CHAPTER 1 HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY:

MEANING AND RELEVANCE

Meaning and Importance of History

History, as a concept, is complex and shaped by various factors, including cultural, historical, and power
dynamics. Socrates emphasized the importance of defining terms for effective discourse, while Napoleon
Bonaparte's quote, "What is history but a fable agreed upon," highlights how history is influenced by those
who control the narrative.

Etymologically, "history" comes from the Greek word ἱστορία, meaning "to learn" or "inquire." Today, it
refers to past events and can be understood in three ways:

1. As the study of past events.

2. As records of those events (e.g., chronicles, official documents).

3. As an academic discipline analyzing these events.

Dr. Zeus Salazar defined history as events significant to a particular group, advocating for the use of Filipino
in historical discourse. Overall, history helps us understand human achievements and culture, despite
differing definitions among scholars.

The term history refers to more than just the records of past events. While it focuses on the past, history
also influences the present and future of a country. Medina emphasized that history is not only about the
past but is also a forward-looking projection that shapes a country's future. Writing history is a political act,
with those in power influencing the direction of historical narratives. Keith Jenkins argued that history is a
form of power, where the selection and arrangement of past events privilege some subjects while muting
others.

Historian Samuel Tan defined history as a dynamic process, where past events are understood through their
relationship to the present and future. Tan’s view highlights that history is a collective effort, not just the
work of a specific group, challenging Manila-centered history. This view was supported by nationalist
historian Renato Constantino, who emphasized that history is a collective achievement, with the masses
being the true drivers of historical change, in line with Marx's perspective.

The study of history is important because it helps us understand ourselves, our strengths, limitations, and
aspirations. Historical events remind us of the collective experiences of a people, uniting them toward
national realization. History became possible with the invention of writing, marking the shift from
prehistory to the historic era.

History can be divided into several branches, such as general history (political, economic, diplomatic,
military), economic history, cultural history (local, ethnic, social, and myth history). Today, historians
emphasize not only political history but also the economic and socio-cultural aspects of history.

History and Philippine Historiography

Historiography is the art and theory of writing history, derived from the Greek words historia (past) and
graphia (to write). While the practice of writing history dates back thousands of years, historiography as a
scientific discipline emerged in the early 1900s. Recent developments in historiography have expanded the
scope of historical writing. The new historicism, pioneered by Michel Foucault, introduced fresh
perspectives on historical interpretation.

This approach has broadened the range of sources considered valid for historical study, incorporating
materials like oral history, folklore, and indigenous sources that were traditionally excluded. Additionally,
Mikhail Bakhtin emphasized that silences in history—what is left unsaid—are just as significant as the
voices that are recorded.

In the Philippines, the dominance of colonial historiography has been challenged by Filipino historians who
sought to reclaim the narrative and develop a history that reflects the Filipino perspective. Historians like
Guerrero, Diokno, Salazar, and others worked to counter the colonial viewpoint by highlighting aspects of
Philippine history that had been neglected or misrepresented. They sought to reinterpret history using
Filipino language and ideas, giving voice to previously marginalized perspectives.

The post-EDSA period brought new direction to the study of Philippine history, especially with the support
for using Filipino as the medium of instruction. This led to the development of the Pantayong Pananaw
(from our point of view) approach, advocated by historians like Zeus Salazar. This approach emphasized the
importance of studying history in a way that reflects what is meaningful to the Filipino people, focusing on
local history, oral traditions, culture, and other previously overlooked aspects. The Pantayong Pananaw
thus redirected the study of history to a more inclusive and people-centered approach.

The Development of Philippine Historiography

Historical consciousness is deeply ingrained in the Filipino people, as reflected in the saying, "Ang hindi
marunong lumingon sa kanyang nakaraan ay hindi makararating sa kanyang paroroonan," which highlights
the importance Filipinos place on their past. For many years, Filipino historians adhered to a rigid tradition
of writing history based on positivism, which emphasized historical knowledge and interpretation grounded
in verifiable data and document criticism. However, this approach had its limitations.

In response, a new historical approach called New Historicism emerged, seeking to interpret historical facts
from multiple perspectives, including those beyond traditional historical narratives. In the 1960s, Filipino
historians began challenging the conventional methods of historical discourse by broadening their sources
and offering fresh interpretations. Leslie Bauzon, in his article "Perspective on Contemporary Philippine
Historiography," emphasized the need for a methodology that is specific to Philippine society. He argued
that using Western models, which do not align with the Filipino context, constrained historians from fully
understanding Philippine history from a Filipino perspective.

1.1 The Writing of History during the Spanish Period

The development of Philippine historiography can be traced back to the Spanish period. The early friars
with their zeal to propagate Christianity studied the cultures of the early Filipinos and faithfully recorded
their valuable observations. Although the writings of the early friars were basically missionary history, their
recorded coservations on the lile of the early Filipinos are indispensable in the understanding of the
Philippine past. Since the early historian were Spanish priars their accounts were focused on the Spanish
history of the Philippines, specificaly missionary experience in the country.

The development of Philippine historiography can be traced back to the Spanish period. The early friars
with their zeal to propagate Christianity studied the cultures of the early Filipinos and faithfully recorded
their valuable observations. Although the writings of the early friars were basically missionary history, their
recorded coservations on the lile of the early Filipinos are indispensable in the understanding of the
Philippine past. Since the early historian were Spanish priars their accounts were focused on the Spanish
history of the Philippines, specificaly missionary experience in the country.

1.2 Secular Historians during the Spanish Period

The writing of history during the Spanish period was not confined to the hands of the friars. As a proof,
many secular historians had shown great interest the Philippine affairs which they recorded. The secular
historians during the Spanish period can be divided in the following: Spanish officials in the Islands, foreign
residents and writers" and Filipino Ilustrado.

Among the Spanish officials who served the country, Dr. Antonio de Morga, can be considered as the most
respected and his "Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas" one of the most reliable sources of information regarding
the 16th century Philippines. Another authoritative work on pre-Spanish Philippine society was the book
written by an encomendero in the Visayas, Captain Miguel de Loarca. Loarca's "Relacion de las Islas
Filipinas", highlighted the material culture of the early Filipinos which according to him was on a very high
degree of advancement. Being an encomendero, Loarca made a vivid description of the economic life of the
early Filipinos.

One of the colonial officials who worked on the history of the Philippines was Thomas de Comyn who wrote
Estado de las Islas Filipinas en 1810 which is valuable because of its description of the colonial economy
after the opening of Manila to international trade. Paul de la Goromiere who served as surgeon mayor of
the Spanish army also wrote his impressions of the country. Aside from Morga's work, the three-volume
work of Jose Montero y Vidal entitled "Historia General de Filipinas Desde Descubriemento Hastra Nuestros
Diaz" was a good account of the Spanish Philippines.

1.3 Filipino Historians during the Spanish Philippines

The opening of Manila to international trade has brought economic development to the country and this
development paved the way for the birth of the middle class. The economic prosperity that was achieved
gave Filipino historians the opportunity to study in Europe and work for Philippine reforms. The Filipino
ilustrados like Jose Rizal, Marcelo de Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Pedro Paterno, Antonio Luna, Mariano
Ponce, and Isabelo De Los Reyes, among others can be considered as the first Filipino nationalist-historians
defended the Philippines and the Filipinos from a very biased portrayal who by foreign historians.

1.4 The Writing of History during the American Period

On June 2, 1898, General Emilio Aguinaldo declared the independence of the Philippines. The short-lived
Philippine Republic ended with the capture of Aguinaldo in Palanan, Isabela on March 23, 1901. In this year,
the American government decided to terminate the military government and replaced it with a civil
government under the leadership of William Howard Taft.

Generally speaking, the writing of history during this period can be considered better compared to the
writings of history during the Spanish period. Although, most of the writings of the Americans about the
Philippines were extremely biased, still there were few Americans who wrote in favor of the Filipinos.
Historians during this period can be classified into Filipino Ilustrado, American colonial officials, non-
colonial officials and the so-called academic historians.

1.5 Historical Writings during the Third Republic

In the early 50s, the writings of history continued to be dominated by traditional historians. The maxim "No
Documents, No History" popularized by the positivist tradition espoused by Leopold Von Ranke in the early
19th century continued to have support from Filipino historians. In the early 50s, Filipino historians of the
American era continued to dominate the writings of history. Following the positivist tradition, early titans in
the field of history like Dr. Nicolas Zafra, Dr. Conrado Benitez, Dr. Domingo Eufronio Alip, Dr. Gregorio Zaide,
and Dr. Antonio Molina relied heavily on the use of documents as their unit of analysis in writing history.

History writing during this period was influenced to thembalo war. Thus Philippines, being known as an ally
of the United States tried to combat communism by privileging the achievements of the colonizers in
Philippine history. Historian Gregorio Zaide and younger scholars like Fr. Horacio de la Costa and Fr. Jose
Arcilla had written their history books from a clerical point of view. Needless to say, most of the writings
during this period are actually the history of the colonists/colonizers in the Philippines.

In the late 1950s, Teodoro Agoncillo revolutionized the writing of Philippine history. Agoncillo in his effort to
write the history of the Philippines using a Filipino standpoint highlighted the 1896 Revolution and
considered 1872 as the beginning of the history of the Philippines as a nation. He considered the pre-1872
era as the lost history. He argued that what were written in the documents before 1872 are the history of
Spain in the Philippines. For Agoncillo, we cannot see a substantive role of the Filipinos in history because
Filipinos before 1872 were passive followers of the Spaniards. Agoncillo's books "Revolt of the Masses, The
Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan," stirred many controversies as tool for interpretation, and engaged
him in different debates with the conservatives. Nevertheless, in the early 80's the name Agoncillo became
the most influential and respected historian of the country and his books were hailed by the liberals.
Despite Agoncillo's popularity, however, an American historian Glen Anthony May, tried to discredit him
and his book, particularly the methodology that he used in his research. According to May, leading Filipino
historians like Agoncillo, Constantino and lleto had violated historical cannons to suit their political agenda.
In the case of Agoncillo, May questioned the author's use of unreliable sources like oral interview.
According to him, Agoncillo failed to follow the correct historical methodology. He cited as an example the
failure of Agoncillo to use other reliable sources like documents pertaining to Katipunan and the 1896
Revolution. For May, the dependence of Agoncillo on the oral interview, which according to him was not
done correctly for its failure to prepare a transcript, is a sign of Agoncillo's weakness as a historian.
Furthermore, he claimed that Agoncillo cannot rely on the oral interview because it was done several years
after the incident happened. He added that Agoncillo did not have much training in historical writings and
he was more of a poet than a historian. For May, Agoncillo's use of speculative words that cannot be
verified in documents manifested his lack of training to conduct historical research.

William Henry Scott and Dr. Landa Jocano were the leading scholars who specialized on the subjects that
concem the pre-colonial civilization of the country. The two used different sources like the colonial
documents, ethnographic accounts and archaeological data in their reconstruction of the Philippine past.

In his attempt to write a history that will reflect the masses, William Henry Scott termed the History of the
Inarticulate. According to Scott, historians can see the participation of the people even in colonial
documents by means of creative re-reading of the documents. He cited as an example those edicts
regarding the Moros and other bandits that only showed that Filipinos were responding to colonial
oppression, both scholars had produced various monographs and books dealing with the Philippine pre-
colonial past and various studies of the different indigenous groups in the country. Henry Scott's "Cracks in
the Parchment Curtain" and Dr. Jocano's "The Philippine Pre- history are considered authoritative works in
Philippine pre-history.

The works of these two scholars had given historians new possibilities in the study of Philippine history. The
sources in the historical writing are extended because of the data coming from anthropological and
archaeological sources. One significant contribution of these two scholars is the inclusion of the different
indigenous communities in the study of history that led to a better understanding not only of the Philippine
past but also acceptance and respect to the least acculturated Filipinos who tried to maintain their social
order despite the threats from the colonizers. Their effort to analyze and include the indigenous experience
in our history gives scholars an alternative way of looking at the country's history from a standpoint of
colonialism vs, anti-colonialism. In this way, the people will have the chance to hear the muted voices in
history. As Baktin once noted the silences in history, not just the voices in history are Important. A history
from the periphery is a good alternative to counter the dominance of the colonial and pueblo-centered
history.

In his book "Pasyon and Revolution, lieto discussed how the people appropriated certain images in the
gasyon to work for their side. In his presentation, lieto had showed how the masses treated the pasyon to
work for their advantage. The pasyon which was intended to make the people submissive became a
subversive text that was used by the pobres y ignorantes to rebel against the pueblo authority. The author
argued that the masses did not put into writings their participation in history, so in order to write a history
from below, historians should deconstruct symbolic images that were part of the day-to-day activity of the
people.
In
his 1896 essay Filipinas, José Rizal envisioned various potential futures for the Philippines, includin
g remaining a Spanish colony with more freedom, gaining independence through bloodshed, or falling under
another nation

Many of Rizal's predictions came true within a century. In 1892, he founded La Liga Filipina, which was soon
followed by the Katipunan and the Philippine Revolution of 1896. Rizal was executed that year, and the
revolution split into factions. The Philippines later came under U.S. control after the Spanish-American War
and the Filipino-American War. The country suffered during World War II but finally gained independence
on July 4, 1946, as Rizal had foreseen.