Miko Johnson Ong Co
11725702
KASPIL1
Dr. Orillos-Juan Orillos- Juan
Topic: History of History as a Discipline Refer to the reading materials that were posted in your respective FB groups. Matrix-Notecards for the Reading Materials TOPICS A. Definition Definition of History
NOTES / SOURCES History has different etymologies, but according to Aristotle, it is “a systematic account of a set of natural phenomena, whether or not chronological ordering was a factor in the account.” It can be distinguished as history-as-actuality and history-as-record, and mostly we know is the latter as history has been formed by historians based on their imaginations through analysis and observation on particulars, which are not by themselves the historical event but merely results thereof. In order to reconstruct history, both the historical method and historiography is required.
B. Emphasis of History in the Western World
The history of the Western world is often put emphasis on the history of other countries, much like how the history of the stay of Spain in the Philippines became “their” history instead o f ours. The political and socioeconomic implications the Spaniards had made it seem as if it was their history, history, being able to influence the Filipinos’ historical view and allowing them to “succumb” to their culture, traditions, and basically the stigma to live like them.
C. Traditional History
Traditional history calls for objectivity. It makes use of historical narratives and explanations. The central themes are often about politics or famous writers writers or stories about “great” or “noble” men.
D. Nouvelle Histoire (New Histoire (New History)
Nouvelle Histoire (New Histoire (New History) is an approach that rejected the traditional history, which comprised of the historical narratives, explanations of historical events, objectivity-centered papers, and basically anything deemed "inactive” to the methods of teaching students.
E. Definition/Etymology of Kasaysayan as Kasaysayan as an indigenous tradition in the Philippines
The etymology of kasaysayan is like the German Geschichte which Geschichte which means story, or salaysay in Tagalog, an extended form of saysay. Basically, for the indigenous natives, any event with significance or relevance is kasaysayan and during their time, their belief in myths and gods. They also viewed kasaysayan as cyclical in the sense of the eternal recurrence of natural and human phenomena.
F. Types/Forms of Kasaysayan
For our ancestors, their kasaysayan was revolving on the eternal recurrence of natural and human phenomena, which led to myths and legends. These myths and legends were what constituted the “significance” of their lives. After the Spaniards came, a new type of kasaysayan enlightened Filipinos, which is a linear system of change and movement. Events were happening differently from time to time, and the Hispanic colonial view was recognized by the whole archipelago. This was in a bipartite view. The last form of kasaysayan was in a tripartite view when Filipinos realized the political separation between Indios and Indios and Spanish “elites,” which which called for different propagandas. The kasaysayan
at this time was focused on Filipinos having their own capability to progress, not being dictated by the historical ideologies of another country, making their own events meaningful and as “Filipinos in the Philippines” not “Spain in the Philippines.” G. Historie/Historia/ History vs. Kasaysayan Implications on the Study of Philippine History
History is defined as merely investigation, whereas kasaysayan emphasizes the meaning. History will only tell what happened, but kasaysayan tells the story and its relevance on succeeding events or any aspect. This led to a different way of studying the Philippine history, which is through understanding the historical ideologies or beliefs of our ancestors, which were initially personally influenced until the arrival of the Spaniards, and fast forward until the rise of the propagandistas, that led to their actions in creating history.
H. Elements of History
In order for something to be recognized as history, it must be able to be accounted for in a human setting. History can be divided into two: historyas-actuality and history-as-record. Regardless of the two, history will require sources, be it original, primary or secondary. These sources can be documents, artifacts, pictures, and other records, from which history is derived upon through recreation of events that have resulted to the sources. The sources have their authors or makers, and the date to which they were made.
I. Historical Sources Primary vs. Secondary Written & Non-written
Primary sources are testimonies from first-hand witness. Primary sources need not be original sources, so long as they came from observations of the event at that moment when the event occurred. On the other hand, secondary sources are not testimonies of first-hand witnesses, but witnesses of passed on information. A written source is anything documented on paper, be it an official paper or any manuscript, so long as it is written. On the other hand, a nonwritten source is any oral testimony, artifact, picture or archeological remains that serve relevant to historians in determining historical events.
J. Historical Criticism: External Criticism
An external criticism of a historical fact would only require the identification of the supposed author as well as the approximate date.
K. Historical Criticism: Internal Criticism
An internal criticism of a historical fact would require a series of internal guesses to prove the authenticity of the author and the date. First, a historian must be able to ask the right questions, which are in the form of Interrogative Hypothesis. In identifying the author, one must be able to tell whether the author was able to tell the truth through his nearness to the event in terms of his location and time, his competence, degree of attention, use of leading questions, if he is an intellectual or simply a commoner, and his egocentrism. Next important investigation is if he is willing to tell the truth through the checking of whether the author’s intent was to mislead his audience, if he was part of say a judiciary process that deprived him the right to explain all the details, and the like. The historian must also check the conditions that favor a more credible testimony, such as when the author is uninterested, leading to an unbiased work, whether his statements were in contrary to his expectations, and other more. Furthermore, the historian should also check for hearsay or secondary
evidences since passed on information is not the credible. However, if the primary source were honest and complete while the hearsay source were competent to record everything, hearsay evidences can still be recognized by historians as relevant. Lastly, corroboration is also important, especially in checking whether there have been testimonies of two or more reliable sources. However, since in recent observations it was discovered that most witnesses consist of one person only, exemptions are permitted. L. Practical Uses of History
M. Practical Uses of Historical Criticism
The practical uses of history are in order to determine the reasons behind the occurrences of different events that might shed enlightenment to current events, such as let’s say explanations of the reasons of wars in the past that led to the continuous disagreement and unhealthy relationship between two countries, to learn from the mistakes our ancestors have committed and better
