Chapter 1: Meaning and Relevance of History PDF

Chapter 1: Meaning and Relevance of History Chapter 1: Meaning and Relevance of History A. Meaning and Relevance of History B. Distinction of Primary and Secondary Sources; External and Internal Criticism  A. Meaning and Relevance of History  History Traditional Unde...

Chapter 1: Meaning and Relevance of History Chapter 1: Meaning and Relevance of History A. Meaning and Relevance of History B. Distinction of Primary and Secondary Sources; External and Internal Criticism  A. Meaning and Relevance of History  History Traditional Understanding: Study of the past Chronological record of significant events often including an explanation of their causes Modern Understanding: Came from Greek word “Historia” that means “Knowledge acquired through inquiry or investigation” Sources are oral traditions in forms of epics, songs, artifacts, architecture, memory etc. “Ang kasaysayan ay SALAYSAY na may SAYSAY sa SINASALAYSAYANG SALINGLAHI.” -Zeus Salazar “Pantayong Pananaw” (Salazar, 1974) Divisions of History 1. Pre-History period where no written records exist or when the writings of people were not preserved analyzed through fossils and artifacts by Archaeologists and Anthropologists 2. History period when man started to write and record events using a system of writing analyzed through wood carves, engraved metals, written papyrus, written papers It is studied by “Historians” Role of Historians To look at the available sources and select the most relevant for history and subject of study To organize the past that is being created To seek for the meaning of recovering the past to let the people see the continuing relevance of memories (Historical Understanding)  History as a “Social Science” SCIENCE NATURAL SOCIAL -HISTORY -ECONOMICS -POLITICAL PHYSICAL BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE -Physics -Zoology -SOCIOLOGY -ANTHROPOLOGY -Chemistry -Botany -PHILOSOPHY -GEOGRAPHY -PSYCHOLOGY Historiography “Writing of history” (Historical Writing) Based on critical examination of sources, selection of particular details from authentic materials in those sources and the synthesis of those details into a narrative Done through “Historical Research” with the aid of “Historical Methodology” 1. Choosing a topic. 2. Looking for data through Historical sources. 3. Determining the data as a Primary or Secondary source. 4. Analyze the data through historical criticisms. 5. Writing the entire narrative. Importance of History To unite a nation To legitimize regime and forge a sense of collective identity through collective memory To make sense of the present To not repeat mistakes of the past To inspire people to keep their good practices to move forward  Historical Timeframe of the Philippines 9000 BCE or 7000 BCE 21st Century Pre-historic era Spanish era American era Contemporary era – present Japanese era  B. Distinction of Primary and Secondary Sources; External and Internal Criticism Historical Sources 1. Primary Sources Produced at the same time as the event being studied (Contemporary Accounts) Include documents or artifacts created by a witness or participant of the event “Firsthand testimony,” “Eyewitness accounts” It may include diaries, letters, interviews, photographs, newspapers Primary sources *Written Sources *Unwritten sources 6 Points of inquiries to evaluate Primary sources (Garraghan, 1950): 1. Date- When was it produced? 2. Localization- Where did it originate? 3. Authorship- Who wrote it? 4. Analysis- What pre-existing material served as the basis for its production? 5. Integrity- What was its original form? 6. Credibility- What is the evidential value of its content? 2. Secondary Sources Produced by authors who used and interpreted primary sources Analyzed a scholarly question and often use primary source as evidence Include books, theses, dissertations, journals, magazines, knowledge of historians Written few years after the exact time of the event Primary Source A Equals: Primary COMPARISON Secondary Source B Source Primary Source C Secondary sources Drill: Identify whether Primary or Secondary Source 1. “Batas Militar: Martial Law Under President Ferdinand E. Marcos Full Documentary” 2. “La Revolucion Filipina” of Apolinario Mabini 3. National Historical Commission of the Philippines YouTube Channel 4. Historical Data Papers from National Library of the Philippines 5. “War Memoirs of Jose P. Laurel” by Jose P. Laurel 6. “Brains of the Nation” by Resil B. Mojares 7. “A Question of Heroes” by Nick Joaquin 8. “Anting-anting ni Manuel Quezon” at National Museum of the Philippines- Museum of Anthropology 9. “Veneration Without Understanding” by Renato Constantino 10. Homo luzonensis ecofacts (fossils) unearthed by UP Archaeological Studies Program Primary and Secondary sources should be evaluated its validity and credibility by asking these questions: 1. How did the author know about the given details? Was the author present at the event? 2. Where did the information come from? Is it a personal experience, an eyewitness account etc.? 3. Did the author conclude based on a single or multiple source? In terms of historical reliability, Primary source: The closer the date of creation, the more reliable one. Secondary source: The more recent, the more reliable one. Historical Criticism 1. External Criticism Verification of authenticity by examining physical characteristics; consistency with the historical characteristics of the time when it was produced, and materials used.  We can ask the following questions: -when it was written? -where it was written? -who was the author? -why did it survive? -what were the materials used? -where the words used were being used those times? 2. 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 It looks at the content of the source and examines the circumstance of its production  We can ask the following questions: -was it written by eyewitness or not? -why was it written? -is there consistency? -what are the connotations? -what is the literal meaning? -what is the meaning of the context? 7 factors in evaluating through Internal Criticism (Howell and Prevenier, 2001): 1. Genealogy of the document 2. Genesis of the document 3. Originality of the document 4. Interpretation of the document 5. Authorial authority of the document 6. Competence of the observer 7. Trustworthiness of the observer Rizal did not write “Sa Aking Mga Kabata”  Roman Roque; “Forger of Philippine History”  Jose Marco; “Greatest Con Man of Philippine History” William Henry Scott’s findings: The alleged writer Fr. Jose Ma. Pavon was not in the Philippines in 1838 or 1839. The alleged writer dedicated the book (that contains the code) to King of Spain in 1838, but Spain did not have a king between 1833-1974. The writer mentioned that there were microbes in the month of November in the country (1838) but the term “microbes” was first used in 1878. Suggested readings for Chapter 1: Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method (1969) by Louis Gottschalk (pp. 41- 61, 117-170) From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (2001) by Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier (pp. 17-68) “Our misfortunes are our own fault, let us blame nobody else for them. But as long as the Filipino people do not have sufficient vigour to proclaim, head held high and chest bared, their right to a life their own in human society and to guarantee it with their sacrifices, with their very blood if necessary. Why give them independence? What is the use of independence if the slaves of today, will become the tyrants of tomorrow? And no doubt they will, because whoever submits to tyranny, loves it!” -Padre Florentino (El Filibusterismo, 1891)  Thank you! Yosef Eric C. Hipolito, LPT, MA Bachelor of Arts in History [email protected]