Understanding Context of Historical Documents

Primary sources can give up the secrets of life in the past so historians learn to read these
sources. But reading a source for evidence demands a different approach than reading a source for
information. The contrast may be seen in an extreme way in the difference between reading a phone
book — for information — and examining a boot-print outside a murder scene —for evidence. When
we look up a phone number, we don’t ask ourselves, “who wrote this phonebook?” or “what impact did
it have on its readers?” We read it at face value. The boot print, on the other hand, is a trace of the
past that does not allow a comparable reading. Once we establish what it is, we examine it to see if it
offers clues about the person who was wearing the boot, when the print was made, which direction
the person was headed, and what else was going on at that time.

A history textbook is generally used more like a phone book: it is a place to look up
information. Primary sources must be read differently. To use them well, we set them in their
historical contexts and make inferences from them to help us understand more about what was
going on when they were created. Often providing the document’s source information is not enough to
fully grasp the document’s meaning or significance. We need to be aware of the document’s context
and provide students with any missing information that would impede their understanding.
In simple terms, context refers to the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or
idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed. Primary source texts from
previous eras do not exist in a vacuum. They are embedded in a crucial context that must be
addressed to help derive meaning from what is read. Primary sources are typically drawn from a world
that differs from one’s own time or place-or both. Thus, historians must understand documents in
their historical context.

Contextualization asks historians to locate a document in time and place and to understand
how these factors shape its content. The following questions guide students in the practice of
contextualization:
 When and where was the document created?
 What was different then? What was the same?
 How might the circumstances in which the document was created affect its
content?

Historical Revisionism

In historiography, the term historical revisionism refers to the re-interpretation of the

historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox views held about a historical event,
introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people
involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and
interpretation, which then provokes a revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a
reversal of older moral judgments. At a basic level, historical revisionism is a common and not
especially controversial process of developing and refining the writing of history.

Much more controversial is the reversal of moral findings, in which what had been
considered to be positive forces are depicted as being negative. This revisionism is th en challenged
by the supporters of the previous view. It becomes historical negationism, a form of historical
revisionism that presents a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record. The
term "revisionism" is used pejoratively by those who claim that revisionists are distorting the
historical record.
Historical revisionism therefore may be distinguished from negative historical revisionism,
negationism or historical distortion. Historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical
account or narrative based on actual facts and evidence. Historical negationism occurs when

This study source was downloaded by 100000838996563 from CourseHero.com on 12-13-2021 12:13:54 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/109354705/Understanding-Contextpdf/
 historical accounts or narratives are changed to suit some personal agenda. It involves
disinformation and lies to change history.

Battle of Mactan

The story that Lapu-Lapu killed Magellan has been the common notion for Filipinos. But
using Pigafetta’s account, it is considered that Lapu-Lapu was not the one who killed Magellan bur
one under his command. Thanks to historians and the evidence from primary sources, past events
that are vague become clarified. This can be considered historical revisionism.

Philippine Independence and American Colonization

It has been forwarded, especially in American sources, that the United States liberated the
Philippines from colonial rule. This refers to the defeat of Japanese imperial forces in World War II at
the hands of Filipino guerrillas and the U.S. military. But this skips over a crucial fact that the United
States was the colonial ruler in the Philippines for half a century before the Japanese came. The United
States is placed as part of the story of Philippine independence but in fact, that great story was a tale
of American betrayal and bloodshed under American colonization. The Filipinos revolted against Spain,
which had ruled the archipelago for more than 300 years. After the Spanish-American War erupted,
the United States supported the Filipino revolutionaries, who proclaimed an independent republic. But
eager to establish itself as a power in Asia, the United States refused to recognize the new republic
and bought the country from Spain for $20 million. When the Filipinos resisted, the United States
unleashed a three-year war of conquest that killed an estimated 200,000 Filipinos. Despite the
carnage and the intense emotions it unleashed in the early 20th Century, the conflict has virtually
been erased from American history books and from America's collective memory. Until recently, the
Philippine-American War was not even considered a war in official history; it was the Filipino
Insurrection against the United States. This can be considered historical negationism.

Martial Law Period

Martial law in the Philippines has become a major content in social media. The frustrations
that endured after the EDSA people power revolution, which toppled the Marcos dictatorship in 1986
have somehow affected the views on the Marcoses. There are many who now say that for many years,
the dominant narrative is that Marcos is a dictator and that he did bad things to the Filipino people but
this narrative has to be revised. Frustrations have been used to fan the discourse on social media
about Marcos and Martial Law. President Marcos is often praised by many to this day. Observable is
the spread of content in social media that deny what happened under Martial Law. One example is
that Marcos did not steal from state coffers even though several court rulings ruled otherwise. There is
also compelling evidence of human rights violations during the martial law years but many loyalists
either deny that this truly happened or defend the Marcoses from blame. There are even bloggers on
YouTube who contradict historians when it comes to the controversies and atrocities committed during
Martial Law. Many people believe in bloggers rather than historians. Altogether, social media played a
role in the spread of disinformation on controversial topics. It is essential that one gets to be well-
informed of historical truths. This misinformation that claim that there were no human rights violations
or corruption under Marcos’ martial law can be considered a form of historical distortion.
Misinformation may have been propagated on social media. People can avoid historical revisionism
about martial law by seeking primary sources or the testimonies of those who experienced martial
law.

This study source was downloaded by 100000838996563 from CourseHero.com on 12-13-2021 12:13:54 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/109354705/Understanding-Contextpdf/
 Historical revisionism has gotten a new face in the internet, particularly in form of fake news.
Given the ways in which the rise of the internet has transformed historical studies over the past years,
people now have access to a vast amount of information about the past. But there is a need to know
how to discern what is reliable and what is not. It is now easy to do research with sources drawn
almost entirely from websites without considering whether there could be obvious biases carried by
the website or whether they constituted a legitimate historical source. Technology has quickly
outpaced the ability guide people as to how best to search and assess online information.

If one is left unprepared and without the skills needed to determine what is real and what is
suspect in historical sources being presented there can be real consequences. Historical research
demands that students of history search and evaluate online information given the emphasis placed
on the careful reading and analysis of historical documents. The most basic guidelines can steer
students away from misinformation, such as asking the following questions when searching online:

Is the site associated with a reputable institution like a museum, historical society or university?
Can you identify the individual or organization responsible for the site, and are the proper credentials
displayed?
Is the information provided on the Web site, including text and images, properly cited? What can you
discern from both the incoming and outgoing links to the site?

The dangers brought about by historical revisionism serve to emphasize the critical evaluation
of bias and perspective in historical sources. The ease with which one can access and contribute to the
web makes it possible for everyone to be his or her own historian. The internet is both a source of
information as well as a place for misinformation and distortion.

Primary sources, along with secondary sources from the scholarly community, serve
to counter historical revisionism.

This study source was downloaded by 100000838996563 from CourseHero.com on 12-13-2021 12:13:54 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/109354705/Understanding-Contextpdf/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)