CHAPTER 1

MEANING AND RELEVANCE OF HISTORY

Prologue

Why study history? A student of Philippine History may ask this fundamental question for two reasons. First
is to determine a sense of direction or purpose and second is to justify the need to learn the subject matter
because any course of study needs justification.

The past aids an individual in understanding who he is. Collectively, the past helps a nation understand its
realities. In the 21st century, individuals are so much concerned about defining themselves on where they
are going instead of where they come from. They perceive the past to be irrelevant and outdated. They are
indifferent of the past as they are blinded with the rapid changes experienced in the modern society. They
put less value to the lessons of history and they underestimate its power in changing individual and collective
lives. In other words, they fail listening to what history has to say, thus, impeding their sound understanding
of the past which supposedly tells much about the problems in their present and future society.

In this context, knowing the meaning and relevance of history is essential and compelling in this generation.
The millennials need to believe that history matters. They need to understand that history has its value and
significance. Fundamentally, however they must show interest and willingness to learn history as this is an
essential requirement in the course. As David Crabtree remarked, “The past speaks in a voice audible to
those who want to hear and listen attentively.”

Learning Outcomes:
 Analyze the meaning and relevance of history in national development
 Appraise the process of historical inquiry as well as sources and discourses in the Philippines
 Evaluate primary sources for their credibility, authenticity and provenance

Readings and Sources:

Gottschalk, L. (1969). What are “History” and “Historical Sources”? in Understanding history: A primer of
historical method. New York: A.A. Knopf.

Gottschalk, L. (1969). Excerpts from “The problem of authenticity (external criticism) and the problem of
credibility (internal criticism) in understanding history: A primer of historical method. New York: A.A.
Knopf.

Schumacher, J. N. (1991). Excerpts from “The Historian’s Task in the Philippines” in The Making of a
Nation: Essays on Nineteenth-century Filipino Nationalism, Ateneo University Press, 7-15

Introduction
What is history and how is it written? The word history means differently to various people including among
scholars and historians themselves. In all definitions however, everyone is one I saying that history relies on
evidence which is the backbone upon which history stands. History rest on the diligent research and by
careful inquiry, historians could reconstruct the past and write them down in some form, so that we today
can read their accounts, and at least know how these events appeared to men of the time (Barrows, 1905).
Indeed, facts constitute the “heart” of every historical writing. They are collected from various sources and
carefully investigated and written by a historian. The scientific investigation of these facts proves that history
is not merely a collection of “dead” facts or data from events but an intellectually rigorous activity for
searching for truth about the past.

History deals with the study of past events. Individuals who write about history are called historians. They
seek to understand the present by examining what went before. They undertake arduous historical research
to come up with a meaningful and organized reconstruction of the past. But whose past are we talking about?
This is a basic question that a historian needs to answer because this sets the purpose and framework of a
historical account. Hence, a salient feature of historical writing is the facility to give meaning and impart
value to a particular group of people about their past. The practice of historical writing is called
historiography. Traditional method in doing historical research focuses on gathering of documents from
different libraries and archives to form a pool of evidence needed in making a descriptive or analytical
narrative. However, modern historical writing does not only include examination of documents but also the
use of research methods from related areas study such as archaeology and geography.

Learning Objectives:

By the end of this lesson, the student will be able to:

1. Define history
2. Differentiate history from historiography
3. Restate the sources of history
4. Analyze how historians write a history
5. Recall some Filipino historians and their contributions to historiography
Sources of History
Basic to historical research is utilization of sources. There are diverse sources of history
including documentary sources or documents, archaeological records, and oral and video accounts.
To date, most of our historical sources are documents. These refer to handwritten, printed, drawn,
designed, and other composed materials. These include books, newspapers, magazines, journals,
maps, architectural perspectives, paintings, advertisements, and photographs. Colonial records
such as government reports and legal documents form a significant part of our collection of
documents here and abroad, particularly in Spain and the United States. In the 20th century and up
to now, memoirs or personal accounts written by important historical personages constitute another
type of documents. Philippine presidents such as Emilio Aguinaldo, Manuel Quezon, and
Diosdado Macapagal wrote their memoirs to highlight their roles as nation-builders.
On the other hand, archaeological records refer to preserved remains of human beings, their
activities, and the environment where they lived. In the Philippines, the most significant excavated
human remains include the Callao Man’s toe bone (dated 67 000 BCE) and the Tabon Man’s
skullcap (22 000 BCE). Aside from human remains, other archaeological records are generally
categorized as fossils and artifacts. Fossils are remains of animals, plants, and other organisms
from the distant past, while artifacts are remnants of material culture developed by human beings.
These include clothing, farm implements, jewelry, pottery and stone tools.
Oral and video accounts form the third kind of historical source. These are audio-visual
documentation of people, events, and places. These are usually recorded in video and audio
cassettes, and compact discs. Aside from scholars, media people also use oral and video accounts
as part of their news and public affairs work.

Doctrina Christiana, the first published work

Primary and Secondary Sources
There are two general kinds of historical sources: primary and secondary. Primary
Sources refer to documents, physical objects, and oral/video accounts made by an individual or a
group present at the time and place being described. These materials provide facts from people
who actually witnessed the event. Secondary sources, on the other hand, are materials made by
people long after the events being described had taken place.
Most historical narratives today are so reliant on documentary sources due to the plethora
of written records and the lack of archaeological records and oral/video memoirs. Although having
several documents about an event allows for easier counterchecking of facts history researchers
are confronted with one basic challenge with regard primary sources- their ability to read and
understand texts in foreign languages.
 Many of our untapped archival documents here and abroad are written in Spanish. A good
knowledge of Spanish is a huge advantage. But this skill is unusual among today’s historians who
prefer to read translations of Spanish texts such as the 55-volume. The Philippine Islands, 1493-
1898 (1903-1909) edited by Emma Blair and James Robertson, which is the most cited collection
of primary sources about the Philippines before the advent of the American colonial regime. The
collection includes translations of portions of 16th- century chronicles such as Antonio Pigafetta’s
Primo Viaggio intorno al mundo (1524), Miguel Loarca’s Relacion de las Yslas Filipinas (1582),
and Juan de Plasencia’s Relacion de las Islas Pilipinas (1592).
Filipino historians, such as the father-daughter tandem of Gregorio Zaide and Sonio Zaide,
have also compiled and translated colonial documents. They published the 10- volume
Documentary Sources of Philippine History (1994).
Aside from reading the Spanish originals documents or translated words, another daunting
task for Filipino historians is to discern the cultural context and historical value of primary sources
because most of these primary documents were written by colonialists and reflected Western
cultural frames. For examples, derogatory terms used to Label Filipinos such as “pagan,”
“uncivilized,” “wild,” and “savage” abound in these colonial documents. Uncovering myths and
misconceptions about Filipino cultural identity propagated by the Spanish and American
colonizers is extra challenging for contemporary Filipino scholars.
If the key function of primary source documents is to give facts, secondary source
documents, on the other hand, provide valuable interpretations of historical events. The works of
eminent historians such as Teodoro Agoncillo and Renato Constantino are good examples of
secondary sources. In his interpretation of the Philippine Revolution, Agoncillo divided the
revolution into two phases: the first phase covers the years from the start of the revolution in
August 1896 to the flight of Emilio Aguinaldo and company to Hong Kong as a result of the Pact
of Biak-na-Bato, while the second phase spans from Aguinaldo’s return to Manila from Hong
Kong until his surrender to the Americans in March 1901.
However, Constantino refuted Agoncillo’s leader-centric scheme of dividing the revolution
into two phases by stressing that Agoncillo’s viewpoint implied that the revolution came to a halt
when Aguinaldo left the country. Constantino disputed the soundness of Agoncillo’s two-phase
scheme by asserting that the war of independence continued even without Aguinaldo’s presence
in the country.
Aside from the issue on Philippine Revolution, there are other contending issues in
Philippine history such as the venue of the first Christian mass in the country and the question of
who deserves to be named national hero. By and large, interpretations serve as tools of discernment
for readers of historical sources, but they should be cautious of frames of analysis used for biased,
discriminatory, and self-serving ends.
Historical Criticism
Many documents have primary and secondary segments. For instance, examining a
newspaper as a historical source entails a discerning mind to identify its primary and secondary
components. A news item written by a witness of an event is considered as a primary source, while
a feature article is usually considered as a secondary material. Similarly, a book published a long
time ago does not necessarily render it as a primary source. It requires a meticulous reading of the
document to know its origin.
To ascertain the authenticity and reliability of primary sources to be used in crafting a
narrative, a historian needs to employ two levels of historical criticism, namely, external criticism
and internal criticism. External criticism answers concern and questions pertinent to the
authenticity of a historical source by identifying that composed the historical material, locating
when and where the historical material was produced, and establishing the material’s evidential
value.
Internal criticism, on the other hand, deals with the credibility and reliability of the
content of a given historical source. This kind of criticism focuses on understanding the substance
and message that the historical materials wants to convey by examining how the author frame the
intent and meaning of a composed material.
Locating Primary Sources
There are substantial primary sources about the Philippines here and abroad. In the country,
government institutions such as the National Library and the National Archives are major
repositories of documentary sources.
The National Library has complete microfilm copies of the Philippine Revolutionary
Records (1896-1901), a compilation of captured documents of Emilio Aguinaldo’s revolutionary
government, and Historical Data Papers (1952-1953), a collection of “history and cultural life” of
all towns in the country spearheaded by public school teachers during President Elpidio Quirino’s
term. The Manuscript’s Section of the National Library’s Filipiniana Division contains the
presidential papers of different administrations from Manuel Quezon to Joseph Ejercito. Search aids
such as the “Checklist of Rare Filipiniana Serials (1811-1914),” “Filipiniana Serials in Microfilm,”
and several registers of Philippine presidential papers are provided for faster and easier way to
look for historical materials.
The National Archives, on the other hand, holds a substantial collection of catalogued and
uncatalogued Spanish documents about the Philippines composed from 1552 to 1900. These
consist of 432 document categories such as Administration Central de Rentas y Propiedades
(Central Administration of Rentals and Properties), Administration de Hacienda Publica
(Administration of Public Finance), Aduana de Manila (Customs Office of Manila), Almacenes
Generales (General Stores), Asuntos Criminales (Criminal matters), Ayuntamiento de Manila
(Town Council of Manila), Colera (Cholera), Padron General de Chinos (General register of
Chinese), and Presos (Prisoners). For local historians, valuable materials from the National
Archives include Cabezas de Barangay (Heads of Barangay), Ereccion de los Pueblos
(Establishment of Towns), Guia Oficial (Official Guide), and Memorias (Official Reports of
Provincial Governors), Aside from Spanish sources, the National Archives is also the repository
of 20th-century documents such as civil records, notarial documents, and Japanese wartime crime
records. There are also some sources written in Tagalog such as the documents pertinent to
Apolinario de la Cruz, the leader of the Coonfradia de San Jose in the 19th century.
Academic institutions such as the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Ateneo de
Manila University in Quezon City, University of Santos Tomas in Manila, Silliman University in
Dumaguete City, and University of San Carlos in Cebu City have also substantial library and
archival holdings. The Media Services Section of the UP Main Library has microfilm copies of
Philippine Radical Papers, a compilation of documents relevant to the Partido Komunista ng
Pilipinas (PKP) and its allied organizations as well a People’s Court Proceedings, a collection of
court proceedings against Filipino leaders who corporate with the Japanese during their short-lived
occupation. The Ateneo de Manila’s Rizal Library houses the American Historical Collection that
consists of vital documents relevant to the American experience such as the Reports of the
Philippine Commission (1901-1909), Annual Reports of the Governors-General of the Philippine
Islands (1916-1935), and records of the Philippine legislature from 1907 to 1934.
Privately owned museums and archives, such as the Ayala Museum in Makati and Lopez
Museum in Pasig City, have also considerable historical resources. Religious congregations such
as the Augustinians, Dominicans, Jesuits, and Recollects also have extensive archival holdings
that remain untapped.
Outside the Philippines, there are several documents about the country found in Spain and
the United States. The bulk of Spanish documents are found at the Archivo General de Indias in
Sevilla, Spain. Important American sources are available at the Manuscript Division of the United
States Library of Congress, Harvard University’s Houghton Library, United States National
Archives, and the University of Michigan’s Bentley Historical Library.
In this age of Internet, there are open access online archives on Filipino history and culture,
such as the extensive digital Filipiniana collection of the University of Michigan, which consists
of manuscripts and photographs of the early part of 20th century Philippines. Another rich online
source of primary documents is the University of Illinois at Chicago Field Museum. It houses the
extensive photographic collection of Dean Worcester, the secretary of Interior of the American
colonial government in the country from 1901 to 1913.
Colonial Historiography
Philippine historiography has changed significantly since the 20th century. For a long time,
Spanish colonizers presented our history in two parts: a period of darkness or backwardness before
they arrived and a consequent period of advancement or enlightenment when they came. Spanish
chroniclers wrote a lot about the Philippines but their historical accounts emphasized the primacy
of colonization to liberate Filipinos from their backward “barbaric” life ways In the same manner,
American colonial writers also shared the same worldview of their predecessors by rationalizing
their colonization of Filipinos as a way to teach the natives of the “civilized lifestyle” which they
said the Spaniards forgot to impart including personal hygiene and public administration. Colonial
narratives have portrayed Filipinos as a people bereft of an advanced culture and a respectable
history. This perception challenged Filipino intellectuals beginning in the 1800s to rectify such
cultural bias or prejudice. In 1890, Jose Rizal came out with an annotation
of Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas (Events in the Philippine Islands), a book
originally published in 1609. He used de Morga’s book, a rare Spanish publication that positively
viewed precolonial Filipino culture, as a retort to the arrogant Spaniards. However, cultural bias
against Filipino culture continued even after Rizal’s death and the end of Spanish colonialism.

Jose Rizal Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas

Learning from the fate of its colonial predecessor, the United States did not only use brute
force but also affected ingenious ways of pacification such as the use of education as a tool to
control their subjects and increase political and economic power of the elite few. These colonial
instruments were so ingrained among Filipinos that they perceived their colonial past in two ways:
initially maltreated by “wicked Spain” but later rescued by “benevolent America.” This kind of
historical consciousness has effectively erased from the memories of Filipino generations the
bloody Philippine-American War as exemplified by the Balangiga Massacre in Eastern Samar and
the Battle of Bud Bagsak in Sulu. Consequently, such perception breathes new life to the two-part
view of history: a period of darkness before the advent of the United States and an era of
enlightenment during the American colonial administration. This view has resonated with Filipino
scholars even after the Americans granted our independence in 1946.
Philippine Historiography after World War II
The stark reality of Filipino historians thinking like their colonial counterpart’s during the
postcolonial period troubled a small group of professors and cultural workers who were mostly
alumni of the University of the Philippines. This spurred the emergence of Filipino scholars who
challenged the narrow view of colonial narratives and developed historical writing from the
viewpoint of a nationalist agenda.
In the 1950s, Teodoro Agoncillo pioneered nationalist historiography in the country by
highlighting the role of the Filipino reformists and revolutionaries from 1872, the year that saw the
execution of the Gomburza priests, to the end of the Philippine Revolution as the focal point of the
country’s nation-building narrative. Two of his most celebrated books focus on the impact
 of the Philippine Revolution: The Revolt of the Masses: The
story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan (1956) and Malolos:
The Crisis of the Republic (1960). His writings veered away
from emphasizing Spanish colonial period and regarded
events before 1872 as part of the country’s “lost history.”
This discourse of “lost history” was not accepted by another
known scholar, Renato Constantino, whose published
work entitled “The Miseducation of the Filipino” became a
staple reading for academics and activists beginning in
Teodoro Agoncillo the late1960s. Constantino advanced the idea of a
“people’s history” – a study of the past that sought to
analyze society by searching out people’s voices from colonial historical
materials that typically rendered Filipinos as decadent, inept and vile.
Following this mode of historical inquiry, he authored The Philippines:
A Past Revisited (1975), a college textbook that offered a more critical
reading of Philippine history compared to Agoncillo’s History of the
Renato Constantino
Filipino People (1973). Undoubtedly, these two nationalist scholars
inspired or challenged other historians to reevaluate the country’s
national history.
Three other Filipino historians set new directions in redefining Philippine historiography
in the last 30 years of the 20th century. The first of these scholars is Zeus Salazar who
conceptualized “Pantayong Pananaw” as an approach to understanding the past from our own
cultural frame and language. He emphasized the value of our Austronesian roots to defining
Filipino culture and encouraged other scholars to conduct outstanding historical researches in
Filipino such as the work of Jaime Veneracion’s Kasaysayan ng
Bulacan (1986).

Zeus Salazar
Reynaldo Ileto

Equally important is the contribution of Reynaldo Ileto who

wrote about his “history from below” treatise in his ground-
breaking work, Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in
the Philippines, 1840-1910 (1979). In this work, Ileto endeavored
to recognize the way of thinking of ordinary folks by using alternative
historical sources such as folk songs and prayers. His other works
spurred new interpretations of common topics such as Jose Rizal,
Philippine-American War, and American colonization.
 There is Samuel Tan, another prolific historian who is remembered for mainstreaming the
role and relevance of Filipino Muslims in the country’s national history. His definitive work, The
Filipino Muslim Armed Struggle, 1900-1972 (1978), sougth to examine the struggle of Filipino
Muslims in the context of 20th –century nation-building dynamics during the American colonial
regime and subsequent postcolonial Filipino administrations. In
his book, A History of the Philippines (1987), Tan tempted to
write a national history reflective of the historical experiences
not only of lowland Christianized Filipinos but also of the other
different cultural communities in the archipelago.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, there have been
considerable changes in the way historians compose our national
history. However, contemporary Philippine historiography still
continues to be characterized by the dominance of political
narratives, colonial histories, elite-centric perspective, and
patriarchal orientation as well as emphasis on lowland
Christianized Filipinos. Samuel Tan
Political Narratives
Most of our national histories today favor narratives that deal with the political aspects of
nation-building such as the legacies of political leaders and establishment of different government.
Questions such as the following are focal points in these narratives. Who was the first Spanish
governor-general vital in implementing the encomienda policy? Who was the governor-general
responsible for the massive employment of Filipinos in the American colonial bureaucracy? Who
served as the last president of the Philippine Commonwealth and the inaugural chief executive of
the Third Republic? Who was the Philippine president responsible for the declaration of martial
law? The challenge for present-day historians is to present a more holistic history that goes beyond
politics by means of integrating other aspects of nation-building such as its economic and cultural
aspects.
Colonial Histories in Historical Narratives
Another weakness of most national histories is the importance given to colonial histories.
This continues to breed Filipinos who are more familiar with stories about our colonial history
rather than stories of our precolonial past. Up to now, some social studies textbooks misrepresent
ancient Filipinos as savages or barbarians by portraying colonizers, especially the Spaniards and
American, as liberators of the Filipinos from cultural backwardness. The key to uncover such
cultural prejudices is to examine available historical sources and to write about our past by
understanding the myths and misconceptions that characterized the Filipino culture for centuries.
Elite-centric Perspective in Historical Narratives
Some historical narratives focus on the contributions of the elite in nation-building such as
what the Illustrados (educated Filipinos) fought for in the 19th century or how the local politicians
negotiated with their American counterparts to obtain an independence law during the first half of
the 20th century. Though eminent historians such as Constantino and Ileto reiterated the importance
of a “people’s history” and “history from below,” respectively, so much has to be done in terms of
writing about the roles played by ordinary people in our history.
Patriarchal Orientation in Historical Narratives
Most of the country’s historical narratives highlight the heroism of men in different ways:
leading revolts and liberation wars against colonizers, championing the cause of independence,
and spearheading political and economic development. Women, on the other hand, are viewed by
several historians as merely support to men. Let us take for example the women leaders such as
Gabriela Silang, Tandang Sora, and Corazon Aquino. Silang assumed the leadership of the Ilocos
revolt after her husband was murdered in May 1763. Tandang Sora’s decision to offer her barn and
farm to revolutionaries in August 1896 was linked to her son’s involvement in the Katipunan.
Aquino rose to prominence as a martyr’s widow who led a movement to depose a dictatorship in
February 1986. These representations show women’s roles as consequences of their connection to
the men in their lives. With this bias in mind, it is imperative for contemporary historians to use
gender-sensitive approaches in understanding history to avoid typecasting women as dependent,
emotional, less important, passive, submissive, and weak.
Emphasis on Lowland Christianized Filipinos
National histories tend to show partially toward lowland Christianized Filipinos at the
expense of other cultural communities such as Muslim Filipinos and other indigenous peoples such
as the Manobos of Mindanao, Ibalois of Cordillera, and Mangyans of Mindoro. Celebrated figures
of our past are all lowlander Christians and predominantly Tagalogs including Jose Rizal, the
leading propagandist; Andres Bonifacio, the Katipunan founder; Emilio Aguinaldo, the
revolutionary leader who declared independence; and Manuel Quezon, the first president of the
Philippine Commonwealth. Non-Christians and highlanders remain unrecognized in historical
narratives. Muslim Filipinos, in particular, have been subjected to negative characterization by
lowland Christians in published works such as history books. This is caused by the culture of
mistrust that developed between Christians and Muslims during the colonial periods. Muslim
Filipinos are depicted as brutal, cruel, ferocious, and vicious as exemplified by their attacks of
Christian towns. This narrow-minded view has to be reevaluated in order to correct
misrepresentations of Muslim Filipinos in this age of political correctness and cultural sensitivity.
Because of the need to reassess our national histories, many local stories- narratives about
origins and development of a barangay, town, city, province, or an ethnolinguistic community –
have been written in the last three decades. The writing of these stories broadens the scope of our
national history reflective of the roles played by the country’s cultural communities in nation –
building.
Source: Gonzalez, M C, Madrigal, C., San Juan, DM, Ramos, DJ (2014). Chronicles in a changing
world: Witnesses to the history of the Filipino people. Santillan, NM (Chapter): Diwa Learning
Systems Inc: Innovation in Education, Makati.
 Learning Activity: Essay

Name: ________________________ Date: __________________

Course/Year: ___________________ Score: _________________

Instructions: Kindly answer the questions directly and concisely. You give your own personal
definition and insights on the question below. Please be honest in answering. I know if you copy
from website etc. Enjoy reading.
1. What is history? How is it different from historiography?
2. What are the sources of history? Enumerate them.
3. How do historians write history?
4. Who are some of the notable Filipino historians? What are their
contributions to Philippine historiography?

Guided by the rubric below, answer the following questions:

Indicator Descriptor Allotted Points

Completeness All questions are 6
answered.
Quality Each answer is explained 15
well with elaborations and
/or example.
Miscellaneous The worksheet is erasure 4
free- and cleanly
accomplished (offline-
technology). No grammatical
lapses are incurred.