INTRODUCTION

Reforms to the basic education system of the Philippines have resulted into the introduction of the K to
12 program, a much needed development since the Philippines has been the last country in Asia with
a 10-year pre-university cycle. Globally, the accepted span of basic education is 12 years, and it is
recognized as the standard for students and professionals.

With the lengthening of basic education, there is a need for higher education institutions to respond
with the same enthusiasm in reforming their respective course offerings and programs. The
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) approved the New General Education (GE) Program, which
is aimed to restructure the old GE program in higher education institutions to respond to the challenges
of the times. It is geared toward the holistic development of the person in overlapping realms of the
individual, the Filipino community, and the global community.

It is in these realities that the General Education course “Readings in Philippine History” is situated,
with the course description “Philippine history viewed from the lens of selected primary sources in
different periods, analysis, and interpretations.” The focus of the course is to develop historiographical
skills connected to context and content analysis, applying both analytical strategies in themes and
topics across the Philippine past. Primary sources will be the ultimate bridge between the past and the
present, allowing spaces for students to simply not parrot facts about the past but to gain knowledge
that could be used in proposing solutions to the problems of today.

The use of primary sources in studying about the past connects the history learner to the text producers
themselves, allowing for a richer experience of understanding and appreciation. However, the use of
primary sources for those who lack the sufficient training and knowledge could also be disastrous, and
may be a source of misunderstanding and alienation to the events of the past. This book is crafted to
provide a strategy on how to study Philippine history through primary sources, in hopes that the teacher
and the student would have the best opportunity to learn and study about the past while taking great
care in watching the steps they take in their attempt to utilize primary sources in history.

INTRODUCTION TO HISTORY: DEFINITION, ISSUES, SOURCES, AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter introduces us to history as a discipline and as a narrative. We are presented with the
definition of the history, which transcends the common definition of history as the study of the past. This
chapter also discusses several issues in history that consequently opens up for the theoretical aspects
of the discipline. The distinction between primary and secondary sources is also discussed in relation
to the historical subject matter being studied and the historical methodology employed by the historian.
Ultimately, this chapter also tackles the task of the historian as the arbiter of facts and evidences in
making his interpretation and forming the historical narrative.

Readings in Philippine History-Ms. Eloisa May D. Reyes

Definition and Subject Matter

History has always been known as the study of the past. Students general education often dreaded the
subject for its notoriety in requiring students to memorize dates, places, names, and events from distant
eras. This low appreciation of the discipline may be rooted from the shallow understanding of history's
relevance to their lives and to their respective contexts. While the popular definition of history as the
study of the past is not wrong, it does not give justice to the complexity of the subject and its importance
to human civilization.

History was derived from the Greek word historia which means knowledge acquired through inquiry or
investigation. History as a discipline existed for around 2,400 years and is as old as mathematics and
philosophy. This term was then adapted to classical Latin where it acquired a new definition. Historia
became known as the account of the past of a person or of a group of people through written documents
and historical evidences. That meaning stuck until the early parts of the 20th century. History became
an important academic discipline. It became the historian’s duty to write about the lives of important
individuals like monarchs, heroes, saints, and nobilities. History was also focused on writing about wars,
revolutions, and other important breakthroughs. It is thus important to ask: What counts as history?
Traditional historians lived with the mantra of “no document, no history.” It means that, unless a written
document can prove a certain historical event, then it cannot be considered as a historical fact.

But as any other academic disciplines, history progressed and opened up to the possibility of valid
historical sources which were not limited to writer documents like government records, chroniclers’
accounts, or personal letters. Giving premium to written documents essentially invalidates the his of
other civilizations who do not keep written records. Some are keener on passing their history by word
of mouth. Others got their historical document burned or destroyed in the events of war or colonization.
Restricting history evidence as exclusively written is also discrimination of other social classes who are
not recorded in paper. Nobilities, monarchs, the elite, and even the middle class would have their birth,
education, marriage, and death as matters of government and historical record. But what of peasant
families or indigenous groups who do not give much thought about being registered to government
records? Does the absence of written documents about them mean that they are people of no history
or past? Have they even existed?

This loophole was recognized by historians who started using other kinds of historical sources, which
may not be in written format but were just as valid. A few of these examples are oral traditions in forms
of epics and songs, artifacts, architecture, and memory. History thus became more inclusive and started
collaborating with other disciplines as its auxiliary disciplines. With the aid of archaeologists, historians
can use artifacts from a bygone era to study ancient civilizations who were formerly ignored in history
because of lack of documents. Linguists can also be helpful in tracing historical evolutions, past
connections among different groups, and flow of cultural influence by studying language and the

Readings in Philippine History-Ms. Eloisa May D. Reyes

changes that it has undergone to. Even scientists like biologists and biochemists can help with the
study of the past through analyzing genetic and DNA patterns of human societies.

QUESTIONS AND ISSUES IN HISTORY

Indeed, history as a discipline has already turned into a complex and dynamic inquiry. This dynamism
inevitably produced various perspectives on the discipline regarding different questions like: What is
history? Why study history? And history for whom? These questions can be answered by
historiography. In simple terms, historiography is the history of history. History and historiography
should not be confused with one another. The former's object of study is the past, the events that
happened in the past, and the causes of such events. The latter's object of study, on the other hand, is
history itself (i.e., How was a certain-historical text written? Who wrote it? What was the context of its
publication? What particular historical method was employed? What were the sources used”), and so
on, and so forth. Thus, historiography lets the students to have a better understanding of history. They
do not only get to learn historical facts, they are also provided with the understanding of the facts’ and
the historian’s contexts. The methods employed by the historian and the theory and perspective which
guided him will also be analyzed. Historiography is important for anyone who studies history because
it teaches the student to be critical in the lessons of history presented to him.

History has played various roles in the past. States use history to unite a nation. It can be used as a
tool to legitimize regimes and forge a sense of collective identity through collective memory. Lessons
from the past can be used to make sense of the present. Learning of past mistakes can help people to
not repeat it. Being reminded of a great past can inspire people to keep their good practices to move
forward.

As a narrative, any history that has been taught and written is always intended for a certain group of
audience. When the ilustrados, like Jose Rizal, Isabelo de los Reyes, and Pedro Paterno wrote history,
they intended it for the Spaniards so that they will realize that Filipinos are people of their own intellect
and culture. When American historians depicted the Filipino people as uncivilized in their publications,
they intended that narrative for their fellow Americans to justify their colonization of the islands. They
wanted the colonization to appear not as a means of undermining the Philippines’ sovereignty, but as
a civilizing mission to fulfill what they call as the “white man’s burden.” The same is true for nations who
prescribe official versions of their history like North Korea, the Nazi Germany during the war period,
and Thailand, The same was attempted by Marcos in the Philippines during the 1970s.

One of the problems being confronted by history is the accusation that the history is always written by
victors. This connotes that the narrative of the past is always written from the bias of the powerful and
more dominant player. For instance, the history of the Second World War in the Philippines will always
depict the United States as the hero and the Imperial Japanese Army as oppressors. Filipinos who

Readings in Philippine History-Ms. Eloisa May D. Reyes

collaborated with the Japanese were lumped in the category of traitors or collaborators. However, a
more thorough historical investigation will reveal a more nuanced account of the history of that period
instead of a simplified narrative as a story of hero versus villain.

HISTORY AND THE HISTORIAN

If history is written with agenda or is heavily influenced by the historian, is it then possible to come up
with an absolute historical truth? Is history an objective discipline? If it is not, is it still worthwhile to
study history? These questions have haunted historians for many generations. Indeed, an exact and
accurate account of the past is impossible for the very simple reason that we cannot go back to the
past. We cannot access the past directly as our subject matter. Historians only get to access
representation of the past through historical sources and evidences.

Therefore, it is the historian’s job not just to seek historical evidences and — facts but also to interpret
these facts. “Facts cannot speak for themselves.” It is the job of the historian to give meaning to these
facts and organize them into a timeline, establish causes, and write history. Meanwhile, the historian is
not a blank paper who mechanically interprets and analyzes present historical fact. He is a person of
his own who is influenced by his own context, environment, ideology, education, and influences, among
others. In that sense, his interpretation of the historical fact is affected by his context and circumstances.
His subjectivity will inevitably influence the process of his historical research: the methodology that he
will use, the facts that he shall select and deem relevant, his interpretation, and even the form of his
writings. Thus, in one way or another, history is always subjective. If that is so, can history still be
considered as an academic and scientific inquiry?

Historical research requires rigor. Despite the fact that historians cannot ascertain absolute objectivity,
the study of history remains scientific because of the rigor of research and methodology that historians
employ. Historical methodology is comprised of certain techniques and rules that historians follow in
order to properly sources and historical evidences in writing history. Certain rules apply in cases of
conflicting accounts in different sources, and on how to properly treat eyewitness accounts and oral
sources as valid historical evidence. In doing so, historical claims done by historians and the arguments
that they forward in their historical writings, while may be influenced by the historian’s inclinations, can
still be validated by using reliable evidences and employing correct and meticulous historical
methodology. For example, if a historian chooses to use an oral account as his data in studying the
ethnic history of the Ifugaos in the Cordilleras during the American Occupation, he needs to validate
the claims of his informant through comparing and ‘corroborating it with written sources. Therefore,
while bias is inevitable, the historian can balance this out by relying to evidences that back up his claim.
In this sense, the historian need not let his bias blind his judgment and such bias is only acceptable if
he maintained his rigor as a researcher.

Readings in Philippine History-Ms. Eloisa May D. Reyes

HISTORICAL SOURCES

With the past as history’s subject matter, the historian’s most important research tools are historical
sources. In general, historical sources can be classified between primary and secondary sources. The
classification of sources between these two categories depends on the historical subject being studied.
Primary sources are those sources produced at the same time as the event, period, or subject being
studied. For example, if a historian wishes to study the Commonwealth Constitution Convention of
1935, his primary sources can include the minutes of the convention, newspaper clippings, Philippine
Commission reports of the US Commissioners, records of the convention, the draft of the Constitution,
and even photographs of the event. Eyewitness accounts of convention delegates and their memoirs
can also use as primary sources. The same goes with the other subjects of historical study. Archival
documents, artifacts, memorabilia, letters, census, and government records, among others are the
most common examples of primary sources.

On the other hand, secondary sources are those sources which were produced by an author who used
primary sources to produce the material. In other words, secondary sources are historical sources
which studied a certain historical subject. For example, on the subject of the Philippine Revolution of
1896, students can read Teodoro Agoncillo’s Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the
Katipunan published originally in 1956, The Philippine Revolution happened in the last years of the 19th
century while Agoncillo published his work in 1956, which makes the Revolt of the Masses a secondary
source. More than this, in writing the book, Agoncillo used primary sources with his research like
documents of the Katipunan, interview with the veterans of the revolution, and correspondence
between and among Katipuneros,

However, a student should not be confused about what counts as primary or a secondary source. As
mentioned above, the classification of sources between primary and secondary depends not on the
period when the source was produced or the type of the source but on the subject of the historical
research. For example, a textbook is usually classified as secondary source, a tertiary source even.
However, this classification is us but not automatic. If a historian chooses to write the history of
education in the 1980s, he can utilize textbooks used in that period as a primary source. If a historian
wishes to study the historiography of the Filipino-American War for example, he can use works of
different authors on the topic as his primary source as well.

Both primary and secondary sources are useful in writing and learning history. However, historians and
students of history need to thoroughly scrutinize these historical sources to avoid deception and to
come up with the historical truth. The historian should be able to conduct an external internal criticism
of the source, especially primary sources which can age in centuries. External criticism is the practice
of verifying the authenticity of evidence by examining its physical characteristics; consistency with the
historical characteristic of the time when it was produced; and the materials used for the evidence.
Example of the things that will be examined when conducting external criticism of a document include

Readings in Philippine History-Ms. Eloisa May D. Reyes

the quality of the paper the type of the ink, and the language and words used in the material, among
others.

Internal criticism, on the other hand, is the examination of the truthfulness of the evidence. It looks at
the content of the source and examines the circumstance of its production. Internal criticism looks at
the truthfulness and factuality of the evidence by looking at the author of the source; its context; the
agenda behind its creation; the knowledge which informed it; and its intended purpose, among others.
For example, Japanese reports and declarations during the period of the war should not be taken as a
historical fact hastily. Internal criticism entails that the historian acknowledge and analyze how such
reports can be manipulated to be used as war propaganda. Validating historical sources is important
because the use of unverified, falsified, and untruthful historical sources can lead to equally false
conclusions. Without thorough criticisms of historical evidences, historical deceptions and lies will be
highly probable.

One of the most scandalous cases of deception in Philippine history is the hoax Code of Kalantiaw.
The code was a set of rules contained in an epic, Maragtas, which was allegedly written by a certain
Datu Kalantiaw. The document was sold to the National Library and was regarded as an important pre-
colonial document until 1968, when American historian William Henry Scott debunked the authenticity
of the code due to anachronism and lack of evidence to prove that the code existed in the pre-colonial
Philippine society. Ferdinand Marcos also claimed that he was a decorated World War II soldier who
led a guerilla unit called Ang Maharlika. This was widely believed by students of history and Marcos
had war medals to show. This claim, however, was disproven when historians counterchecked Marcos’
claims with the war records of the United States. These cases prove how deceptions can propagate
without rigorous historical research.

The task of the historian is to look at the available historical sources and select the most relevant and
meaningful for history and for the subject matter that he is studying. History, like other academic
discipline, has come a long way but still has a lot of remaining tasks to do. It does not claim to render
absolute and exact judgment because as long as questions are continuously asked, and as long as
time unfolds, the study of history can never be complete. The task of the historian is to organize the
past that is being created so that it can offer lessons for nations, societies, and civilization. It is the
historian’s job to seek for the meaning of recovering the past to let the people see the continuing
relevance of provenance, memory, remembering and historical understanding for both the present and
the future.

Readings in Philippine History-Ms. Eloisa May D. Reyes

References
Carr, E. (1991). What Is History. London, United Kingdom: Penguin.
Lemon, M. (1995). The Discipline of History and the History of Thought. New York, United States of
America: Routledge.
Tosh, J. (2002). The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern
History (Revised 3rd Ed.). London, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Ltd.

Readings in Philippine History-Ms. Eloisa May D. Reyes