GEC 3 Readings in Philippine History

Lesson 3. History and the Historian

Jusserand (n.d.) states that 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 evidence.
Therefore, it is the historian's job not just to seek historical evidence 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, according to McCullagh (2020), 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 evidence in writing history (Larena, 2018).
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.

Annales School of History

The school of history born in France that challenged
the canons of history. This school of thought did away 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
of 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
GEC 3 Readings in Philippine History

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.

Lesson 4: Historical Sources

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. The 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 of 1935, his primary sources can include the
minutes of the convention, newspaper clippings, Philippine Commission report 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. Archival
documents, artifacts, memorabilia, letters, census and government records, among others are the most
common example of primary sources.
Primary sources are also considered as contemporary accounts of an event, personally written or
narrated by an individual person who directly experienced or participated in the said event. Aside from
eyewitness testimonies, primary sources also include materials that capture the events such as photographs,
voice and video recordings, and the like. These materials are considered original sources that directly
narrate the details of the event.
The Secondary sources are those sources, which were produces 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 Philippines Revolution of 1896, students can
read Teodoro Agoncillo’s Revolt of the Masses: The story of Bonifacio and Katipunan published originally
in 1956.The Philippine Revolution happened in the last years of the nineteenth century while Agoncillo’s
published his work in 1956, which make 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 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 source but on the subject of the historical sources.
Therefore, primary and secondary sources should be evaluated. Most scholars use the following
questions in evaluating the validity and credibility of sources of historical accounts:
1. How did the author know about the given details? Was the author present at the event?
How soon was the author able to gather the details of the event?
2. Where did the information come from? Is it a personal experience, an eyewitness account,
or a report made by another person?
3. Did the author conclude based on a single source, or on many sources of evidence?
GEC 3 Readings in Philippine History

Historians and students of history need to thoroughly scrutinize these historical sources to avoid
deception and to come up with historical truth. The historians 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 characteristics of the time when it was produced; and the materials used for
evidence. Examples of the things that will be 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, in the examination of the truthfulness and factuality of the
evidence by looking at the authority of the source, its context, the agenda behind its creation, the knowledge
which informed it, and its intended purpose, among others. 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.