RPHIST UNIT 1 Lesson 1 Meaning and Relevance of History PDF

UNIT I THE MEANING AND RELEVANCE OF HISTORY Learning Objectives: 1. Define and explain history and its significance 2. Evaluate primary sources for their credibility, authenticity and provenance 3. Differentiate pri...

UNIT I THE MEANING AND RELEVANCE OF HISTORY Learning Objectives: 1. Define and explain history and its significance 2. Evaluate primary sources for their credibility, authenticity and provenance 3. Differentiate primary and secondary resources as well as external and internal criticism 4. Identify different kinds of primary sources. This Unit presents the definition and significance of history which transcends the typical definition of history as the study of the past. This Unit will help us realize that history is more than just events, name or even dates. It plays a crucial role in one’s life as well as the nation. This chapter will also give you a glimpse of historiography; the distinction between primary and secondary sources and is familiarize with the different kinds of historical sources. PRETEST: Write T if the statement is correct and F if in correct. ----------1. History refers to acts, ideas, or events that will or can shape the course of human race. ----------2. Historiography is the study of the past. ----------3. The interpretive writings if historians are considered primary sources ----------4. The study of history became possible with the development of writing. ----------5.The development of Philippine historiography can be traced back during the pre- colonial times ----------6. In evaluating historical research sources, external criticism can involve the use of carbon dating and handwriting experts ----------7.A diary written by a soldier who fought in the war is an example of a secondary source. ----------8 A researcher was interested in studying why the “new math” of the 1960s failed. She interviews several teachers who used the new math during the 1960s. These teachers are considered as secondary sources. ----------9.Spanish friars’ account is favorable to the early Filipinos ----------10. In the Philippines, the dominance of the colonial discourse has challenged historians to write the history of the Philippines using a discourse that will privilege the Filipinos. LESSON 1: MEANING and RELEVANCE OF HISTORY What is History? The word history was used by the Greek Philosopher Aristotle. It meant a systematic account of a set of natural phenomena, whether or not chronological ordering was a factor in the account; and that usage, though rare, still prevails in English in the phrase natural history. However, in the course of time, the equivalent Latin word scientia (English, science) came to be used more regularly to designate non-chronological systematic accounts of natural phenomena. History deals with the study of past events presented in chronological order and often with explanation. Others define it as His story and sanaysay na may saysay. 1  The study of history is significant because it:  is a window into the past;  helps us appreciate multiple perspectives and interpretations;  strengthens our critical thinking skills;  gives us understanding of other people and cultures;  can be influential in shaping human affairs; and  provides a better understanding about the present situation  provides informed perspective about the world.  guides on making judgments. So, what then is history? First: History is the sum total of everything that has happened in the past. history-as-actuality Second: History is an account of the past.  history-as-record “History is not ‘what happened in the past’; rather, it is the act of selecting, analyzing, and writing about the past…” (James Davidson and Mark Lytle, 1982) Historians are individuals who write about history. 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. Historians only get to access representation of the past through historical sources and evidences since an exact and accurate account of the past is impossible for the reason that we cannot go back to the past. We cannot access the past directly as our subject matter. 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 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 or another, history is always subjective (Candelaria, J. L. P. 2018). The historian has to create a narrative that can stand the test of time. To get it right, he has to see things from many points of view and puts on the different hats of a historian - as a detective, a judge, a storyteller or a philosopher. 2  Reflection: Are you willing to put on the hats of a historian and embark the journey of attempting to understand the past in order to ensure a brighter future for you and the next generation to come? LINK IT: Explain what Rizal means in this phrase ““In order to know the destiny of the people, it is necessary to open the book of its past.” ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 3  LESSON 2: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION Historical interpretation is the process by which we describe, analyze, evaluate, and create an explanation of past event. We base our interpretation on primary (firsthand) and secondary (scholarly) historical sources. We analyze the evidence, contexts, points of view, and frames of reference. It is a complicated process, but historical thinking improves with practice interpretation might explore causality (what made something happen), process (revolutions, economic depression), conflicts (social class, race, gender), historical outcomes (effects of past events), or many more topics (creative thinking). Historical interpretation requires synthesizing a variety of evidence, primary and secondary Historical thinking involves the ability to arrive at meaningful and persuasive understanding of the past by applying all the other historical thinking skills, by drawing appropriately on ideas from different fields of inquiry or disciplines and by creatively fusing disparate, relevant evidence from primary sources and secondary works. Additionally, synthesis may involve applying insights about the past to other historical contexts or circumstances, including the present These insights (secondary sources) may come from social science theories and perspectives and/or the writing of other historians (historiography) Interpretations are in essence thoughtful efforts to represent and explain past events. Interpretations include 3 vital elements: Ø Purposeful, thoughtful efforts--Interpretations are conscious reflections on the past,not simply irrational spur-of-the-moment opinions. Take time to apply logic and organization to your explanation of the past-not merely emote or react to the evidence. Ø Representations--Interpretations are efforts to give an audience an image or description of the event/issue being focused on. We cannot recreate the past perfectly, but we can try to represent faithfully how events transpired by ground our version in the historical evidence. Ø Past events--Interpretations are the reflections of those of us studying the past, not ofthe participants in those events. We refer to the collection representations of the pastdone by historians as historiography. The views of participants from the past constitute our primary sources or historical evidence. Without the process of reflection removed from the event by time the creator of the view is inevitably partially influenced by the impact the person/event had on them. NOTE: Put these 3 elements together, linking them to the historical evidence surrounding your topic. The result will be a defensible, intelligible historical interpretation.  PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING HISTORY LEARNING OBJECTIVES: 1. Define and explain significant concepts related to problems in interpreting history. 2. Give specific example for each problem in interpreting history 3. Assess the danger brought by historical negationism and revisionism. 4. Identify a woman who changed Philippine history and give her contributions. 5. Explain the need to rewrite Philippine history through the lens of gender equality (SDG 5) LESSON 1: MULTIPERSPECTIVY WATCH: Multiperspectivity in History https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KzPbUrvGe0 ACTIVITY: Define perspective and multiperspectivity. What is multiperspectivity? K. Peter Fritzche has emphasized that multiperspectivity is a process, “a strategy of understanding,” in which we take into account another’s perspective (or others’ perspectives) in addition to our own (Fritzsche, 2001). That process entails understanding that we too have a perspective which has been filtered through our own cultural context, reflects our own standpoint and interpretation of what has happened and why, our own view of what is and is not relevant, and may also reflect other prejudices and biases. In this respect, multiperspectivity is not just a process or strategy, it is also a predisposition, “{it} means to be able and willing to regard a situation from different perspectives” (Low-Beer, 1997). The preconditions for this are: a. willingness to accept that there are other possible ways of viewing the world than one’s own and that these may be equally valid and equally partial; and b. willingness to put oneself in someone else’s shoes and try see the world as they see it, that is, to exercise empathy. Broadly speaking, then, it would appear that the main defining characteristics of multiperspectivity in history and history teaching are that it is a way of viewing, and a predisposition to view historical events, personalities, developments, cultures and societies from different perspectives through drawing on procedures and processes which are fundamental to history as a discipline. A perspective is a view which is limited by the standpoint of the person expressing it. This of course, applies as much to the “producers” of source material (the participants in past events, the eye-witnesses, the chroniclers, the officials and collators of information) as it does to the historian. Just as figurative artist’s perspective is constrained by practical considerations such as technique and the position from which he or she chooses to draw a particular subject, so there are clearly number of practical limitations facing historians. Their perspective on a particular historical event or development will be restricted by the range of relevant languages in which they are fluent, their familiarity with the kinds of script employed by those who wrote the documents which they need to use, the volume of information and evidence available, the range of sources which they can us (a particular problem when trying to determine and understand the views and experiences of people who are illiterate or semi-illiterate), and he accessibility of those sources. These are all practical constraints and to a large degree from the potential mass of information that might conceivably be relevant. Similar constraints of time and space affect the sources which the historian uses and school students learning to work with a combination of primary and secondary sources are taught to take into account: how close the source was to the events being studied: a participant, an eye-witness, a journalist interviewing participants and witnesses soon afterwards, a newspaper photographer, a television reporter, an official collating evidence from a variety of sources, an historian writing about it subsequently, etc. and how soon after the event the observations in the source were recorded. Hopefully, they also learn that proximity to events, both in time and space, does not necessarily guarantee a more reliable and valid account of what happened. As Example A sows, reliable witnesses can still differ in their account of what happened. Here, a modern historian, Harvey Pitcher, has compared the accounts of several American and British eye-witnesses who were present at the meeting of the Second Congress of Soviets on 25 October 1917 in the Smolny Palace in what was Petrogard, hen the gunfire which signalled the Bolshevik coup d’état and taking of the Winter Palace to the walk-out of numerous delegates from other parties. It shows very clearly that even trained observers in the same place and at the same time can still differ widely in their observations. It also highlights another potentially valuable lesson for the student, namely, that a source based on first hand evidence produced at the time is no necessarily more reliable than an account produced at a much later date by a historian who has had the opportunity to compare and cross reference various sources. “what you see matters less than how you see it. One witness sees a rabble of unkempt individuals making a nuisance of themselves in the streets; another sees a heroic popular demonstration; while a third is impressed most of all by the colour and spectacle… Different witnesses approach a scene with different expectations and preoccupations… (Pitcher)  As witnesses to history then, they are not just describing what they see, they are interpreting it as well; that is, they are assigning a particular meaning to what they have seen and that meaning reflects their personal framework of assumptions, preconceived, prejudices, stereotypes and expectations. Historians also have their preconceptions and preoccupations. Their perspectives are not just shaped by the evidence in the sources to which they have access. Sometimes these preconceptions and preoccupations are personal and professional. A historian who seeks to offer a political perspective of events is likely to present what happened in a different way, emphasize different factors, assign greater significance to certain consequences and developments than, say, the economic or social historian. Similarly, the personal and professional expectations and preconceptions of other interpreters of history, such as television producers making documentaries about specific events will reflect a concern not just to ell the audience what happened and why but to do so in ways which may reflect current thinking about what makes a good history documentary with the emphasis sometimes being more on what makes good television rather than good history. At the same time, as historiographical surveys usually reveal, historians and other commentators on the past, like the rest of us, are children of their times. Their perspective is influenced by the generation to which they belong and they will tend to interpret the past through contemporary lenses. There are three related dimensions that have been identified which have potential relevance to multiperspectivity: 1. We can view historical events and development from a multiplicity of vantage-points of view. To do this, we need to know what was hear, seen or felt. We also need to know how reliable each source is, partly by comparing and cross-referencing the evidence they provide but also by evaluating contextual information on each source: who they were, what role they played, where they were at the time, what they were doing at the time, how they obtained the information, and so on. Above all, this process of evaluation needs to take into account the conditions which may have imposed constraints on what each source saw, heard or felt, whether these be physical, technical or self-imposed. 2. We can view historical events and developments from a multiplicity of points of view. To do this, we need to understand the motives underpinning these various points of view, whether they be the perspectives of the authors of the various sources or of the person or persons referred to in those sources. Broadly speaking, there are three constituent elements to this process: a. It involves trying to understand the logic behind the view being expressed. Why would they think like this? On what grounds have they based this view? Why might they have believed some bits of information and not others? Why did they see some information as relevant and discard the rest?What options were open to them? What led them to choose thisp articular course of action out of all the possibilities open to them? Etc.  b. It involves de-constructing the language of the text (differentiating, for example, between verifiable facts, expert opinion, unsubstantiated opinion and hearsay, noting what isomitted from the account, noting the use of emotive language, the use of false analogies and stereotypes). The same process of de-construction applies as much to other sources,such as oral testimony, photographs, films, posters and cartons as it does to documents. c. It also involves collating and analysing contextual information about each source since this enables us to understand more fully where the person stating a point of view “is coming from,” their background, their associate, allegiances and affiliations. 3. We can also view historical events and developments through a multiplicity of historical accounts and interpretations (including accounts produced at different times, for different purposes and for different audiences). This tends to involve noting the similarities and differences in focus, narrative structure, interpretation and emphasis and the key points of consensus and disagreement, i.e. historiographical analysis. NOTE: 1. Multiperspectivity is NOT simply the application of historical method. It AIMS to extend the breadth and scope of the historical analysis of a particular topic or phenomenon. 2. Multiperspectivity can also extend the scope of the historical account by examining how the different perspectives relate to each other; how they have shaped and been shaped by each other. Source: lifted from Stradling, R. 2003. Multiperspectivity in history teaching: a guide for teacher Discuss some potential problems with multiperspectivity in history teaching  LESSON 2: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION Historical interpretation is the process by which we describe, analyze, evaluate, and create an explanation of past event. We base our interpretation on primary (firsthand) and secondary (scholarly) historical sources. We analyze the evidence, contexts, points of view, and frames of reference. It is a complicated process, but historical thinking improves with practice interpretation might explore causality (what made something happen), process (revolutions, economic depression), conflicts (social class, race, gender), historical outcomes (effects of past events), or many more topics (creative thinking). Historical interpretation requires synthesizing a variety of evidence, primary and secondary Historical thinking involves the ability to arrive at meaningful and persuasive understanding of the past by applying all the other historical thinking skills, by drawing appropriately on ideas from different fields of inquiry or disciplines and by creatively fusing disparate, relevant evidence from primary sources and secondary works. Additionally, synthesis may involve applying insights about the past to other historical contexts or circumstances, including the present These insights (secondary sources) may come from social science theories and perspectives and/or the writing of other historians (historiography) Interpretations are in essence thoughtful efforts to represent and explain past events. Interpretations include 3 vital elements: Ø Purposeful, thoughtful efforts--Interpretations are conscious reflections on the past,not simply irrational spur-of-the-moment opinions. Take time to apply logic and organization to your explanation of the past-not merely emote or react to the evidence. Ø Representations--Interpretations are efforts to give an audience an image or description of the event/issue being focused on. We cannot recreate the past perfectly, but we can try to represent faithfully how events transpired by ground our version in the historical evidence. Ø Past events--Interpretations are the reflections of those of us studying the past, not ofthe participants in those events. We refer to the collection representations of the pastdone by historians as historiography. The views of participants from the past constitute our primary sources or historical evidence. Without the process of reflection removed from the event by time the creator of the view is inevitably partially influenced by the impact the person/event had on them. NOTE: Put these 3 elements together, linking them to the historical evidence surrounding your topic. The result will be a defensible, intelligible historical interpretation.