Lec 01 – History

 Define history, describe its uses/importance, explain some views/philosophies in the discipline,
differentiate various approaches to Philippine History, rationalize Pantayong Pananaw, and justify the need
for history in understanding national identity
 History is a reconstruction of the past; History is not the past
 It is interpretative, and imaginative; in other universities, it is under the School of Humanities
 Written by the self, about the self, for the self (e.g. Chinese claims to Spratlys)
 Method (Navarro):
o Identify topic  Explore evidence/source  analyse source/data  derive meaning  historicize
 Historical literacy  understanding historical events and processes through active engagements with
sources/texts
 Uses/Importance of History:
o Bridging the Gap
o Explaining causes of events, and their effects
o Projecting the future
o Interpreting conditions of a given space and time
o Promoting nationalism and patriotism
 Sources of history (written and unwritten)  graphic/visual arts, oral, artificial/archaeological
 Views:
o Providential  predetermination
o Cyclical  Herodotus/Spengler
o Progressive/Linear  Marx, Leibnitz (Law of Continuity)
o Relativist  Foucault (History does not deal with causal analysis—cause and effect relationship—
but on discourse; History is relative to interpretation; Febvre (History interpreted depending on
current needs and concerns)
 From the Analects: “A minister, in serving his prince, reverently discharges his duties, and makes his
emolument a secondary consideration. Truly straightforward was the historiographer Yu. When good
government prevailed in his state, he was like an arrow. When bad government prevailed, he was like an
arrow.”
 Various Approaches to studying Philippine History
o Clerico-Imperialist  God and Spain
o Assimilationist  God made all men equal, Filipinos are equal to Spaniards
o Nationalist (Revolution era)
o Democratic-Imperialist (American Colonial era)
o Nationalist-Realist Transition  History as Art, History as it is; History from the top; e.g. Benitez,
Medina Zafra and Zaide
o Pure Nationalist  e.g. Agoncillo, Salazar(Pantayong Pananaw); History from below
o Leftist-Socialist/Marxist  History can be manipulated; History focused on economic classes
 All these approaches have various agenda
 For most Filipino historians, the main agenda was to try and write a Philippine History from the Philippine
perspective; furthermore, it lays down a blueprint for Filipino national identity
 Nationalist History can be problematic; ‘intellectual imperialism’; Romanticism; It is not objective
 History is not about finding out ‘the truth’ so much as it is understanding why people have different versions
of ‘the truth’; what are the stories people tell about themselves, why, and what does that say about them?
 Class exercise: Gobbet
 What is the source? What does it say? Who is the author? Who is the intended audience? What does it
reveal about history?