TROPICALES, Bernadette Jane A.

B25_GED103

How Our Understanding of History Can be Manipulated

even if the goal may be an impossible task. Historians sift through papers and archives to

investigate the myriad cultural and civilizational changes that have happened throughout history.

They use various approaches and analytical tools to establish historical truths and reconstruct the

depth of past human experiences. History contributes in our understanding of and response to

daunting issues and challenges that touch both the past and the present by exploring how the past

was built and how it impacted interactions between societies and individuals on a global,

national, and local scale (Why Should You Study History?, n.d.).

Historians and scholars refer to two types of sources: primary and secondary. Primary

sources are first-hand, direct data, and secondary sources are derived, second-hand data from

such existing sources (Blog, 2022). Both are useful in understanding Philippine history as they

give insight into what may have happened then. One source is not more reliable than the other;

they are equally as reliable in constructing historical context. It matters most to the historians'

research that they use more than one source for the narrative to be credible and almost accurate

to the event. Thus, the procedure must be conducted objectively and without regard for

subjective preconceptions.

Aside from uncovering incomplete documents, one of the historians' key challenges is

locating reputable and unprejudiced sources. Normally, some would say that primary sources,

like manuscripts, memoirs, and recordings from a historical event, are more credible than

hearsay documents from other authors. However, as time passed, more and more people became
doubtful of how trustworthy it actually is. What if it is just one-half of the story? What if the

villains and heroes were purposefully misrepresented? It became completely different once

everyone came to the realization that the vestiges of history are stories of the winners and those

who came out of the strife. And so, we begin to doubt which parts of their story are true and

which are false. Some sources are biased, necessitating a thorough analysis of not only the

content of the source but its author as well. As such, in this paper, I will be analyzing primary

sources and the probable issues presented by using them as a basis for historical context.

The first primary source to be analyzed is Raiders of the Sulu Sea. Raiders of the Sulu

Sea were known in history as pirates, savage terrorists, and fearless slave raiders. They were

dangerous and strong adversaries who could stand their ground against anyone, even those with

more modern technological weaponry. However, we learn that there may be widespread

prejudice towards these raiders; they were not savages (Acesushii, 2018). Historians believe they

were indigenous people who risked their lives to defend their homeland from foreign invaders

who attempted to harass their way of life. Hence, in order to understand the complete event, let

us put the violence and slave raids into the correct perspective. Some of their actions appear to be

self-defense against colonialism. Their daring actions were not without purpose; they were

motivated by resolve and tenacity to struggle for independence and freedom from colonialism.

This may be the tale of men who fought against the powers of colonialism while maintaining

their faith and living by the sword. So, were they barbarians? Or were they defenders of freedom

and warriors?

This is one of the sources that depict a story that may have been purposefully changed in

order to make the winners appear superior. The issue with this is evident; those who come out of

strife can easily change the story. The Spaniards called the raiders uncivilized when in fact, they
had an entire system of society in place, and this is made evident by Cruz's (n.d.) video on the

Customs of the Tagalogs. Yet, since those who were present at the time said so, we had all

assumed that to be the case. Words of those who had experienced it directly are more believable

than those who heard it from someone else. That is why this issue is very problematic; their

words have the power to define history and how a person or group of people are labeled

throughout history, and it has continued to taint Muslims' identities to this day.

Following that, the second primary source that I will analyze is the Kartilya ng

Katipunan, written by Emilio Jacinto. This was written to serve as a manual for new Katipunan

members, outlining the rules and principles they needed to follow (What Is the Goal of Kartilya

Ng Katipunan?, 2021). The KKK was a revolutionary organization that was interested in

liberating the country under Spanish tyranny. Contrary to the teachings of our high school

teachers, the organization was not solely a movement for a violent revolution but, in fact, had

been built on an ideological and political foundation. The organization wanted to establish itself

as a group that held equality and camaraderie principles and emphasized the need to have good

character and behavioral qualities.

The Kartilya is an important document that emphasizes the importance of fighting for a

good cause rather than plain vengeance. It was philosophical and contained ideologies

embodying moral and nationalistic principles. The issue with this source is that it was written in

a different language. That means there should be a process of translation so that we can

understand what our ancestors wrote. However, the process is not as simple as it may appear;

merely being bilingual does not guarantee that one will interpret the message correctly. It is

important to evaluate the many structures of the language that will be translated, as well as

cultural and societal variables (Translation Challenges Faced by Translators – Strategies in

version of the Kartilya that we know, which means that it can cause misinterpretations of the true

meaning of the piece.

The next primary source that we will analyze is Emilio Aguinaldo's Mga Gunita ng

Himagsikan. This book was an autobiography of himself during the Spanish revolution. In the

book, he recounts his contributions to the revolution and the several incidents that occurred as a

result of it, including the Tejeros Convention and the death of the Bonifacio brothers. There,

Bonifacio's act of treason against Aguinaldo's newly formed government was mentioned and

how he was urged by the ministers to execute Bonifacio so that the Katipuneros would become

one and obey him.

The issue with this primary source is that he himself was the one who wrote it. This

means that he has the power to alter the events of the story. In an article made by Chua (2013),

Aguinaldo released a letter admitting that he, in fact, ordered the execution of the Bonifacio

brothers of his own volition. Even Teodoro Agoncillo himself acknowledged that the letter was

authentic, which he stated in his book Revolt of the Masses. With that in mind, how can we truly

know if everything that Aguinaldo had written in his book was completely true? There may be

little lies spread out into the narrative of his own experiences, which may significantly change

the story of the incident.

The fourth primary source I will analyze is The Philippine Declaration of Independence,

formerly known as Acta de la proclamación de Independencia del pueblo Filipino written by

Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista. It is one of the most important events in Filipino history because it

covers the events of the Philippine Revolution up until the day the Philippines declared
independence from the Spanish regiment. On this day, Filipinos should remember the heroism

and sacrifices made by our warriors and heroes for the people and the motherland.

Yet, it was not until July 1946 that the United States signed a treaty surrendering all

rights to the Philippines. As a result, there was much debate about whether the Declaration of

Independence was of the day our forefathers flew our flags or of the American relinquishment.

Many people have also stated that they feel the Acta did not completely convince Aguinaldo,

even though he was a key figure in its declaration. According to Ocampo's (2020) article, none of

them wrote crosses to replace their incapacity with writing; therefore, everyone could at least

write or sign their names, and yet Aguinaldo's signature was missing from the document. This

lends weight to the notion that he did not believe the Acta himself. As a result, this primary

source bears the issue of possible lies and insufficient documents, casting doubt on the entire

incident. Have we been missing a certain piece of the story? Or was it simply a distrust of what

he himself should have believed in? This raised a few controversies that our primary sources

cannot give the answer to.

Finally, the last primary source that I will analyze is the speech of Corazon Aquino to the

US Congress. Her address was delivered on September 18, 1986, at the United States Congress's

Joint Session. Her speech was taped, and the manuscript was kept in the Philippine Official

Gazette. In her speech, she asked for financial help and assistance in reconstructing the

Philippines after suffering hardships during Ferdinand Marcos' tyranny. Additionally, she

pledged that there would be peace if she was elected as the new president. If we analyze her

speech, we can see that Aquino chose her words carefully in order to captivate her audience's

hearts. Because her speech is a video recording, it is difficult to know if her emotions are

genuine and if she received no background assistance. Furthermore, because Aquino carefully
selected her words, the emotional impact she has produced on the audience will allow her to

convince them of anything she says. As a result, the speech's issue is that it cannot be used as a

basis for what happened then. This is due to her desire to win the hearts of the audience, which

frequently leads to exaggeration of the event and playing into what the public wants.

Primary sources are useful in finding out what happened in the past. However, even if we

can use it to grasp historical contexts, we should still consider who the author was and how

significant his work was during the whole event. This is due to the fact that people who emerge

triumphant from conflict write history. As a result, they can write whatever they want, label

anyone they want, and exaggerate as much as they want without being disputed. They can be

linked to prejudice, which can influence how we understand history. So, how can we derive

historical truths if our existing sources may be biased or misconstrued? Not all primary sources

are biased, but even then, we will not know that unless we do thorough readings. This is why

historians read and research; they find other sources so that they can prove the primary source's

credibility and which parts can be false statements. Nevertheless, primary sources are still

reliable enough as long as we question and analyze them constantly rather than blindly believing

them.

Word Count: 1,865 words