Manila in 1938.
Couple of things to note in the video. Obviously, pre-World War II, so this was the city they were calling the Pearl of the Orient. This was the city that was burned by the Japanese and bombed into submission in 1945.
First off, the video is obviously American propaganda (the Battle of Manila being a ‘great’ naval battle and all), but even then it has important historical value. See, this is precisely the idea behind William Henry Scott’s “cracks in the parchment curtain.”
Second, our canals were lively and a centers of life in the city; trade and transport was normally conducted through the canals. Think about how are post-WWII development (or lack there of) has eviscerated a once central part of Manila life. Bangkok is famous for its canals and boat based trade, it was something we had as well.
The criticism I always hear about videos like this is that it shows the best of Manila and its environs. So. What. That was what parts of Manila was like in the 1930s. What is important is that we try and recapture some of that uniqueness and beauty of Old Manila. Heritage is an integral part of urban renewal; especially when the city still has so many of these areas. It is these places that make Manila, Manila. And the Philippines, the Philippines. They should be points of national pride and should be treated and respected as such. Intramuros is still standing, the bridges still span the Pasig; Manila Hotel, old structures, and old homes still exist. Though they are threatened.
What is backward looking is to ignore the importance of heritage in rebuilding a city and a nation. There is nothing more backward thinking than to say that heritage plays no part in uplifting and enriching a nation and a people. The idea that preserving and utilizing heritage sites is antithetical to economic growth and poverty alleviation is a reductive and simplistic understand of the relationship between a city and her citizens.
We are our heritage. And our cities should reflect that.
