a study of the use to which this material has been put in the writing of history and from my own personal experience in their use, I shall set down in the following pages some comments on the nature and characteristics of the Company's records. Though my examples will, in the main, be taken from the South Asian region, it is hoped that the general observations will be of wider application.

The purpose of this essay is to suggest some major and pertinent questions regarding the nature, structure and problems of Southeast Asian history, rather than to provide ready-made answers to them. I am well aware that the very positing of such questions may appear premature in view of the youthfullness — not to say the woefully underdeveloped nature — of Southeast Asian historiography, particularly in the United States. Yet in a sense this innocence of youth may be an appropriate excuse for asking whither we are bound in our search; another, more pragmatic rationalization can be found in the undeniable fact that the teaching of ‘Southeast Asian history’, in which we are willy-nilly engaged, demands that such questions be asked, if not authoritatively answered.

Readers of this Journal will recall the provocative article in Vol. 2, No. 2 by John Smail entitled An Autonomous History of South-East Asia. This article has aroused considerable comment. It is all-the-more unfortunate then that it was marred by fifty or more misprints and omissions. With this issue of the Journal we have changed to a new type and printing machine, and we hope such errors as committed before will remain merely the follies of our youth. We attach a list of the more important of the misprints in Mr. Smail's article.