PHILIPPINE HISTORY:

SPACES FOR CONFLICT

AND CONTROVERSIES
 In this chapter, we will analyze four
historiographical problems in Philippine history in
an attempt to apply what we have learned thus far
in the work of a historian and the process of
historical inquiry. Earlier we have been introduced
to history as a discipline, the historical method, and
the content and context analysis of primary
sources.
Two key concepts that need to be
defined before proceeding to the
historical analysis of problems in
history are INTERPRETATION and
MULTIPERSPECTIVITY.
 Making Sense of the Past: HISTORICAL
INTERPRETATION

History is the study of the past, but a more

contemporary definition is centered on how it
impacts the present through its consequences.
Geoffrey Barraclough defines history as “the
attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary
evidence, the significant things about the past.”
He also notes “the history we read, though
based on facts, is strictly speaking, not
factual at all, but a series of accepted
judgements.” Such judgements of
historians on how the past should be seen
make the foundation of historical
interpretation.
Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history
and then draw their own reading so that their intended
audience may understand the historical event, a process that in
essence, “makes sense of the past.” The premise is that not all
primary sources are accessible to a general audience, and
without the proper training and background, a non-historian
interpreting a primary source may do more Harm than good – a
primary source may even cause misunderstandings; sometimes,
even resulting in more problems.
 Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary
according to who reads the primary source, when it
was read, and how it was read. As students of
history, we must be well equipped to recognize
different types of interpretations, why these may
differ from each other, and how to critically sift
these interpretations through historical evaluation.
Interpretations of historical events
change over time; thus, it is an
important skill for a student of
history to track these changes in an
attempt to understand the past.
 Many of the things we accept as “true” about the
past might not be the case anymore; just becuase
these were taught to us as “facts” when we were
younger does not mean that it is set in stone –
history is, after all, a construct. And as a construct,
it is open for interpretation. There might be
conflicting and competing accounts of the past that
need one’s attention and can impact the way we
view our country’s history and identity.
 It is important, therefore, to subject to
evaluation not only the primary source,
but also the historical interpretation of the
same, to ensure that the current
interpretation is reliable to support our
acceptance of events of the past.
 MULTIPERSPECTIVITY

This can be defined as a way of looking at historical

evens, personalities, developments, cultures, and
societies from different perspectives.
This means that there is a multitude of ways by
which we can view the world, and each could be
equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial
as well.
 Historical writings is, by definition, biased, partial,
and contains preconceptions. The historian decides
on what sources to use, what interpretation to
make more apparent, depending on what his end
is.
Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to
those that suggest that a certain event happened,
and then ignore the rest that goes against the
evidence.
Historians may omit significant facts about their
subject, which makes the interpretation
unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain
ideology to their subject, which may not be
appropriate to the period the subject was from.
Historians my also provide a single cause for an
event without considering other possible causal
explanations of said event.
These are just many of the ways a historian may fail
in his historical inference, description, and
interpretation. With multiperspectivity as an
approach in history, we must understand that
historical interpretations contain discrepancies,
contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus
of dissent.
 Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires
incorporating source materials that reflect different
views of an event in history, because singular
historical narratives do not provide for space to
inquire and investigate. Different sources that
counter each other may create space for more
investigation and research, while providing more
evidence for those truths that these sources agree
on.
 Different kinds of sources also provide different
historical truths – an official document may note
different aspects of the past than, say, a memoir of
an ordinary person on the same event. Different
historical agents create different historical truths,
and while this may be a burdensome work for the
historian, it also renders more validity to the
historical scholarship.
 Taking these in close regard in the
reading of historical interpretations,
it provides for the audience a more
complex, but also a more complete
and richer understanding of the
past.
 WRITE AN
INSIGHT/IMPRESSION/
LEARNING
Thank You!