Module in GEd 105

Readings in Philippine
History
Prepared by

CONRADO DM REYES
AMIEL ABACAN
FERDINAND AGENA
Introduction
This module is intended for all freshmen student, enrolled during the first semester AY
2020-2021. This is divided into five topics, and further sub-divided into lessons. Each
Lesson will have objectives, lesson proper, learning task and references.

Course Rationale
This course analyzes Philippine history from multiple perspectives through the lens of
selected primary sources. Students are expected to do content and context analysis
such as author's background and main arguments, compare different point of view,
identify biases and examine the evidences presented in the document. The discussion
will tackle traditional topics in history and other interdisciplinary themes that will deepen
and broaden the students understanding of Philippine political, economic, cultural,
social, scientific religious history. The end goal is to develop the historical and critical
consciousness of the students so that they will become versatile, articulate,
broadminded, morally upright and responsible citizens.

Intended Learning Outcomes

1. Analyze the context, content and perspective of different kinds of sources.
Main Topic 1: Introduction to History
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. Know the difference between primary and secondary sources
3. Examine and assess critically the value of historical evidences and sources
4. Appreciate research method in history

Lesson Proper

Lesson 1
History: Introduction and Historical Sources

A. Definition
History refers to the study and interpretation by a historian on the data and other source
of the past human activity, people, societies and civilizations leading to the present day.
There are three important concepts in the definition. First history as we all know is
based on past events. Second it is interpreted by someone usually by historian. They
gather, discard and interpret the sources that they encounter. And finally and the most
important history rely on data and documents which historian call as historical sources.

B. History’s Subject Matter.

Like other social science the subject matter of history is the life of people and humanity.
But history has always been known as the study of the past. While this definition of
history is not wrong, it is incomplete. Etymologically, the word history came from the
Greek word Historia which means inquiry. Clearly the word Historia does not mean past
events. It denotes asking question or investigation of the past done by person trained to
do so or by persons who are interested in human past. We can say that historical
account must be based on all available relevant evidence. Therefore a version of the
past that cannot be supported by the evidence is worthless.

Even heard the taong-ahas story? The half human, half snake creature that supposedly
stalked the ladies room of one of the department store in Manila. The most famous
victim of this creature was supposedly the actress Alice Dixson. It happened three
decades ago when Alice Dixson was only 21 years old. Because it happened in the
past, would that story qualify as history? Or would that story classify as gossip urban
legend?

C. History and the Historian

Historian is an expert or student of history, especially that of a particular period,
geographical region or social phenomenon. There are many duties of a historian. These
historians seek not only historical evidence and facts but also to interpret these facts.
He also gives meaning to these facts and organizes them chronologically. A person who
must be able to recognize the evidence, decide how useful it is and come to conclusion
based on what he has found out. The historian therefore is responsible for
reconstructing the past. According to Gottschalk, historian is many times removed from
the events under investigation. He added that only a part of what was observed in the
past was remembered by those who observed it, only a part of what was remembered
was recorded; only a part of what was recorded has survived, only a part of what was
survive has come to the historian attention Moreover only a part of what is credible has
been grasped, and only a part of what has been grasped can expounded or narrated by
the historian.
Some authors define history as a study of historical perspective. In reconstructing the
past, a historian can be subjective; after all he is human, fallible and capable error.
People’s memories are filled with bias, self righteousness, pride, vanity, spinning,
obstruction and outright lies. Each has his own frame of reference or a set of
interlocking values, loyalties assumptions interest and principle of action. The historian
is influenced by his own environment, ideology, education and influence. His
interpretation of the historical fact is affected by his context and circumstances. It’s like
the Indian parable of an elephant and the blind men, historians have different historical
perspective.

Because certain events happened so long ago and because sometimes the evidence is
incomplete, historians have different approaches and views about what happened in the
past. This is the subjective nature of history, one historian claims an event happened a
certain way, while another disagree completely. The best approach is to do all we can to
reconstruct as fully as possible our picture of the past. To do this, most scholars use
historiography or what they call history of history. Historiography is the study of how
history was written, by whom and why it was recorded as such. It is concerned with how
historians have presented history. Interpretation about the past can be objective or true
as long as they are free of inherent contradictions, are not contrary to the laws of nature
and are based on actual remains from the time period referred to. There should also a
scientific discourse among historians on a particular controversial event. If an idea that
Jose Rizal retracted on being a mason stand up to the critique of historian who are the
skeptical of his retraction then the idea must be true. One big advantage of
historiography is that the liars of history are usually quite transparent.

Another way for a historian to be objective is to follow the historical method. It is the
core protocols historians’ use for handling sources. An agreed ground rules for
researching and writing academic research or professional history. An objective
historian must verify sources, to date them, locate the place of origin and identify their
intended functions. It is important for a historian to base their accounts on source
materials.

D. Sources of History
Historical sources are tangible remains of the past. It is an object from the past or
testimony concerning the past on which historians depend in order to create their own
depiction of the past. There are three kinds of sources namely: primary, secondary, and
tertiary sources.

Primary sources
A primary source is a testimony of an individual who was a participant in or a direct
witness to the event that is being described. It is a document or physical object which
was written or created during the time under a study. Those sources were present
during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event.
Primary sources are characterized by their content, regardless of whether they are
available in original format, in microfilm, in digital format or in published format.

There are five main categories of primary sources. It includes written sources, numerical
records, oral statements, relics, and images. The most common are written sources or
documents. They are written or printed materials that have been produced in one form
or another sometime in the past. They may be published materials such as travelogue,
transcription of speech, autobiographies, journals or newspapers (La Solidaridad). They
can be also in manuscript form or any handwritten or type record that has not been
printed. Example of these is archival materials, memoirs, diary, personal letter or
correspondence. The next category is the numerical records which include any type of
numerical data in printed or handwritten form. The third category is oral statements
which include any form of statement made orally by an eyewitness. It maybe through
video recordings, audio recordings, or transcribed. Another category is the relics or any
objects whose physical or visual characteristics can provide some information about the
past. These include artifacts, ruins and fossils. The last category of primary sources is
the images. It includes photograph, posters, paintings, drawing cartoons and maps.

Primary sources: Written sources

Travelogue

Newspaper
 Archival material

Memoir

Primary source: Numerical Records

Printed numerical graph

Primary source: Oral statements

“My first day was a scary one. There was a patient whose earlobes were so long…he had no
nose, only two holes on his face, and no fingers, only the palm of his hands…the other
patients were in different stages of deformity.”
Sr. Maria Luisa Montenegro, SPC 1940

Oral statement of an eyewitness to the Culion Leper Colony

 A person interviewing an eyewitness

Primary source: Relics

Artifacts (Balanginga Bells)

Ruins
 Fossil (Callao man)

Primary sources: Images

Photograph (Bud Dajo Massacre)

Painting
 Cartoon

Map (Murillo Velarde map c.1734)

Secondary Sources
A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or
more steps removed from the event. It is prepared by an individual who was not direct
witness to an event, but not who obtained his or her description of the event from
someone else. Secondary sources may have pictures, votes or graphics of primary
sources in them. Some types of secondary sources are history textbook, printed
materials (serials or periodicals which interpret previews research), biographies,
nonfiction text such as newspaper, magazine, journals, works of criticism and
interpretation.

Tertiary Source
The last kind of sources is the tertiary source. It provides third hand information by
reporting ideas and details from secondary source. An eyewitness is more reliable than
testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay or tertiary sources. This
does not mean that tertiary sources have no value, merely that they include potential for
an additional layer of bias. Some examples of this kind of source are encyclopedia,
almanac, Wikipedia, YouTube, dictionaries, message boards, social media sites and
other search sites.
Learning Task

Watch the YouTube channel: I-Witness: ‘Savage: Juan Luna in Paris,’ a

documentary by Howie Severino and answer the following questions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54R1nWALZFw&t=601s
.

1. What are the primary sources you encountered in the documentary? Secondary
sources? Tertiary sources?
2. Why did Constancio Ongpin and Mara Pardo de Tavera had different
interpretation about the same event? Based on the sources they presented who
is more convincing among the two? Why?
3. Did Howie Severino presented the documentary objectively? Explain your
answer.

References
A. Textbook
Candelaria Jhon Lee P. and Veronica C. Alphorha. Readings in Philippine history -
Rex Book Store 2018
Solmerano, Ernesto Thaddeus et. al. Readings in Philippine History. Fast Books
Educational Supply Inc. 2018
Torres, Jose Victor, Batis; Sources in Philippine History. C&E Publishing, Inc. 2018

B. Other References
Gottschalk, Louis. A Primer of Historical Method. Alfred A. Knopf 1950
Howell, Martha and Walter Prevenier. From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to
Historical Method. Cornell University Press 2001
Navarro, Atoy M. Ang Bagong Kasaysayan sa Wikang Filipino. Palimbagan ng Lahi.
2000
Orillos-Juan, Florina. Historical Method. Commission on Higher Education. Aug. 12,
2016. De La Salle University -Manila
Severino, Howie (Feb.27, 2016) Savage: Juan Luna in Paris. I-Witness, GMA 7
retrieved
Aug.10, 2020 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54R1nWALZFw&t=706s
Scott, William Henry. Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History.
New Day Publication 1984
Objectives
1. Provide ideas that guide the discipline of history
2. Develop critical and analytical skills with exposure to primary sources
3. Evaluate primary sources for their credibility, authenticity and provenance
4. Opportunities to improve critical thinking

Lesson Proper

Lesson 2
Historical Criticism
A. Definition
It is also known as the historical-critical method, Historical criticism is a branch of
criticism that investigates the origin of text or source in order to understand the word
behind the text. The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text primitive or
original historical context and its literal sense. The secondary goal seeks establish a
reconstruction of historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. Moreover, in
order for source to be used as evidence in history, basic matters about its form and
context must be settled. These are two types of historical criticism namely: external
criticism (investigates the documents form) and internal criticism (investigates the
content of the documents).

B. What is the goal of Historical Criticism?

Historical criticism seeks greater understanding of …… texts by analyzing the historical
and social contexts in which they developed. The goal of historical criticism,
traditionally, has been to try to understand the text’s meaning in its original context and
to answer questions about the text, such as: Who wrote it? When was it written? What
else what happening at the time of its writing? How did it come to be in the form we
have it today? What did it mean to the people who first read or heard it?
Historical criticism has also often sought answers to the ever-elusive question of what is
called “authorial intent”: What did the author intend for this text to mean in his or her
time and place? (http://queergrace.com/historical-criticism/)

C. External Criticism
This type of criticism looks for the obvious sign of forgery or misrepresentation. This
type of criticism tests the authenticity of the sources. It is interested in the writing styles
of the eyewitness and his ignorance of the facts. The historian also analyzes the original
manuscript; its integrity, localization and the date it was written. To ascertain if a
particular data is fabricated, forge, fake, corrupted or a hoax, that source must undergo
the test of authenticity. Since external criticism is concern with the explicit sign of
misrepresentation, it is the first test the historian employ to ascertain sources validity.

D. Test of authenticity
The first step to test a source is to determine the date of document to see whether it is
anachronistic. Anachronism means out of time or order, something that could not have
been there at that particular time. It could be a person, thing or idea placed in a wrong
time. Being able to spot anachronism is important because it helps us test the reliability
of a source. If a source is unreliable then we probably should into use it .Example can
be found in Rizal’s allegedly first poem “ Sa Aking Mga Kabata” where we could find the
term “kalayaan”. Rizal admitted that he first encountered the word though a Marcelo H.
Del Pilar’s translation of Rizal’s essay “ El Amor Patrio”. Rizal wrote this essay in 1882
while the poem supposedly was written by him in the year 1869.

The second step is to determine the author’s handwriting, signature or seal. We can
compare the handwriting of particular author to his other writings. Obvious sign of
forgery in include patch writing, hesitation as revealed by ink blobs, pauses in the
writing, tremor causing poor line quality and erasures. But some people are highly
skilled in imitating others handwriting. The act of writing however a skill is learned
through repetition until it becomes a habit. Thus, there is natural variation in everyone
handwriting. In addition, no one can duplicate all of the intricate subconscious writing
habits of another in an extended writing sample. Example of this is the signature in the
retraction letter of Jose Rizal.

The third test in determining the authenticity is a source is by looking for the
anachronistic style. In this test we will examine idiomatic expression or the orthography
used in the documents. An idiom is an expression, word or phrase that has a figurative
meaning conventionally understood by native speakers. When we say ‘break a leg’ we
all know that it means good luck. Orthography is a set of conventions for writing a
language. It includes norms of spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks,
emphasis and punctuation. When the poem Sa Aking Mga Kabata was allegedly written
in 1869, most Philippine language was widely written in a variety of ways based on
Spanish Orthography:

Early Tagalog System (taken from Doctrina Christiana,)

Ama namin, nasa Lan͠gitca,
Ypasamba Mo ang N͠galanmo.
Mouisaamin ang pagcaharimo.
Ypasonor mo ang loob mo
Dito sa lupa para sa Lan͠git.

Modern Filipino orthography

Ama namin, sumasalangit Ka,
Sambahín ang Ngalan Mo.
Mapasaamin ang kaharián Mo.
Sundín ang loób Mo
Dito sa lupà, para nang sa langit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_orthography

The fourth test is the anachronistic reference to events. For example if the event cited in
the document is prior to the actual event, then the document must be forge or fake.

The fifth test of authenticity is the provenance or custody of the document. Provenance
is the place of origin of earliest known history of documents. It traces the roots of any
source.

The other two test of authenticity is the semantics and hermeneutics. Semantics is the
linguistic study of meaning. In this test semantics determine the meaning of the text and
words of the source. We may ask: is the meaning of the statements different from its
literal meaning? Hermeneutics on the other hand is theory and methodology of
interpretation. Hermeneutics is more than interpretation or method used when
immediate comprehension fails. In historical criticism we determine ambiguities which
are a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways.
Historians may look also if the statement is meant to be ironic (i.e. mean other than
what it says).

E. Internal Criticism
This type of criticism looks for deeper or more intense study of sources. Usually
historians first apply external criticism before undergoing the test of credibility because
of internal criticisms implicit character. It is important that the document must be
verisimilar or as close as what really happened from a critical examination of best
available resources. It refers to the accuracy of the content of a document. Internal
criticism has to do with what the document says. It investigates the content or
substance of a document and the author’s point of view. This type of criticism tests the
credibility of the source.

F. Test of Credibility
The first step is the identification of the author. It determines if the witness is reliable or
if he is consistent by comparing his other works. In this steps historian also examine the
mental processes of the witness, if he is capable of telling the truth, or if he is mentally
challenge. Finally we will look for his personal attitudes, if he is telling something
beyond what he saw or bragging about it. Many historian use some kind of rubric to test
the credibility of the author.

The second step in testing the credibility of the eyewitness is to determine the
approximate date. Example of this is again Rizal’s poem “Sa aking mga kabata”. He
wrote that poem when he is only eight years old and that poem is with rhythm and
meter. To think that when Rizal was 8 years old the primary education in the Philippines
was nonexistent.

The third step in testing the credibility of the source is its ability to tell the truth.
Historians examine how near an eyewitness is to the event. The closer a source is to
the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate
historical description of what actually happened Historian also look for the competence
of the eyewitness. Basically they look for the background of the author like education,
health, age or social status. The last test for this step is the degree of the attention of
the eyewitness. Whether the sources witness the event only partly or if he witnesses the
event from the start to finish.

The fourth step is the willingness to tell the truth. If the eyewitness is coerced, forced or
somebody threaten him to tell something then his account is not valid. If the eyewitness
wants to hide something for personal reason

The last step is to look for corroboration. This particular step rest upon the independent
testimony of two or more reliable sources. The words independent testimony must be
emphasize. For instance, if the soldier who fought the battle, a general who oversaw the
battle and a doctor who treated those wounded who fought the battle, all recorded the
same fact or all agree about an event, historians consider that event proven

Learning Task

Watch in YouTube: History with Lourd: Greatest Hoaxes in Philippine History

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1lShfwt930&t=1064s) and answer the
following question.
1. Why did Jose Marco became the most successful Conman in the study of
Philippine History?
2.What are the hoaxes during Marcos administration? What kind of historical
criticism did historian use to uncover those hoaxes?
3. What lesson did this documentary impart specially in relation with the spread of
fake news?
References
A. Textbooks
Candelaria Jhon Lee P. and Veronica C. Alphorha. Readings in Philippine history - Rex
Book Store 2018
Solmerano, Ernesto Thaddeus et. al. Readings in Philippine History. Fast Books
Educational Supply Inc. 2018
Torres, Jose Victor, Batis; Sources in Philippine History. C&E Publishing, Inc. 2018

B. Other References
___________ Filipino Orthography. Wikipedia. Retrieved Aug 12, 2020 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_orthography
____________Rizal’s Poems. National Historical Institute. 2002
____________Selected Writing of Rizal. Technology Supply Inc. 1999
Bull, Sylvia and Joseph Schattauer Paillé (July 6, 2015) WHAT is Historical Criticism?
Queer Grace Retrieved. August 5, 2020 from http://queergrace.com/historical-
criticism/
De Veyra, Lourd (2017) Greatest Hoaxes in Philippine History. History with Lourd.
News 5 Everywhere. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2020 from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1lShfwt930
Gottschalk, Louis. A Primer of Historical Method. Alfred A. Knopf 1950
Howell, Martha and Walter Prevenier. From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to
Historical Method. Cornell University Press 2001
Navarro, Atoy M. Ang Bagong Kasaysayan sa Wikang Filipino. Palimbagan ng Lahi.
2000
Orillos-Juan, Florina. Historical Method. Commission on Higher Education. Aug. 12,
2016. De La Salle University -Manila
Scott, William Henry. Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History.
New Day Publication 1984