Readings in Philippine History PDF 2020-2021

Page |1 Topic 1, GE 2 Readings in Philippine History 1st Semester, SY 2020-2021 Course Description The course aims to expose students to different facets of Philippine History through the lens of eyewit...

Page |1 Topic 1, GE 2 Readings in Philippine History 1st Semester, SY 2020-2021 Course Description The course aims to expose students to different facets of Philippine History through the lens of eyewitnesses. Rather than rely on the secondary materials such as textbooks, which is the usual approach in Philippine History, different types of primary sources will be used – written (qualitative & quantitative), orall, visual, audio-visual, digital – covering various aspects of Philippine life(political, economic, cultural). Students are expected to analyze the selected readings contextually and in terms of content(stated and implied). The end goal is to enable students to understand and appreciate our rich past by deriving insights from those who were actually present at the time of the event. Learning Objectives: 1. Understand the meaning of history as an academic discipline and to be familiar with the underlying philosophy and methodology of the discipline. 2. Apply the knowledge in historical methodology and philosophy in assessing and analyzing existing historical narratives, 3. Examine and assess critically the value of historical evidences and sources. 4. Read a sample of a primary source. Topic 1 introduces history as a discipline and as a narrative. It presents the definition of History, which transcends its common definition as the study of the past. It 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 topic also tackles the task of the historian as the arbiter of facts and evidences in making his interpretation and forming historical narrative. Definition and Subject Matter 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 understaning of history’s relevance to their lives and to their respective contexts. While the popular definition as the study of the past is not wrong; it does not give  Page |2 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 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 written documents, like government reports, 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 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 groups who were not given much thought about being registered to government records? Does the absence of 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 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 that were formerly ignored in history because of lack of documents. Linguists can  Page |3 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 anayzing 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 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 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 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 be used to make sense of the present. Learning of past mistakes can help people to not repeat them. 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 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 a means of  Page |4 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 version of their history like North Korea, the Nazi Germany during the war period, and Thailand. The was attempted by Marcos in the Philippines during the 1970s. 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 of 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. Relevant Schools of Thought Positivism is the school of thought that emerged between the 18th and 19th 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 objected and impartial not just in their arguments but also on their conduct of historical research. Postcolonialism is a school of thought that emerged in the early 20th 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. 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 disciple? If it is not,is it still worthwhile to study history? These questions have haunted  Page |5 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 the past directly as our subject matter. Historians only get 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 of 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 th 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 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  Page |6 blind his judgment and such bias is only acceptable if he maintains his rigor as a researcher. The Annales School of History is a 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 advocateed that the people and classes who were not reflected in 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. 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 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 memoir can also be used as primary sources. The same goes with 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  Page |7 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 source 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 a secondary source, a tertiary source even. However, this classification is usual but 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 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 be examined when coonducting external criticism of a document include the quality of the paper, the 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  Page |8 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 precolonal 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 precolonial 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’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 undertanding for both the present and the future. Sample of a Primary Source Reproduction of Andres Bonifacio’s Letter to Emilio Jacinto News was also received here last month that you had been killed by the Carabineers because it was said, you had given a bad order; but as this news came from Imus, I did not believe it and I treated it as one of the usual duplicities of these people. As to the collection of money, I believe we need not beg, but should solicit or take it from whoever is wealthy. Brother Don Nakpil wrote me, asking whether the money collected by him, almost four hundred pesos or so, should be given to Mamerto Natividad. Do not allow this to happen, because that man is not sincere in his friendship with us, and he is very close to the Magdalo people.  Page |9 A piece of sickening news I can tell you is the treachery committed by the chiefs of the Magdalo Council who have applied for pardon or gone over to the Spaniards. These are Daniel Tirona, Minister of War; Jose del Rosario, Minister of the Interior; Jose Caillies, Lieutenant- General, and nearly all the Tanza people, even the parish priest there, the whole lot of them henchmen or partisans of Capitan Emilio. For this reason, many people strongly suspect that they strive so hard to get control of the Government in order to surrender the whole Revolution. Last week I ordered our soldiers our soldiers to tie up another of the Ministers of Capitan Emilio because he was caught as he was about to escape with two Spanish prisoners and a lady. One of these Spaniards told the truth, that they were going to escape. He [the Minister] was tried by a Council of War, but the outcome, as usually happens here, was that everybody covered up for each other, or favoritism. However, the record of the case against the minister mentioned, Don Cayetnao Topacio, remains in my possession, as does that against the Spaniards. This is one of the reasons why we desire to leave here, because our life is in danger not only from the Spanish enemy, but still more so from the leaders here most of whom have wicked intentions. We have taken away everything: the printing press, the necessary books, the big map, and the tools for making cartridges. The spoons you sent for the brother and sisters of Dimas could not be given to them because they have already left in the direction of Silangan (Laguna). We have sent for your mother, who is now in Maragondon, and we are still waiting for her. Receive the close embrace that I send you from here. Limbon, April 24, 1897 The President of the Sovereign Nation And. Bonifacio Maypagasa End Graded Paper Works: 1. Enumerate the two types of historical source/document. Give at least five(5) examples of each source. 2.Do you consider the letter of Andres Bonifacio an eyewitness account or a firsthand account of the Philippine Revolution? Explain your answer. (to understand better the context of the said letter, dated April 24,1897, it is strongly suggested that you must read Philippine history textbooks or references that focused on the 1896 Uprising.) Intructions: Answer the question above in an a brief essay form. Submit your paper via email. Its page layout must be the size of a  P a g e | 10 short bond paper, font size is 12, font style is courier new, its spacing must 1.5, and must be paginated. Thank you. Sources: Alporha, Veronica C., Candelaria, John Lee P. 2018. Readings in Philippine History. Manila, Philippines: Rex Bookstore, Inc. Camagay, Maria Luisa T, et. al. 2018. Unraveling the Past: Readings In Philippine History. Manila, Cebu, Davao: Vibal Group, Inc. Prepared by: Mr. Sarreal D. Soquiño College Instructor in Social Science Courses College of Arts and Sciences Filamer Christian University Roxas City Capiz 1st Semester, SY 2020-2020 Contact: [email protected] 0945-1249132