Imelda became a celebrity based on ‘merit, talent, and special internal qualities earning admiration and attention’ as opposed to today’s celebrities who are only known for being famous.
Imelda Marcos says not everyone is destined for greatness
The trick is to know what role to play
At a glance

Photos from Marcos Presidential Center
Oftentimes we spend our days doing the most mundane things. This isn’t bad but it’s contrary to how we are conditioned to think—that we should be doing great and meaningful actions that contribute to society, which is BS.
If I really thought long and hard, I could pinpoint when I came to this realization but I really don’t want to revisit my brush with disappointment early in life. After all, who would want to be reminded of that moment in time when you realized, you were just ordinary. Didn’t we all have that sure sense of being destined for greatness?

When I was in my early 20s, I had this very interesting chat with our family matriarch, former first lady Imelda R. Marcos about destiny. After years of hearing her and other people talk about this concept, I finally mustered the courage to ask her, “Are all destined for greatness?” She was very honest and said, “No.” So, I asked her, “If we are not all destined for greatness, what happens to those people who are not deemed extraordinary?” My aunt explained that we all have our roles in life. First, you have to figure out what you have no matter how ordinary it is, hone it, and capitalize on it. In her case, she said that she “wasn’t bad to look at” so when she was invited to more than a few social gatherings but had a limited wardrobe, she honed her skills at accessorizing her outfits. She also pointed out that she didn’t really know much about politics, but as the wife of a politician, she had to find out what skills she had to help her husband. She knew how to sing and that helped entertain the crowd during political sorties. She was good with people and made them feel at ease in her presence. She learned the ropes and became an astute politician herself. And this, as well as her beauty, merited the attention and fame that came soon after. Imelda became a celebrity based on “merit, talent, and special internal qualities earning admiration and attention,” as opposed to today’s celebrities who are only known for being famous.

In an article, “The Unwatched Life is Not Worth Living: The Elevation of the Ordinary in Celebrity Culture,” author Joshua Gamson said that in the past, “celebrities were a class of people perceived as extraordinary and treated to extraordinary lives.” Today he says celebrity culture is “increasingly populated by unexceptional people who have become famous.”
Gamson explains celebrity culture has been around for hundreds of years. It has intensified only with the advent of the internet. Before the internet, the media industry propelled people to fame, and was in fact instrumental in the transformation of the celebrity culture of today. Reality TV was not only cheaper and faster to make, it allowed the “ordinary” to take center stage. People were hooked, Gamson claims. Today we are inundated with hundreds of thousands of internet celebrities all documenting the “ordinariness” of their lives and we are transfixed.

As an archaeologist trying to figure out how people lived in the past for a lack of “documentation” due to the ravages of time, I can only envy the archeologists of the future, say a few hundred years from now, given the record they can sift through to answer their questions of how people lived in the past. They will have loads of material to learn from!
Not so long ago, in fact even up to the late 1990s, historians were still using the term “the inarticulate masses” to describe the vast majority of people they hardly knew about because of a lack of historical documents detailing how they went about their daily lives. After all, history favors only the great and privileged. Even at museums, the historical costumes of the upper class are very well represented since, as our guide explained, the masses wore their clothing until they were mere hanging tatters. In John A. Shedd’s article “Bringing Ordinary People into the Picture,” he says that some historians are now highlighting the importance of “memoirs, diaries, and autobiographies” to illustrate that “the human past was made by everyone and not solely by the few in power.”

I have been a compulsive diary writer since I was in grade school, but I have only managed to save my journals from high school (since 2007 my journal has been FB). I very well know the value of the diary and when I was fortunate enough to get my hands on the diaries of my late uncle President Ferdinand E. Marcos, I was ecstatic. Since I was in charge of salvaging my uncle’s library in his old home and organizing it, I got a chance to read his series of Tadhana: The History of the Filipino People. There are a few volumes chronicling the story of the Filipinos from the early times till 1982. The abridged version published in 1982 was interesting since it encompassed a period that could be matched alongside my uncle’s diary entries. It was like watching a movie in two parts: What the public saw/how it was reported in the media and the diary entry of my uncle.
In recent months, news reports of the return of the Americans in full force for joint military training with the Philippine Armed Forces abound. Media was commenting on President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.’s “friendliness” with the Americans in light of China’s continued military presence in Philippine territorial waters and other activities meant to secure China’s dominance not only in the region but in the world. I couldn’t help remembering my uncle’s diary entry dated Jan. 9, 1970. He wrote about how he (most reluctantly) had to allow US presence in the country because China had nuclear capabilities and the country needed the US bases to defend the country if anything untoward happened. I can just only speculate what internal rationalization PBBM had undergo to come to the decision to allow heavier US military presence in the archipelago.