I.

Issues and Problems in Philippine Historiography

•Philippine Historiography has underwent several changes since the precolonial

period until present. Alongside with these changes, sprung the different issues and
problems in which it has affected our appreciation of Philippine history itself

•At a larger part, Philippine history was originally written and documented by foreign
historians, in fact even at present most primary chronicles are mostly written in
Spanish and English. This being the case, modern day Filipino historian have put a lot
of question on the manner by which Philippine history was written.
I. Issues and Problems in Philippine Historiography

A. Correcting the errors of published historical work

Since most of the primary sources were written in foreign language, errors in translation have happened and have
affected much the writing of history. There was therefore the need to correct errors in publication.

B. Filling the gaps in Philippine History

There were very few anthropologists and archaeologist in the Philippines hence there are still gaps in some
account or parts of the Philippine history.

C. Reinterpretation of historical facts & events

Historical Revisionism is a practice in writing history in which historians reinterpret views of causes and effects,
decisions, explanations and evidences.

D. Rewriting History in the Filipino point of view

The biggest problem that was raised is the fact that writers were foreigners therefore Philippine history was
mostly written in a foreigner’s point of view and not on the point of view of the Filipinos.
History and kasaysayan are always equated the same. It is
founded on the idea that both are studies of the past. However,
for radical Filipino historians, the two concepts are not
synonymous.
History as a western concept
History
• is a western concept introduced by our colonizers, particularly by the Spaniards.
• derived from the Greek word historia which means “knowledge acquired through inquiry or investigation”. As a
discipline, it existed for 2,400 years.
• the term historia was then adopted to classical Latin where it acquired a new definition.
• Historia became known as the account of the pat of a group of people through written documents and historical
evidence. It is a must for traditional historians that unless a written document can prove a certain historical event,
then it cannot be considered as a historical fact.
• “no document, no history”
• “there is no Philippine history before the colonizers came”
• methodology of “history” is that “History accounts only recorded past.. that means it is only for those who can
write, those who are educated.
• how about the “history” of those who cannot write or are uneducated? Does this mean that “history” is only for a
specific class of people?
• Restricting historical evidence as exclusively written is also discrimination against other social classes who were not
recorded in paper. Does the absence of written documents about them mean that they are people of no history or
past? Did they even exist?
Filipino historians noticed it being gender-biased towards male; how the term is heavily influenced by patriarchy.
“HIStory”... how about “HERstory”.
Kasaysayan as a Filipino concept

Kasaysayan
• “salaysay na nagsalaysay ng mga bagay na may saysay para sa sinasalysayang grupo o salinlahi”.
• gives emphasis to the root of kasaysayan which is “saysay” which means significant.
• seeks to address some of the issues as regards the western concept of history and suit the paradigm of such
discipline in the Filipino context and culture.
• Kasaysayan, unlike history, is not only bound by written documents but as well as oral traditions like communal
songs, legends, epics and the like as mentioned earlier were the prevalent modes on how the ancient Filipinos and
most of the indigenous people who still exist up this day use as a mode of narrating their past and story.
• Oral traditions in the Philippine context are important since they also capture the emerging values, principles and
ideology of certain group of people at a particular time.
• Narrated their past and story through communal songs, epics and other traditions that they passed orally from a
generation to another.
• “People’s History” or “History from Below”. -E.P Thompson
• historical narrative which attempts to account for historical events from the perspective of common people
rather than leaders.
• an emphasis on disenfranchised, the oppressed, the poor, the nonconformists, and otherwise marginal groups.
Unlike the concept of “history” which values the philosophy of “history from above”.
III. Bipartite View vis-à-vis Tripartite View of Philippine History

Bipartite View of Philippine History

• For many years and sadly some still believe it until now, the Spaniards made us believe that there was no
civilization in Philippines. They made us think that early Filipino people were barbaric and uneducated.
They have assimilated upon the Filipinos that it was them who brought civilization and progress to us. This
is known as the Bipartite View of Philippine History.

• In such view, Philippine History can be only viewed into two epochs. The first is the “Pre-Hispanic
period” characterized as the time prior to the coming of the Spaniards where the condition of the
Philippines is seen of uncivilized society and barbaric people. The second epoch is the “Hispanic period”
characterized as time of the coming of the Spaniards seen as the advent of civilizing influences from
them.
• The Bipartite View of Philippine History made us think that we owe our civilization to the Spaniards. As a
metaphor to this view, the Katipuneros illustrated this view as “dilim-liwanag”. Dilim means darkness and
liwanag means light. Such metaphor connotes that the first epoch is seen as the dark age of Philippine
history and the second epoch as the age which brought light to Philippine history
Tripartite View of Philippine History

• The educated Filipinos during the Spanish era, known as the ilustrados cannot accept the bipartite view of
Philippine history presented by the Spaniards. They come up with a research on Philippine national history
to confront with colonialist ideologies. The beginning of the research took place in the period of the
Propaganda Movement which preceded the Philippine revolution.

Del Pilar Lopez Jaena Jose Rizal

From the analysis of Zeus Salazar to the tripartite view of Philippine History:

“One sees that Rizal's conception of the tripartite historical ideology of the Propaganda was the most
extreme. In contrast to Jaena and del Pilar, Rizal saw the problem more holistically. Thus, for him, it was
not just "frailocracy" or "monastic supremacy". With Jaena and del Pilar, Rizal quite naturally believes in
the innate capacity of the Filipino for progress; but, to him, it was the colonial system as such –– the very
existence of Spanish domination –– which was the cause of the disease that afflicted Filipinas. Monkish
predominance, as it were, was in this case just a symptom of the cancer that gnawed at the vital parts of
the nation. For this reason, the third period is likewise conceived in medical terms as some kind of
recovery which released the creative forces of the patient, giving Filipinas new life, new strength: a
future. The kind of therapy used actually mattered very little. Rizal was willing to try even the most
benign remedies, for which in Noli he would even implore passers-by in front of the temple, as in biblical
times. But his diagnosis –– as well as the analyses of both del Pilar and Jaena –– pointed clinically to swift
surgery as the appropriate therapy.”
The Katipuneros adopted this historical framework and used “liwanag-dilim-liwanag” as a metaphor. The
pre-colonial being “liwanag” since it was a great of civilization and identity for the Filipinos. The colonial
period being “dilim” since it was an epoch of abuse of power and lost of Filipino identity. Lastly, the post-
colonial period being “liwanag” again since the end of colonial regime is a mark of the restoration of Filipino
liberty.
IV. Zeus Salazar’s Pantayong Pananaw and other Pananaw Pangkasaysayan

• Pantayong Pananaw

Only few of our historical documents are written in Filipino or native language. Most of them are written
in English and Spanish. This is due to the fact that the elite Filipinos who studied abroad during the
Spanish and American era took the responsibility to write our history in English or other foreign language.
What was taught to them was to write history in a foreign perspective. They wrote for foreigners to
understand our history but not for their fellow Filipino who mostly do not understand the medium that
they used. According to Zeus Salazar, to wit:

• Philippine history should be written and taught in Filipino or ethnolinguistic language in the Philippines
because it is only through our own language that we are able to understand, appreciate and be able to
connect to our own history. Each culture is different and language serve as the channel for the uniqueness
of one’s culture. Through the guiding philosophy of Pantayong Pananaw, Philippine historiography will be
seen from point of view of Filipinos and addressed directly to the Filipinos.
• Pangkaming Pananaw

Historical perspective in which Philippine history is written by Filipinos in foreign language and intended for
to be read by foreigners to understand our history in our point of view. Example of this writers are the
Propagandist in their La Solidaridad. The propagandist are Filipinos but they used Spanish to write against
the Spaniards. Often, this historical perspective is used to correct or argue against false accounts written
by foreigners.

• Pangkayong Pananaw

Historical perspective in which Philippine history is written by foreigner in a foreign language as well but it
is meant to be addressed or directed to Filipinos as audience.
•Pansilang Pananaw

Historical perspective in which Philippine history is written by foreigners in a foreign language

as well and is intended to be read and understood by their fellow foreigners The scholars of
Pantayong Pananaw or the Bagong Kasaysayan advocates this guiding philosophy as we are in
need of a more comprehensive collection of historical accounts because it should be
understood by our own people. Individual histories of ethnic groups are independent of each
other but are all still part of the whole history of the Philippines a.ka. the concept of
ethnohistory. The Pantayong Pananaw seeks to address the issues and problems in our
Philippine historiography and the way Philippine history subjects are taught in our educational
system.