Republic of the Philippines

POLA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Zone II, Pola, Oriental Mindoro

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

BACHELOR IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Subject: READINGS IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY Module 1

Date: October 25-29, 2021 Instructor: Juan Miguel D. Sarabia

I. TOPIC – Introduction to History: Definition, Issues, Sources, and Methodology

II. TARGET LEARNING OUTCOMES:

After completing this module the students should be able to:

a. Understand the meaning of history as an academic discipline and to be familiar with the underlying
philosophy and methodology of the discipline.
b. Apply the knowledge in historical methodology and philosophy in assessing and analyzing existing
historical narratives
c. Examine and assess critically the value of historical evidences and sources.
d. Appreciate the importance of history in the social and national life of the Philippines.

III. REFERENCES
BOOK

Candelaria, J., Readings in Philippine History. 2018. Rex Book Store (pages 1-12)

ELECTRONIC

Primary vs Secondary Sources – https://youtu.be/cqXH07bTPnw

Readings in Philippine History: Chapter 1- Introduction to History – https://youtu.be/i6ctVvdL3SI

IV. READ ABOUT IT

This chapter introduces history as a discipline as a narrative. It presents the definition of the
history, which transcends the common definition of 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 arbiters of facts and evidences in making his interpretation and forming historical narrative.

INTRODUCTION

1|Module 1 Readings in the Philippine History

 History has always been known as the study of the past. Students of general education often dread
the subject for its notoriety in requiring them 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.

Definition and Subject Matter

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 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 twentieth 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.

History progressed and opened up to the possibility of valid historical sources, which were not limited to
written documents. Like government records, chroniclers’ accounts, or personal letters. Giving premium to
written documents essentially invalidates the history of other civilizations that do not keep written records.
Some were keener on passing their history by the word of mouth. Others got their historical documents
burned or destroyed in the events of war or colonization. Restricting historical evidence as exclusively
written is also discrimination against other social classes who were 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 group who were
not given much thought about being registered to government records? Does the absence or written
documents about them mean that they were people of no history or past? Did they even exist?

This loophole was recognized by historians who started using other kinds of historical sources, which may
not be in written form but were just as valid. A few of these examples are oral traditions in forms of epic and
songs, artifacts, architecture, and memory. History thus became more exclusive 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 that 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 changes that it has undergone. 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

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 each other.
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?). Thus, historiography lets the students have a better
understanding of history. They do not only get to learn historical facts, but they are also provided with the
understanding of the facts’ and the historians’ contexts. The methods employed by the historian and the

2|Module 1 Readings in the Philippine History

theory and perspective, which guided him, will also be analyzed. Historiography is important for someone
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 them.
Being reminded of a great past can inspire people to keep their good practices to move forward.

Positivism is the school of thought that emerged between the eighteenth and nineteenth century. This
thought requires empirical and observable evidence before one can claim that a particular knowledge is
true. Positivism also entails an objective means of arriving at a conclusion. In the discipline of history,
the mantra “no document, no history’ stems from this very same truth, where historians were required to
show written primary documents in order to write a particular historical narrative. Positivist historians are
also expected to be objective and impartial not just in their arguments but also on their conduct of
historical research.

As a narrative, any history that has been taught and written is always intended for a certain group of
audience. When the illustrados, like Jose Rizal, Isabelo de los Reyes, and Pedro Paterno wrote history,
they intended it for the Spaniards so that they would 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 means of undermining the Philippines’ sovereignty, but as a civilizing mission
to fulfill what they called as the “white man’s burden.” The same is true for nations which 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.

Postcolonialism is a school of thought that emerged in the early twentieth century when formerly
colonized nations grappled with the idea of creating their identities and understanding their societies
against the shadows of their colonial past. Postcolonial history looks at two things in writing history: first
is to tell the history of their nation that will highlight their identity free from that of colonial discourse and
knowledge, and second is to criticize the methods, effects, and idea of colonialism. Postcolonial history
is therefore a reaction and an alternative to the colonial history that colonial powers created and taught
to their subjects.

One of the problems 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 the more
dominant player. For instance, the history of the Second World War in the Philippines always depicts the
United States as the hero and the Imperial Japanese Army as the oppressors. Filipinos who 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 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
3|Module 1 Readings in the Philippine History
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 comprises certain techniques and rules that historians follow in
order to properly utilize 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 validate by using reliable evidences and employing correct and meticulous historical methodology.

The Annales School of History is a school of history born in France that challenged the canons of
history. This school of thought did way with the common historical subjects that were almost always
related to the conduct of states and monarchs. Annales scholars like Lucien Febvre, Marc Bloch,
Fernand Braudel, and Jacques Le Goff studied other subjects in a historical manner. They were
concerned with social history and studied longer historical periods. For example, Annales scholars
studied the history of peasantry, the history medicine, or even the history of environment. The history
from below was pioneered by the same scholars. They advocated that the people and classes who
were not reflected in the history of the society in the grand manner be provided with space in the
records of mankind. In doing this, Annales thinkers married history with other disciplines like geography,
anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics.

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 maintains his rigor as a
researcher.

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 U.S. 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 be used as primary sources. The same goes with other

4|Module 1 Readings in the Philippine History

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 nineteenth 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 a primary or 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 a secondary source, a tertiary source even. However, this
classification is usual 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 and 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. Examples of the
things that will examined when conducting external criticism of a document include 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 used of
unverified, falsified, and untruthful historical sources can lead to equally false conclusions. Without through
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 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.

5|Module 1 Readings in the Philippine History

This claim however, was disproven when historians counterchecked Marcos’s 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.

Philippine historiography underwent several changes since the pre-colonial period until the present.
Ancient Filipinos narrated their history through communal songs and epics that they passed orally from
a generation to another. When the Spaniards came, their chroniclers started recording their
observations through written accounts. The perspective of historical writing and inquiry also shifted. The
Spanish colonizers narrated the history of their colony in a bipartite view. They saw the age before
colonization as a dark period in the history of the islands, until they brought light through Western
thought and Christianity. Early nationalists refuted this perspective and argued the tripartite view. They
saw the pre-colonial society as a luminous age that ended with darkness when the colonizers captured
their freedom. They believed that the light would come again once the colonizers were evicted from the
Philippines. Filipino historian Zeus Salazar introduced the new guiding philosophy for writing and
teaching history: pantayog pananaw (for us-from us perspective). This perspective highlights the
importance of facilitating an internal conversation and discourse among Filipinos about our own history,
using the language that is understood by everyone.

6|Module 1 Readings in the Philippine History

 NAME: DATE:
COURSE/ YEAR: SCORE:

IV.WRAP-UP

ACTIVITY 1
Directions: Using the examples of a primary source in this module, bring a primary source that can be used in the
writing of your life story. Choose between a 2-minute video or an essay and discuss how it qualifies as a primary
source.

7|Module 1 Readings in the Philippine History

 V. Evaluation Tool
Outputs will be evaluated using the rubric below.

NEEDS
VERY GOOD GOOD POOR
IMPROVEMT

INTRODUTION Define the Problem Introductory Introduction does Introduction

Background Well-developed paragraph contains not adequately was not
introductory some background explain the presented. (0
paragraph contains information and background of the points)
detailed background states the problem, problem. The
information, a clear but does not explain problem is stated,
explanation or using details. (4 but lacks detail. (2
definition of the points) points)
problem. (5 points)

BODY Main Argument is well Argument was Argument was Argument was
PARAGRAPHS developed with presented with presented but lacks not presented.
supporting examples. some supporting examples. (2 (0 points)
(5 points) examples. (4 points)
points)

CONCLUSION Conclusion was Conclusion was Conclusion was Conclusion

presented. Opinions presented. Some presented but no was not
and suggestions for suggestions for suggestions for presented.
change are logical change are evident. change and/or
and well thought out. (4 points) opinions are (0 points)
(5 points) included.

(2 points)

8|Module 1 Readings in the Philippine History

 NAME: DATE:
COURSE/ YEAR: SCORE:

V.BOOST UP YOUR LEARNING

A. DIRECTIONS: Please read and answer each item carefully. Read the directions first before answering
each questions. Failure to follow will result in point reduction. Write TRUE if the statement is correct. If
false, underline the word(s) that makes the statement wrong and write the correct answer.

________1. History is the study of the past.

________2. The historians are the only source of history.
________3. There are three types of sources: primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.
________4. History is limited to the story of a hero versus a villain.
________5. The subject of historiography is history itself.
________6. Internal criticism is done by looking at a source’s quality paper and type of ink, among others.
________7. Historical sources that were not written should not be use in writing history.
________8. History has no use for the present, thus, the saying “past is past” is true.
________9. Only primary sources may be used in writing history.
_______10. External criticism is done by examining the physical characteristics of a source.
_______11-12 History was derived from the Latin word historia which means “knowledge acquired through
experienced”
________13. Traditional historians lived with mantra of “no document, no history.”
________14. The study of history remains scientific because of the rigor of research and methodology that
historians employ.
________15. Secondary sources are those sources produced at the same time as the event, period, or
subject being studied.

REMINDER

You have now reached the end of Module 1. Before the submission, make sure you have
completed the activities and assessment.

9|Module 1 Readings in the Philippine History