Unpacking Historical Criticism: Methods and Applications

What is History?

Before the onset of this historical criticism essay on What is History, I initially perceived the subject of history to be just as simple as an event that has happened in the past or somewhat a requisite for us Filipinos to learn and understand as way to look back on our origins. Despite of repeatedly taking up the course of history from elementary and high school, I am yet to discover more and improve my perception on the field and aspect of history. Among the knowledge I gathered in class, I figured that what I initially knew about and on history for several years were actually inaccurate and distorted. History is an event that is not only in connection with the past alone. Rather, it consequently affects the present and future events. Moreover, it has been divulged to us during the discussion that we do not study history solely because we were required but for important reasons that we don’t repeat the same mistakes that occurred in the past. History involves not only those who are present during a significant event, only those who get to witness historical occasions nor the historians themselves. It connects everyone even those who are yet to be born into this world.

Why is Historical Criticism Important?

The Philippines was first discovered by Spanish navigator, Ferdinand Magellan in 1521; The People Power revolution of 1986 did not shed a drop of blood; Andres Bonifacio and his family were peasants. None of the statements mentioned were true and are all fallacious. Despite of several history books and sources telling us that these events happened, among a handful of other historical testaments taught to us, they never occurred. According to Field, natives’ accounts tell us that upon their first encounter with Magellan and his comrades, they had already seen men who like them in the past hinting that other merchants reached the Philippines before Magellan in 1521. Magellan himself was not even Spanish to begin with. It is said that he was a merchant-navigator from Portugal employed by Spain. On a chronological documentation of the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986, there have been reports of killing incidents. According to Santiago, on February 25 1986, at around 5 in the morning, Marcos vows on the radio, “We’ll wipe them out. It is obvious they are committing rebellion.” as Ver and the Army commander, Maj. Gen. Josephus Ramas, went for an all-out attack on EDSA using tear gas, gunships, jet fighters and Marine artillery. There can obviously be no revolution without both sides putting their lives at risk. Like most old textbooks depicted Andres Bonifacio and his family, we pictured them to be poor. However, in reality the Bonifacios belonged to the upper middle class as Andres’ mother, Catalina, worked as a supervisor at a tobacco factory, while his father, Santiago, worked directly under the gobernadorcillo or town governor.

History in itself is simply not factual just like what Carr and Agoncillo argued in their respective articles, history is a testament and recreation of the former times that even if it is solely based on facts, we cannot totally eliminate fallacy and achieve absolute approximation of the events that occurred. These events date so far back in time that as these stories were passed on, few to several changes and misconceptions have been made which gave rise to a phenomenon called the “Mandela Effect” or false memory. By facilitating historical criticism externally and internally, we are able to reveal whether written articles and documents from the past are authentic and accurate.

Suppose you picked up a journal written by an anonymous individual dated 1981. His work was unpublished, but you found that it was written in Manila, Philippines. The journal contained details and personal stories about the Martial Law Era in the Philippines. How do you criticize the authenticity and validity of the document? Is it a credible source? I can say that the journal discusses the anonymous author’s personal stories as a witness which accounts as a primary source of information where it may be more vulnerable of bias, misinformation, and inaccuracy than those of secondary sources. Sources that are classified to be secondary is said to be more appropriate to be used as a reference because unlike the original source, it had already gone through reviews, appraisals, and revisions that eliminated errors that can be found in the primary source. 

Since we only need to assess the anonymous journal’s reliability and authorship, we can apply external criticism and answer the following questions based on our discussion:

When was it written and published? The anonymous author written their journal in 1981 but was never published. It discusses the author’s personal stories during Martial Law which happened on September 1972 until January 1981. Assessing the events and circumstances in the course of this era, it is safe to assume that the author wanted to document his experiences without the hopes of ever publishing it due to the threats it may bring them which is also why they drafted the journal anonymously.

Where was it written and published? The journal was written in Manila, Philippines in 1981 the same year Martial Law was proclaimed to be officially lifted.

Who is the author? Are they credible? The author wrote their journal anonymously most probably because of their circumstances during the era of Martial Law. Knowing how Martial Law would punish and silence anyone who wrote anything in opposition of the government, it was the best decision for the author to document their experiences anonymously. Moreover, as the journal was written the same year as the Martial Law just ended, I suppose that there’s still fear that exists among the media and the people for them to be vocal of their opinions and experiences. We cannot simply say that a journal is valid and factual because one can simply state that a journal dates back in 1981 and is written by a person who lived through Martial Law. However, what we can do is to verify if the events that happened written in the journal if they really did happen or were the details accurately specified by the author.

Why did the document/story survive? The journal survived because the anonymous author did not officially publish their work and was written only after the Martial Law was declared to be finally lifted.

From what pre-existing material was it produced? The journal was solely based on an individual’s personal stories on Martial Law. Regardless if its contents are of opposition to or in favor of the government’s actions during this time, it does not represent the experience of the entirety of the Philippines and its people.

What is the evidential value of its contents? Though written anonymously, we can only verify if the journal is accurate and has no fallacy based on the events written on it whether they actually occurred or not or if the elements incorporated in every event really took place.

To conclude, this anonymous journal, being a primary source of information, is not the most credible reference we have. However, we can polish and eliminate its possible fallacies and misinformation resulting to a secondary source that had already appraised the journal, added missing descriptions, and disproved incorrect accounts made by the anonymous author.

References

• Field, R. (December 2006). Revisiting Magellan’s voyage to the Philippines. 
• Stuart-Santiago,A. (March 2010). Chronology of a Revolution.