Phefeition ore Sublect Matter History has always been known as the study of the past, Students general education often dread the subject for its notoriety in requiring itty ni to memorize dates, places, names, and events fom distant eras. his oy appreciation of the discipline may be rooted trom the shallow understa nays of history's relevance to their lives and to their respective contexts, Whik the popular definition of history as the study of the past is not wrong, it dox not give justice to the complexity of the subject and its importance to hur civilization, Ristory was derived from the Greek word historia which me: Ti “knowledge acquired through inquiry or investi gation." History discipline existed for around 2,400 years and is as old as mathematic: philosophy. This term was then adapted to classical Latin where it acquired 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 dut: ty 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, them 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 ng to written documents, like government records, chroniclers’ or personal letters. Giving premium to written documents invalidates the history of other civilizations that do not. records. Some were keener on passing their history by word Others got their historical documents burned or destroyed in war or colonization. Restricting historical evidence as exclu: is also discrimination against other social classes who were ni paper. Nobilities, monarchs, the elite, and even’ the middle clas their birth, education, marriage, and death as matters of go historical record. But what of peasant familiés or indigené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. 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 the 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“gollectivejidentity through collective memory. Lessons from the past can ic “used to ake sense of the present. Learning of past mistakes can help peop, to not repeat them. Being reminded of a great past can inspire people to keep their good practices to move forward. sm is the school of thought that emerged between the eighteenth and nineteenth 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 documents in order to write a particular historical narrative. ist historians are also expected to be objective and impartial not t aeir arguments but also on their conduct of historical research. Me sPrative; any history that has been taught and written is always for a certain group of audience. When the ilustrados, like Jose Rizal, de los Reyes, and Pedro Paterno wrote history, they intended it for the 40 that they would realize that Filipinos are people of their own ind culture. When American historians depicted the Filipino people ized in their publications, they intended that narrative for their J ans to justify their colonization of the islands, They wanted the colonization to appear not as a means of undermining the Philippines! », Sovereignty, but as a civilizing mission to fulfill what they called as the “>. ‘white ‘indin’s burden.” The same is true for nations which prescribe official versions bf their history like North Korea, the Nazi Germany during the war “)petiod, and Thailand. The same was attempted by Marcos in the Philippines githe 1970s. °° » Postcolonialism.is a school of thought that emerged in the early ‘twentieth century when formerly colonized nations grappled with the idea of creating their identities and understanding their societies inst the shadows of their colonial past. Postcolonial history looks at ings in writing history: first is to tell the history of their nation highlight their identity free from that of colonial discourse and i cond is to criticize the methods, effects, and idea of lonial history is therefore a reaction and an alternative at colonial powers created and taught to their o>One of the problems confronted by history is the accusation that the ory 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 or 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. hist History and the Historian ee Ifhistory 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 discipline? If it is not, is it still worthwhile to study history? These questions have haunted 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 representation of the past through historical sources and evidences. ‘Therefore, itis 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 or 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 asgertain absolute objectivity, the study of history remains scientific because of the rigor of research and methodology that historians employ Historical. methodology comprises certain techniques and rules tbatoo wimorder to properly utilize sources and historical evidences “istoriand {Oley Certain rules apply in cases of conflicting accounts in - bang ‘and on how to properly treat eyewitness accounts and oral Alifferent Sei id historical evidence. In doing so, historical claims done by SOUT yd the arguments that they forward in their historical writings, par ant be idfluenced by the historian's inclinations, ean still be validated s aero asnces and employing correct and meticulous historical byjusing reliable evi methodology. Tike 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 be i Bloch, Fernand Braudel, and Jacques Le Goff studied other ee in a historical manner. They were concerned with social history ‘and studied longer historical periods. For example, Annales scholars 1 the history of peasantry, the history of medicine, or even the sone environment. The history from below was pioneered by the | Same scholars. They advocated that the people and classes who were not ‘“gefiécted in the 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, archaéology, and linguistics. 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 blind his judgment and such bias is only acceptable if he maintains his rigor as aresearcher,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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 Jong 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.Revisiting Corazon Aquino’s Speech Before the U.S. Congress Corazon “Cory” Cojuangeo Aquino functioned as th restoration of democracy and the overthrow of the Marcos Dictators} 1986, The EDSA People Power, which installed Cory Aquinoin the preside: put the Philippines in the international spotlight for overthrowing a dicta through peaceful means. Cory was easily a figure of the said revolution widow of the slain Marcos oppositionist and former Senator Benigno “Nin, Aquino Jr. Cory was hoisted as the antithesis of the dictator. Her i, as a mourning, widowed housewife who had always been in the shadoy, . her husband and relatives and had no experience in politics was juxtapo: against Marcos’s statesmanship, eloquence, charisma, and cunning po skills. Nevertheless, Cory was able to capture the imagination of the p: whoserights and freedom had long been compromised throughout the M. regime. This is despite the fact that Cory came from a rich haciendero f: in Tarlac and owned vast estates of sugar plantation and whose relat: occupy local and national government positions. e symbol of «- ‘The People Power Revolution of 1986 was widely recognized arounc the world for its peaceful character. When former senator Ninoy Aqu was shot at the tarmac of the Manila International Airport on 21 Augu 1983, the Marcos regime greatly suffered a crisis of legitimacy. Prot from different sectors frequented different areas in the country. Marc credibility in the international community also suffered. Paired with th looming economic crisis, Marcos had to do something to prove to his all |, in the United States that he remained to be the democratically anointed leader of the country. He called for a Snap Election in February 1956 where Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, the widow of the slain senator was viniced to run against Marcos. The canvassing was rigged to Marc x re people expressed their protests against the corrupt and | rian government. Leading military officials of the regime and t w orchestrators themselves, Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel V Ramos, plotted to take over the presidency, until civilians heeded the call of then Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and other civilianOn 18 September 1986, seven months since Cory became president, she went to the United States and spoke before the joint session of the U.S. Congress. Cory was welcomed with long applause as she took the podium and addressed the United States about her presidency and the challenges faced by the new republic. She began her specch with the story of her leaving the United States three years prior as a newly widowed wife of Ninoy Aquino. She then told of Ninoy’s character, conviction, and resolve in opposing the authoritarianism of Marcos. She talked of the three times that they lost Ninoy including his demise on 23 August 1983. The first time was when the dictatorship detained Ninoy with other dissenters. Cory related: “The government sought to break him by indignities and terror. They locked him up in a tiny, nearly airless cell in a military camp in the north. They stripped him naked and held a threat of a sudden midnight execution over his head. Ninoy held up manfully under all of it. I barely did as well. For forty-three days, the authorities would not tell me what had happened to him. This was the first time my children and I felt we had lost him.” Cory continued that when Ninoy survived that first detention, he was then charged of subversion, murder, and other crimes. He was tried by a military court, whose legitimacy Ninoy adamantly questioned. To solidify his protest, Ninoy decided to do a hunger strike and fasted for 40 days. Cory treated this event as the second time that their family lost Ninoy. She said: “When that didn’t work, they put him on trial for subversion, murder anda host of other crimes before a military commission. Ninoy challenged its authority and went on a fast. If he survived it, then he felt God intended him for another fate. We had lost him again. For nothing would hold him back from his determination to see his fast through to the end. He stopped only when it dawned on him that the government would keep his body alive after the fast had destroyed his brain. And so, with barely any life in his body, he called off the fast on the 40th day.”Ninoy’s death was the third and the last time that Cory and th, children lost Ninoy. She continued: rrevocably and more painfully than in Boston. It had to be after the ther. But his death was lives toget nd faith by which “And then, we lost him i the past. The news came to us in three happiest years of our country’s resurrection and the courage # 1 eine thay could ibe free again. The dictator had called him a nobody. Yet, two million people threw aside their passivity and fear and escorted him to his grave.” Cory attributed the peaceful EDSA Revolution to the martyrdom ; Ninoy. She stated that the death of Ninoy sparked the revolution and {),.. responsibility of “offering the democratic alternative” had “fallen on (hoy, choulders.” Cory's address introduced us to her democratic philosophy which she claimed she also acquired from. Ninoy. She argued: “{ held fast to Ninoy’s conviction that it must be by the ways of democracy. I held out for participation in the 1984 election the dictatorship called, even if I knew it would be rigged. I was warned by the lawyers of the opposition, that I ran the grave risk of legitimizing the foregone results of elections that were clearly going to be fraudulent. But I was not fighting for lawyers but for the people in whose intelligence, I had implicit faith. By the exercise of democracy even in a dictatorship, they would be prepared for democracy when it came. And then also, it was the only way I knew by which we could measure our power even in the terms dictated by the dictatorship. The people vindicated me in an election shamefully marked by government thuggery and fraud. The opposition swept the elections, garnering a clear majority of the votes even if they ended up (thanks to a corrupt Commission on Elections) with ‘barely a third of the seats in Parliament. Now, I knew our power.” “ins Cory talked about her miraculous victory through the people's strugle continued talking about her earliest initiatives as the pre: : * s sated mocracy. She stated that she intended to forge and dra\ _ Tecanciliation’after a bloody and polarizing dictatorship. C: , theimportance ofthe EDS! ae See rete, \ 0 e EDSA Revolution in terms of being a “limited revoluNinoy’s death was the third and the last time that Cory and the, children lost Ninoy. She contim 1m irrevocably and more painfully than in me to us in Boston. It had to be after the f our lives together. But his death was whe courage and faith by which ‘The dictator had called him a de their passivity ued: “And then, we lost bi the past. The news cal three happiest years 0! my country’s resurrection and tl alone they could be free again. nobody. Yet, two million people threw asi fear and escorted him to his grave.” ‘A Revolution to the martyrdom , e revolution and ¢}, and Cory attributed the peaceful EDS. Ninoy. She stated that the death of Ninoy sparked the responsibility of “offering the democratic alternative” had “fallen on (hey) ” Cory’s address introduced us to her democratic philosophy m Ninoy. She argued: t must be by the ways shoulders.’ which she claimed she also acquired fro “{ held fast to Ninoy’s conviction that it of democracy. I held out for participation in the 1984 election the dictatorship called, even if I knew it would be rigged. I was warned by the lawyers of the opposition, that I ran the grave risk of legitimizing the foregone results of elections that were clearly going to be fraudulent. But I was not fighting for lawyers but for the people in whose intelligence, I had implicit faith. By the exercise of democracy even in a dictatorship, they would be prepared for democracy when it came. And then also, it was the only way I knew by which we could measure our power even in the terms dictated by the dictatorship. The people vindicated me in an election shamefully marked by government thuggery and fraud. The opposition swept the elections, garnering a clear majority of the votes even if they ‘, ended up (thanks to a corrupt Commission on Elections) with barely a third of the seats in Parliament. Now, I knew our power.” an Coty talked about her miraculous vietory through the people's strug continued talking about her earliest initiatives as the president 8 aa mocracy. She stated that she intended to forge and dr reconciliation ‘after a bloody and polarizing dictatorship. Co! h \, the importance ofthe EDS: jand ren craia » 0 e EDSA Revolution in terms of being a “limited revolutthat respected the life and freedom of every Filipino.” She also boasted of the restoration of a fully constitutional government whose constitution gave utmost respect to the Bill of Rights. She reported to the U.S. Congress: “Again as we restore democracy by the ways of democracy, So are we completing the constitutional structures of our new democracy under a constitution that already gives full respect to the Bill of Rights. A jealously independent constitutional commission is completing its draft which will be submitted later this year to a popular referendum. When it is approved, there will be elections for both national and local positions. So, within about a year from a peaceful but national upheaval that overturned a dictatorship, we shall have returned to full constitutional government.” Cory then proceeded on her peace agenda with the existing communist insurgency, aggravated by the dictatorial and authoritarian measure of Ferdinand Marcos. She asserted: “My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a communist insurgency that numbered less than five hundred. Unhampered by respect for human rights he went at it with hammer and tongs. By the time he fied, that insurgency had grown to more than sixteen thousand. I think there is a lesson here to be learned about trying to stifle a thing with a means by which it grows.” Cory’s peace agenda involves political initiatives and re-integration Program to persuade insurgents to leave the countryside and return to the mainstream society to participate in the restoration of democracy. She invoked the path of peace because she believed that it was the moral path that a moral government must take. Nevertheless, Cory took a step back when she said that while peace is the priority of her presidency, she “will not waiver” when freedom and democracy are threatened. She said that, similar to Abraham Lincoln, she understands that “force may be necessary before mercy” and while she did not relish the idea, she “will do whatever it takes to defend the integrity and freedom of (her) country.” Cory then turned to the controversial topic of the Philippine foreign debt amounting to $26 billion at the time of her speech. This debt had ballooned during the Marcos regime. Cory expressed her intention to honor those debtsd not benefit from such debts, ‘p), Philippines was dep», " f the Filipino people..." ople di about the way th he capacity ©! joni at the pe tioning that # despite ment ce i rte jhe mentioned her pro! aaa ae noiees to pay those debts within a y may J turn other slavery, our twenty- ix billion to that other slavery, ow al ‘bt. Ihave said that we shall honor it. Yet, the from us. ‘all be able to do so are kept previous government d on us who never dollar foreign de! . eans by which we shal Many of the conditions imposed on the that stole this debt, continue to be impose benefited from it.” while the country had experienced the calam( brought about by the corrupt dictatorship of Marcos, no commensy;, acsistance was yet to be extended to the Philippines. She even remarked t),. given the peaceful character of EDSA People Power Revolution, “ours », have been the cheapest revolution ever.” She demonstrated that Filip people fulfilled the “most difficult condition of the debt negotiation,” who) was the “restoration of democracy and responsible government. She continued that Cory related to the U.S. legislators that wherever she went, she 1 poor and unemployed Filipinos willing to offer their lives for democracy. $2, stated: “Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or impoverished village, They came to me with one cry, democracy. Not food although they clearly needed it but democracy. Not work, although they surely wanted it but democracy. Not money, for they gave what little they had to my campaign. They didn’t expect me to work a miracle that would instantly put food into their mouths, clothes on their back, education in their children and give them work that will put dignity in their lives. But I feel the pressing obligation to respond quickly as the leader of the people so deserving of alll these things.” 9 tub iaed pee in enumerating the challenges of the Filipino people as {es n{iding the new democracy. These were the persisting communist cy the economic deterioration, Cory further lamented that thwhose benefit the Filipino people never received.” Cory then asked a rather compelling question to the U.S. Congres: “Has there been a greater test of national commitment to the ideals you hold dear than that my people have gone through? You have spent many lives and much treasure to bring freedom to many lands that were reluctant to receive it. And here, you have a people who want it by themselves and need only the help to preserve it.” Cory ended her speech by thanking America for serving as home to her family for what she referred to as the “three happiest years of our lives together.” She enjoined America in building the Philippines as a new home for democracy and in turning the country as a “shining testament of our two nations’ commitment to freedom.” Analysis of Cory Aquino’s Speech Cory Aquino’s speech was an important event in the political and diplomatic history of the country because it has arguably cemented the legitimacy of the EDSA government in the international arena. The speech talks of her family background, especially her relationship with her late husband, Ninoy Aquino. It is well known that it was Ninoy who served as the real leading figure of the opposition at that time. Indeed, Ninoy’s eloquence and charisma could very well compete with that of Marcos. In her speech, Cory talked at length about Ninoy’s toil and suffering at the hands of the dictatorship that he resisted. Even when she proceeded talking about her new government, she still went back to Ninoy’s legacies and lessons. Moreover, her attribution of the revolution to Ninoy’s death demonstrates not only Cory’s personal perception on the revolution, but since she was the president, it also represents what the dominant discourse was at that point in our history. The ideology or the principles of the new democratic government can also be seen in the same speech. Aquino was able to draw the sharp contrast between her government and of her predecessor by expressing her commitment to a democratic constitution drafted by an independent commission. She claimed that such constitution upholds and adheres to the rights and liberty of the Filipino people. Cory also hoisted herselfwre than two decades of a polay, reconcilii ent after mo. Se eerie! t Cory saw the blown-up comm i iti se, itarian politics. For example, authoriter aca product ofa repressive and corrupt government. Her resp, to this insurgency rooted from her diametrie opposition of the dictator; munist rebels to the mainstream Philip, jnitiati i ie com: rd ce ey ome her main approach to this problem was thyo,, peace and not through the sword of war. Despite Cory’s efforts to hoist herself as the exact opposite of May, her speech still revealed certain parallelisms between her and the Marc, government. This is seen in terms of continuing the alliance between 44, Philippines and the United States despite the known affinity between said world super power and Marcos. The Aquino regime, as seen in Coy. acceptance of the invitation to address the U.S. Congress and to the conten; of the speech, decided to build and continue with the alliance betwee, the Philippines and the United States and effectively implemented .,, essentially similar foreign policy to that of the dictatorship. For example Cory recognized that the large sum of foreign debts incurred by the Marcos regime never benefitted the Filipino people. Nevertheless, Cory expressed her intention to pay off those debts. Unknown to many Filipinos was the fact that there was a choice of waiving the said debt because those were the debt of the dictator and not of the country. Cory’s decision is an indicator of her government's intention to carry on a debt-driven econoniy. Reading through Aquino’s speech, we can already take cues, not just on Cory’s individual ideas and aspirations, but also the guiding principles and rk of the government that she represented.Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation centered on how it impacts the present through its Barraclough defines history as “the attempt to. discos he sigh out the past.” He also notes trictly speaking, not factual Such judgments of historians on of historical interpretation fragmentary evidence, the significant things ab “the history we read, though based on facts, is 8 at all, but a series of accepted judgments.” how the past should be seen make the foundation The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in Maragtas. Before it was reve the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker of Batan, Aklan in, 1956, with the following text: It audience, and with interpreting a pri source may even ca more problems. then a doctoral candidate at History is the study of the past, but a mor “CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third Chief of Panay; horn in/Aklan, established his government in the péninsula of Batang,Aklan Sakup. Considered the First Filipino Lawgiver; he promulgated in about 1433 a ‘penal code now known as Code of Kalantiaw containing 18 | “articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained ‘the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which . was later translated into Spanish by Rafael Murviedo *\-Yearnaney.” was only i 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when Wil riest named Jose | rat the code is.a legitimate document. e contemporary definition i. ongequences. Geoftres eover..on the basis of the epic history liam Henry Scott, the University of Santo Tomas, defended his ; ° Hispanic sources in Philippine history. He attributed | the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jo e Leyendas de la Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the code its«'l Maria Pavon, Prominent Filipino historians dic snt to Scott’s findings, but there are still some who would lik: E. Marco titled La utilize facts collected from primary sources of history reading so that their intended audience may under= a process that in essence, “makes sense of the p: ‘not. all primary sources are accessible to a gen proper training and background, a non-hist: yurce may do more harm than gobd—a prit lerstandings; sometimes, even resultin aled asa hoax, it was & source of pride for | was installed in the town |‘imarpaenions of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the Ba mt te it was read, and how it was read, As students of history, why these ma ce to recognize different types of interpretations, Re fer from each other, and how to critically sift these grants change ov ugh historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical on ee: time; thus, it is an important skill for a student of history ‘ese changes in an attempt to understand the past. “Sa Aking Mga Kabata” is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he was eight years old and is probably one of Rizal’s most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that this poem, with the now immortalized lines “Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita/mahigit sa-hayop at_malansang isda” was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal's authorship of the poem seems all unassailable. ‘There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to have received it in 1884 from Rizal's close friend, Saturnino Raselis. Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings, and more importantly, he never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis. Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful, attribution of the poem to Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word “kalayaan.” But it was documented in Rizal's letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilar’s translation of Rizal's essay “El Amor Patrio,” where it was spelled as “kalayahan.” While Rizal’s native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish, starting from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing himself in his native tongue. ‘The poem’s spelling is also suspect—the use of letters “k” and “w” to replace “c” and “u,” respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written during his time, it should use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.