Teaching in the academe can both be rewarding, and at times mentally- and emotionally-taxing.
As a practicing historian and an assistant professor of History at the undergraduate and graduate levels, I have met different kinds of students who have shown varying extents of interest in History as a subject.
Most of these students, especially the undergrads, seem to show surprising interest in the course even if it is not their major — say, on Rizal, Philippine History, Local History.
Only a few, however, seem to be as interested to take up Historiography, that is the history of historians, and how they write history. This subject also looks into methodologies of history; it basically is a course on the historian’s craft.
Many do not like the subject because of its technical and rigorous approach. Quite a lot also find historical research, oft-times the final output of a historiography class, as a tedious academic endeavor. This is the reason why only a few individuals, even academics, attempt to do historical research in the Philippines.
Suffice it to say, I have decided to write about historiography for this week’s column because of a book — or at least a book cover — that one of my colleagues from another department shared on our group chat.
It was a book cover of American historian, James M. Banner Jr.’s The Ever-Changing Past: Why All History is Revisionist History.
I suppose he shared the book out of interest, or perhaps curiosity, on the topic of historical revisionism, so I told him the book is one of the recent sources that I’m using for my historiography class in Grad school.
I also use another book of Banner titled Being a Historian: An Introduction to the Professional World of History, which talks about history as a discipline and profession, and the responsibilities of historians as teachers and writers of history.
If the reader judges the book of Banner by its cover, he might jump into conclusion — based on the title alone — that the author discredits History as a relativistic academic discipline.
However, let me point out that this is true to a certain degree, as it is always subject to a historian’s interpretation.
Nevertheless, even if it is seen by most historians as relativistic, we still incessantly strive to know and understand what had really happened in the past, or at least reach somewhere near historical truth, not for political motivations (unlike some historians, and other paid propagandists), but for the search and creation of new historical knowledge that gives meaning to the present.
History being relative or subjective does not — and should not — diminish the work and craft of historians.
Moreover, what Banner meant by revisionist should not be seen in a negative light, as he argues that it is necessary for historical narratives to be revised if it is based on “substantiated evidence, plausible historical perspectives, and strongly argued, evidence-based interpretations of the past.”
The details of the book need not detain us further, but it should be highlighted that the author does not discredit the work of professional historians; matter-of-factly, he encourages his readers to dig deeper into history — by reading more works of historians — so as to get a better, albeit not total, understanding of the past.
In the Philippines, the interest on history has sprung up recently mostly because of the undying interest of the new generation on the Marcoses versus the Aquinos.
Sadly, instead of historians having a lively, nuanced academic debate on the subject, it seems that since the debate has reached social media and to the general public, it has become more toxic, and many misinterpretations and definitions of history have ineluctably arisen.
Historians are being discredited as non-professionals, and the history of the Philippines during the 1960s to the 1980s have been subject to many interpretations, mostly false interpretations without clear historical evidence.
History books are now being questioned, and subject to what they call as revisions, but what specifically must be revised?
Unless those who call to revise the history books have any, as Banner averred, “substantiated evidence, plausible historical perspectives, and strongly argued, evidence-based interpretations of the past,” then that is the time when historians would listen to them.
However, if they only base it on social media posts that confirm their pre-existing, politically-driven beliefs, then historians would always go against a proposition to revise.
If they revise history based on evidences from social media, which most likely are lies, then that is historical distortionism — as they intentionally change the historical narratives, even if there are no substantiated historical evidences to achieve a personal or political end.
As a practicing historian and an academic, here are some of the Do’s on revising history:
Always remember that historical accounts and facts can always be revised if there is new historical knowledge (with sufficient evidence) that contradicts the previous historical account or fact.
The study of history is not absolute. There are times when revisions are needed, especially if there is enough evidence to prove a previously-held view on history, say for example, the Code of Kalantiaw which was disproven by historian William Henry Scott as a hoax made up by Jose E. Marco.
History is subject to different interpretations also, so if there are new historical evidences that are found on a certain topic, then new inferences and subsequently, narratives can be made to correct the hitherto existing historical knowledge.
Always check the veracity of your sources. Do not believe in social media posts that are not fact-checked by historians and other legitimate fact-checkers on social media.
Try as much not to become a victim of fake news or alternative facts. In revising history, we must ascertain that the sources are not based on lies; we always have to check their veracity before anything else.
Trust professional historians to revise history if necessary, as they are academically-trained to write and do research about the past.
Even if their views go against your pre-existing beliefs, listen to them, and try to hear them out, as they would invariably base their interpretations of the past on corroborated historical evidences.
Do not automatically say “we need to revise history” without any basis for its revision. It is not enough to simply know what to revise, it is important to have substantiated historical evidences for your planned, if politically-motivated, revision of history.
As Banner averred: “Like all historical understanding, revisions must be able to pass the test of authoritative knowledge — of understanding gained through extended reading, research, study, reflection, and criticism.”
As for the Don’ts in revising history:
Don’t confuse historical Revisionism with historical Distortionism. The community of professional historians in the academe would agree there is nothing wrong in revising history as long as there are proper justifications with clear historical evidence to do so.
In fact, historians welcome revisions in history to reach, or at least get nearer, to historical truth; while there is indeed something wrong with the latter (historical distortionism) as its end-goal of rewriting history is for personal or political gains with the use of disinformation and fictitious stories on history to hoodwink the credulous general public.
Don’t revise history based on unreliable historical evidences from social media. Historical accounts from social media have spread like wildfire this year, and they tend to deodorize, so to speak, a certain political family who have been known in history as plunderers who have lived off from the billions of dollars they stole from the Filipino people.
There are some historians today who believe that a nuanced historical account of the Marcos period is necessary, that there should be a revision on some tendentious aspects of the historical narrative about the Marcoses.
Again, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is based on what Banner said as “substantiated evidence, plausible historical perspectives, and strongly argued, evidence-based interpretations of the past.”
However, if it is based on social media posts of paid influencers, vloggers, and propagandists, then no, thank you! There is no need to revise, if that is the case.
Don’t be a Holocaust-denier or someone similar, like a Marcos apologist. Historians always perceive, let alone criticize, Holocaust-deniers — or those who deny Jewish genocide in Nazi concentration camps — as utterly preposterous individuals.
In the Philippines, Marcos apologists who deny that Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. and his wife Imelda Marcos, had plundered the country’s wealth to satiate their materialistic needs and hunger for wealth; who deny the human rights abuses, torture, and killings that transpired during the Martial Law Era of Marcos Sr.; and who deny that Marcos was a man hungry for power who tried to legitimize his authoritarian rule over the Filipino people through Martial Law just to prolong his reign as President are more or less not unlike Holocaust- deniers themselves.
President Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. did not necessarily do all bad things during his reign, but to deny that he never did anything wrong, or was infallible is just unequivocally egregious — just short of being a Holocaust denier if you ask me.
In the Philippines today, we live in a society where people believe that being well-mannered is better than being well-educated.
We live in a society where people have a relativistic view of things as evinced in the “respect my opinion” phenomenon in social media.
Respecting one’s opinion, however, does not necessarily help achieve unity in any way. While these people who ask others to respect their opinions can turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, extra-judicial killings, and historical distortions, we must remember there are still people who cannot just stomach these things, and instead choose to fight against it.
There are also people — like historians — who think that the attempt to distort history is a threat not just to their profession, but on how the general public view Philippine history, which should not be based on lies, but on corroborated historical evidences.
By and large, we must not discredit the profession of historians just because of the widespread opprobrium against Filipino, and even some foreign, historians who have called to protect history from historical distortions; in reality, these distortions are most commonly found in the revised narratives of what I call the Marcos historical agenda of deodorizing Marcos Sr.’s time as the “golden era” of Philippine history.
On attacks against the historians’ craft and intentions on writing history, Banner asseverated in The Ever-Changing Past: Why All History is Revisionist History: “…to dismiss serious historians’ efforts to better and more fully understand the past, to dismiss them solely on the ground that historians can be motivated (as some are) by political and other inclinations rather than by the desire to come to terms with the evidence they possess and to get right the conclusions they draw from that evidence, is deeply to misapprehend how historical knowledge is accumulated and made part of human understanding.”
It is common knowledge among historians that historical revisions are inevitable; contrary to popular belief, historians are open to revisiting the sources and revisions in general, as long as it is based on substantiated historical evidences, not distortions from disinformation and lies.
Time and again, historians must continue to call out historical distortions when they see it, and revise when it is needed.
We, and other like-minded historically-conscious individuals, must speak truth to power, especially when those in power, and their gullible supporters, try to distort history in the guise of historical revisionism.
We must not allow those people in power to use and abuse history just so they may look good at present.
___________________________________
Author’s email: JJAbulado@norsu.edu.ph
