Republic of the Philippines

President Ramon Magsaysay State University

(Former Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba, Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax No.: (047) 811-1683

College/Department College of Information Technology

Course Code GEC 2

Course Title Readings in Philippine History

Semester and Academic Year First Semester AY 2020-2021

Instructor Reeve Gjester D. Rico

Module 1

Chapter 1 Introduction to Philippine

History
I. Introduction to Philippine History
A. History Defined

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
understanding of history’s relevance to their lives and to their respective contexts. While the
popular definition of history as the study of the past is not wrong, it does not give 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 twentieth century. History became an important academic discipline. It became the
historian's duty to write about the 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 records,
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
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 analyzing
genetic and DNA patterns of human societies.

B. Uses and Importance of History

1. History helps us develop a better understanding of the world.
- You can’t build a framework on which to base your life without understanding how
things work in the world. History paints us a detailed picture of how society,
technology, and government worked way back when so that we can better understand
how it works now.
2. History helps us understand ourselves.
- History tells you the story of how your nation, city, or community came to be
everything that it is. It tells you where your ancestors came from and tells you who
they were. Most importantly of all, it gives you the ability to spot (and appreciate) the
legacies you may have inherited from them.
3. History helps us learn to understand other people.
- It’s a valuable tool when it comes to understanding those who are different from us.
Global, national, and regional history books help us understand how other cultures
affect our own.
4. History teaches a working understanding of change.
- History helps us better understand how, when, and why change occurs (or should be
sought) on a larger scale.
5. History gives us the tools we need to be decent citizens.
- History helps us become better voters and more effective members of any type of
society. It helps put us in a position to better inform others as well.
6. History makes us better decision makers.
 - It helps us understand the many reasons why people may behave the way they do. As
a result, it helps us become more compassionate as people and more impartial as
decision makers. Our judicial system is a perfect example of this concept at work.
7. History helps us develop a new level of appreciation for just about everything.
- History is more than just the living record of nations, leaders, and wars. It’s also the
story of us. It’s packed with tales of how someone stood up for what they believed in,
or died for love, or worked hard to make their dreams come true. All of those things
are concepts we can relate to; it’s enriching to know that so could the likes of Abraham
Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, or Martin Luther King.

C. Sources of History

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 time
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 U.S.
Commissioners, records of the convention, the draft of the Constitution, and even photographs
of the event. Eyewitness accounts of convention delegates and their memoirs 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 nineteenth century 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 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 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 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 conducting external criticism of a document include the quality of the
paper, 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 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 epic, Maragtas, which was allegedly
written by a certain Datu Kalantiaw. The document was sold to the National Library and was
regarded as anim rtant precolonial document until 1968, when American historian William
enry 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 Il 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 understanding for both the present and the future.

Philippine historiography underwent several changes since the precolonial period until the
present. Ancient Filipinos narrated their history through communal songs and epics that they
passed orally from a generation to another. When the Spaniards came, their chroniclers started
recording their observations through written accounts. The perspective of historical writing
and inquiry also shifted. The Spanish colonizers narrated the history of their Colony in a
bipartite view. They saw the age before colonization as a dark period in the history of the
islands, until they brought light through Western thought and Christianity. Early nationalists
refuted this perspective and argued the tripartite view. They saw the precolonial society as a
luminous age that ended with darkness when the colonizers captured their freedom. They
believed that the light would come again once the colonizers were evicted from the Philippines.
Filipino historian Zeus Salazar introduced the new guiding philosophy for writing and teaching
history: pantayong pananaw (for us—from us perspective). This perspective highlights the
importance of facilitating an internal conversation and discourse among Filipinos about our
own history, using the language that is understood by everyone.
D. Unhistorical Data: Errors in Philippine History

There are some narratives that have been previously accepted in Philippine history as
facts but later were found out to be historical errors. It is to credit of many historians who
investigated and took position on what they have discovered in their careful search. These
unhistorical accounts include:

 Maragtas (the 10 Malay datu from Borneo who settled into the Philippine islands)
- William Henry Scott (1921-1993) research showed that Maragtas is not a prehispanic
document but a book written by Pedro Montecarlo, a local historian of Panay.
Montecarlo’s publisher in 1907, noted that this Maragtas should not be considered as
facts, all of which are accurate and true.
 Code of Kalantiaw (this code was said to be a set of ancient laws promulgated in 1433 by
Datu Bendara Kalantiaw of Aklan, the third Muslim leader of Panay)
- In the unprecedented doctoral study of Scott, he concluded that the Pavon manuscripts
were not genuine and that the Code of Kalantiaw was a hoax. He presented his serious
objections to this fake code. They are as follows:
1. The discoverer of the alleged manuscript, Jose E. Marco, was also involved
in the sale of the other fake historical documents. There is no historical evidence
for the existence of Datu Kalantiaw.
2. The contents of the manuscript are of dubious value.
3. The Kalantiaw code contains many strange edicts that contradict the character of
Filipino.
 The Legend of Princess Urduja (The legendary warrior princess named Urduja has been
adopted as a symbol of a woman of distinguished courage, an inspiration for
women in the country.)
- The legend is quite amusing but historians could not certify its authenticity. Modern
historians agreed that Princess Urduja was just an illusory creation of Ibn Batuta, a
contemporary of Marco Polo (1254-1324), the Venetian traveler whose accounts in the
East particularly China drew attentions and interest in Asian trade.

E. Approaches to the Study of Philippine History

1. Clerico-Imperialist
- History is God’s grand design
- This approach emerged with the coming of the Spaniards
 - Catholism is the instrument of God to redeem the native inhabitants from the clutches
of Satan
- No interpretation is needed because everything is willed by God
2. Assimilationist View
- The rise of secularism and nationalism
 Filipinos were given the opportunity to have a position in the church or in the
government
- Equality between Filipinos and Americans
- Aimed uniting the people to prepare them for membership in the Spanish community
of nations.
3. Nationalist
- Product of Philippine Revolution and the American invasion
- Freedom from colonial yoke
- Abandoned making Philippines as part of Spain and became truly a nationalist when
they clamored for freedom.
4. Democratic Imperialist
- The secular ideas that the America’s “Manifest Destiny”
 Meaning American culture is superior compare to Asia, Africa, and other
continents in the world.
 Educate, civilize and train the Filipinos in the art of democratic government.
5. Nationalist-Realist
- History is the reconstruction of the past as reflected in records, written, collected,
analyzed and synthesized by historians.
- History is an art
 Because it evolves imagination and creative way of reconstruction of the past.
6. Leftist-Socialist or Marxist View
- History is science that is capable of being controlled, influenced, and predicted
- Is a universalistic extension of the class conflict theme
- Regard history as the history of economic classes, their rise, fall, dominance, and
exploitation
7. Pure Nationalist
- Started by Agoncillo but expounded by Salazar
- It is referring to as “Pantayong Pananaw”
- Philippine history from the Filipino perspective or point of view
 - History of the inarticulate (peasants, workers, cultural communities, women, children)
- Views as revolutionary as it is a logical reaction to foreign-dominated and ilustrado-
centered theme of Philippine history
- Emphasize the importance of history in nation building

F. “Pantayong Pananaw” in the Study of Philippine History

Pook at Paninindigan: A Critical Appraisal of Pantayong Pananaw (POOK AT

PANININDIGAN: KRITIKA NG PANTAYONG PANANAW)

Ramon Guillermo (Diliman, Quezon City: The University of the Philippines Press, 2009), 210
pages.

Reviewed by Manuel Victor Sapitula (Ph.D. Candidate, Sociology, National University of

Singapore; HYI Visiting Fellow)

Prof. Ramon Guillermo’s book, Pook at Paninindigan: Kritika ng Pantayong Pananaw, may
well be one of the most comprehensive scholarly evaluations of pantayong pananaw (translated
as the ‘from-us-for-us perspective’ in Philippine historiography, as translated by Guillermo
himself in another publication) as an intellectual movement in contemporary Philippine
scholarship. The pantayong pananaw (also called Bagong Kasaysayan, or New History) is
currently the most theoretically elaborate articulation of an indigenized social science
perspective that offers a viable alternative to (Western) positivist social science. The pantayong
pananaw is the brainchild of Prof. Zeus Salazar, a historian who spent most of his teaching
career at the Department of History at the University of the Philippines-Diliman; in the course
of his advocacy, Salazar was able to gather a number of historians who shared his call for a
more culturally-sensitive historiography in the teaching of Philippine history. At present,
the pantayong pananaw has become an established perspective in Philippine historiography
and has spread outside the University’s own Department of History.

In broad strokes, pantayong pananaw’s approach begins with the need to sustain a talastasang
bayan (national discourse) by distinguishing among different historiographies and how they
relate to the formation of national/cultural identity. The first, the pangkayo perspective (‘from-
you-for-us’ perspective), refers to the judgments made by external agents upon one’s culture;
the pangkayo perspective mainly refers to colonial historiography that judged Filipinos’ beliefs
and customs using purely external cultural standards. Opposite to this is
the pangkami perspective (‘from-us-to-you’ perspective), which was initially espoused by a
generation of intellectuals who were educated in Spain and then responded to the accusations
of colonial historiography regarding aspects of Filipino cultural heritage. They were succeeded
by Filipino scholars who wrote about Philippine culture and society using English or Spanish,
the ‘languages of the colonizers’, as a medium of discourse. Salazar, on many occasions,
specifically faults this reliance on foreign languages, betraying its intent to engage mainly with
outsiders rather than with agents in local communities who alone were the ‘insiders’ of their
own culture. The pantayong pananaw, therefore, seeks to create a ‘closed circuit of interaction’
(Mendoza 2007) between academic discourse (especially history) and kaalamang
katutubo (indigenous knowledge). In this regard, language plays a central role; hence,
historians identified with pantayong pananaw speak and write in Philippine languages so that
the talastasan (discourse) is always oriented toward local cultures and not to ‘outsiders’ and
their interests.

Guillermo organizes his critical appraisal of the pantayong pananaw into two chapters. In the
first chapter, titled Pook (Location/Place), he recognizes the importance of Salazar’s ideas in
challenging positivist historiography that, in the end, privileges the imperialistic dominance of
Western discourse. Nevertheless, he proceeds to pinpoint specific weaknesses in Salazar’s
arguments, in particular regarding the exclusive use of Philippine languages in discourse and
the process of forming a pambansang kalinangan (national culture). Regarding the use of
language, Guillermo criticizes Salazar’s uncompromising rejection of concepts that do not
originate from Philippine languages as automatically ‘Western’ or ‘foreign’. A classic example
is the Tagalog word himagsikan, which is akin to the Western concept of revolución
(revolution): Salazar distinguishes himagsikan and revolución, and he refuses to
accept revolución as a meaningful category in the Philippine context, notwithstanding the fact
that it was already translated into Philippine languages and already used extensively in
everyday discourse. The point is that such a closed attitude toward concepts originating outside
the local culture preempts the possibility of appropriating these concepts within local discourse.
Moreover, Guillermo notes that the exclusive use of local languages does not itself address the
issue of specialized and everyday discourses that also create hierarchical relationships within
the users of that language.
Regarding the concept of pambansang kalinangan (national culture), Guillermo evaluates
the pantayong pananaw by juxtaposing it with Marxist historiography; he then faults Salazar’s
inadequate dialectical conception between the ‘elite’ and ‘bayan’ (roughly translated as
‘country’) as an expression of a conflict in the cultural domain but devoid of any reference to
the larger political-economic struggles. Salazar, he observes, has emphasized the
elites’ pagbabalik sa bayan (a return to the country’s cultural roots) but has not given the same
attention to class inequality and exploitation, which for Guillermo are more important and
pressing issues. The author notes, quite differently from Salazar, that cultural independence
should serve as a means to greater economic and political independence, and not an end in
itself. Neglect of this fundamental principle tips the pantayong pananaw dangerously toward
cultural essentialism, which may be utilized by dictatorial regimes to back their totalitarian
claims by alluding to essentialist notions of Filipino culture, history and society.

In the second part, titled Paninindigan (Principled Commitment), Guillermo outlines the
development of indigenized Marxist/socialist thought in the Philippines. Starting with a closer
look at the political thought of Emilio Jacinto of the Katipunan (the revolutionary organization
that spearheaded the 1896 Revolution against Spain), Guillermo unpacks local notions of class-
based exploitation and emerging class consciousness among the peasant class. After the 1896
Revolution, a generation of writers continued the propagation of socialist discourse by tackling
various social ills plaguing Philippine society, particularly the continued exploitation of the
working class. Their writings, however, still alluded to the possibility of a ‘change of heart’ on
the part of landowners, and thus still fall short in terms of a full-blown theory of class struggle;
this only develops in the 1930’s with the establishment of the Partido Komunista ng
Pilipinas (PKP), workers’ unions and peasant organizations. This particular development
enabled writers of succeeding generations to combine social analysis and criticism with
unionized organizing and calls for digmang bayan (nationalist struggle). The painstaking
exposition of the development of Marxist/socialist discourse in this chapter is Guillermo’s
response to Salazar’s statements that Marxist/socialist thought in the Philippines is completely
an “outsider’s discourse” that cannot fathom the intricacies of Filipino cultural experience. In
this chapter, Guillermo specifically demonstrates how local constructions of exploitation, class
consciousness and class struggle emerged at critical junctures of Philippine history. External
influences eventually found their way into local discourses, but such appropriations of ‘outsider
concepts’ should not be shunned because they can be as powerful in the local context as
‘indigenous’ concepts.
 Guillermo’s book, in summary, contains a straightforward critique of pantayong pananaw as
articulated by its most prominent spokesperson. His familiarity not only with the entire corpus
of Salazar’s scholarly work, but also with other thinkers identified with pantayong
pananaw and its critics, enables him to provide a comprehensive synthesis of this emerging
intellectual perspective. This book stands as the author’s most nuanced treatment of pantayong
pananaw, which was also the subject of a number of his earlier scholarly writings (e.g.
Guillermo 2003).

Aside from the critical assessment of pantayong pananaw, Guillermo’s work accomplishes an
important task by challenging various indigenization efforts in current Philippine scholarship.
Calls for the indigenization of concepts and methodologies have been raised in other social
science disciplines, notably in psychology with Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino Psychology)
and in anthropology with Pilipinolohiya (“Philippinology”, which is distinct from “Philippine
Studies”). The questioning of dominant positivist perspectives by pro-indigenization scholars
is a noteworthy endeavor, as Guillermo himself observes; there is the need, however, to assess
whether such attempts are premised upon essentialist notions of culture, history and society.
The author’s contribution to Philippine scholarship lies mainly in his adamant refusal to reify
Philippine history and cultural heritage, which results to the unfortunate tendency of closing
oneself not only to useful external influences from other cultural experiences, but also to the
broader socio-economic realities that are at work within that society. Guillermo’s call for a
‘dialectical’ approach to Philippine scholarship combined with his advocacy for authentic
liberation from exploitation is a call that is worthy of attention, and whether scholars will
eventually disagree with certain aspects of this frame of thought and action will not invalidate
its timeliness in the task of crafting the course of social sciences and humanities in the
Philippines.

G. Philippine history as a tool in understanding national identity

The history of the Philippines has been permeated by foreign influences, namely Spain, the
United States and Japan. The centuries-old colonization introduced a lot of deadweight, a type
of excess baggage in the Philippines’ understanding of itself. The quest for self-identity has
been pervasive, making it difficult for Filipinos to carve out their identity in the world. In his
article entitled “The Unfinished Evolution: Towards a Filipino Consciousness,” Felipe M. de
Leon, Jr. tackles the issues and challenges that Filipinos face in reckoning with their identity
as a nation, and offers penetrating perspectives on how to overcome this.
 Deadweight produced by colonialism
The arrival of colonizers produced a lot of disadvantages for the Philippines. The colonizers
fragmented the colony as much as possible in order to achieve opportunistic control. For
example, de Leon refers to how higher education in the Philippines was designed by the
Americans in such a way that it produced narrow specialists of their respective fields, molding
people who are oblivious to the issues and ills of society and of their fellow men. As a result,
students failed to fully grasp the reality that is oftentimes impregnated by a wide spectrum of
disciplines, thus, paving the way to individualism.

The author also accurately points out the greater malady of the Filipino community —
alienation from their own culture and community because of self-abhorrence. de Leon called
this the “Doña Victorina Syndrome”, based on a socialite character in Filipino Jose Rizal’s
classic work, Noli Me Tangere. The colonial influence appears to have led Filipinos to the
wrong thinking and understanding that any foreigner is superior and that any local is inferior.
As a result of this low self-esteem, many Filipinos have fallen into self-contempt and
indulgence in the notion that anything that is good must be foreign, whether they be goods,
concepts, approaches, services, techniques, among many more.

 The quest for Filipino identity through the arts

de Leon’s proposed solution is to have Filipinos undergo a healing process and an evolutionary
quest for self-identity through the arts. Art has served humanity from time immemorial,
presenting itself as a looking glass into a society’s innermost core, touching [society’s] way of
being and consciousness and revealing its deep-seated cultural norms and values. Further, art
is a powerful tool that helps Filipinos more fully appreciate who they are and what they have.
As de Leon said, “people can only be united by the things they love, and divided by the things
they hate.”

The author believes that art is already very much embedded in the Filipino psyche and
consciousness. First, art is not valued for its own sake — in other words, aesthetics is not
separated from religious, social, ecological, and moral functions. Attention is also given to the
entire creative process and not only to the finished creative output. There are no “superstars”
because it is understood that there is no single person who acts as a channel of divine creativity.
As a result, there is a communal participation in the arts — everyone is expected to produce art
— and this is regarded as the norm. Additionally, de Leon points out that Filipino art reflects
some of the natural characteristics and values of Filipinos such as togetherness
 (“pakikipagkapwa”), harmony, unity, intuition, and relatedness (as opposed to estrangement,
aggression, disunity, logic and individualism, respectively).

 Artistic ways to carve out national identity

The author provides concrete suggestions for how to heighten Filipinos’ social consciousness
about their nation. For instance, he refers to acting as an exercise in being. By addressing
national issues in theaters, Filipinos are able to choose roles and/or get exposed to various roles,
and in turn, are able to reflect on the most pressing issues in their society. Gastronomy is
another sphere that highlights the togetherness of Filipinos. Filipino meals, which more often
than not are served in one go, reflect Filipino’s notion of time — as non-linear. It reflects how
the past, present and future converge, and thus, allows different kinds of people to contribute
whatever they can to the common social fabric.

Another example is Filipino architecture, which allows a variety of forms and techniques to
blend into the creation of art, and thus, make room for greater civic participation. The literature
of Filipinos is also very advanced in gender equality. This is evident in language, myths, and
legends that depict a gender-neutral voice and incorporate heroines into their stories. Another
area to capitalize on is the design of Filipino icons such as those found on jeepneys, kalesas,
and bahay kubos. These are characterized with open spaces that show Filipinos’ penchant for
principles like transparency and openness.

The Philippine’s quest for self-identity, especially at the national level, must be continuously
forged. It is important to reiterate de Leon’s point that there is no such thing as a damaged
culture, but just a damaged self-image. It is along this vein that art can find its way into the
heart and soul of the Filipino people, and teach them how to understand themselves more fully,
appreciate what has been taken for granted, and express the unexpressed.
Activity 1
I. Identification
CLERICO
PRIMARY ASSIMILATIONIS NATIONALIST CODE OF
IMPERIALIS
SOURCES T VIEW -REALIST KALANTIAW
T
PURE
PANTAYONG SECONDARY NATIONALIS
NATIONALIS HISTORY
PANANAW SOURCES T
T

1. It is always been known as the study of the past.

2. Sources produced at the same time as the event, period, or subject
3. Said to be a set of ancient laws promulgated in 1943.
4. Product of Philippine Revolution and the American invasion.
5. This approach emerged with the coming of the Spaniards.
6. Also called Bagong Kasaysayan, or New History.
7. Started by Agoncillo but expounded by Salazar.
8. The rise of secularism and nationalism.
9. History is an art.
10. Historical sources which studied a certain historical subject.

II. Enumeration
(1 – 7) Uses and Importance of History
(8 – 14) Approaches to the study of Philippine History

Prepared by:
REEVE GJESTER D. RICO
Instructor 1