History as a subject usually takes a lot of flak from students and even some academics from other fields because of its nature as a subject, or simply put, how it is taught. I believe, however, that its harshest critics are mostly those who did not have passionate history professors who have awakened their sense of history, or historical consciousness. These critics would often say that history has no relevance or serves no purpose, while others suppose that the subject is just so mundane and boring – a mere adumbration of names and dates that serve no purpose to them.
I am fortunate to have had history professors who really became the impetuses of my career as an academic in the field of history. From them, I learned more importantly how to teach history and instill among the students that sense of yearning for historical knowledge – to help fill the gaps in it. They also taught me how to find meaning in the past by connecting it with the present; undoubtedly, there is always that “unending dialogue” between the past and the present. So, with that in mind, I always try to update myself in the field – reading a plenitude of books on varying subjects about history [secondary sources], and conducting research based on works from the archives [primary sources].
In my classes, especially in my lectures/discussions, I tend to deviate from the mundane activity of memorization of facts and focus on providing meaning to historical events through various interpretations. I give my students the chance to think – to think outside the box, as I tell them – and let them interpret some historical events or even historical figures. I let them put themselves in the historical agent’s shoes – to re-enact their actions, as historian R.G. Collingwood asseverated – so that they will understand why these historical agents did what they did. Although not scientifically sound or objective, one can say that this practice will undoubtedly encourage critical thinking among students.
Moreover, in my Rizal class for example, I discuss some important decisions – turning points in Rizal’s life – that our national hero made in his life. One of them was the decision to return to the Philippines for the second time in spite of the imminent danger to his life. In retrospect, Rizal opted to return to the Philippines because he wanted to bring the medicine nearer to the sick man [the Philippines] – or that he wanted to continue the fight not in Europe anymore, but here in the Philippines. One can infer, however, that this decision seemed quite illogical, which eventually led to his untimely demise. He knew that his life was in danger if he returned to the Philippines, why then did he opt to return?
I would tell my students that honestly, it’s only Rizal who knew why he returned to the Philippines. But for the purpose of interpreting history – specifically Rizal’s actions – I asked my students to make inferences as to the possible reasons for his final homecoming. This would lead to them looking into Rizal’s traits developed during his childhood years – the traits which he learned from his parents. One of which was respect for truth – that he must invariably uphold the truth. Another thing they traced was Rizal’s predilection to fight against any form of injustice, which he learned at the outset in his early education with the Jesuit priests of Ateneo de Municipal.
In doing this kind of activity in class, I give my students the chance to dig deeper and find a way to explain the actions of the historical figure we are studying. Of course, the historical figure is also the product of his time, so it is also of utmost significance to discuss the historical context of his time and how varying societies have somehow molded them to become who they are.
One thing I also do when I teach history, unless of course it is a major course, is to try to make things simple. I try my best not to be too technical to the point that students [who are oft-time not history majors] may become less interested in it due to the many names or terms that are unfamiliar to them. I am aware, however, of the dangers in oversimplifying history, so I try my best to provide them with the necessary historical contexts and explanations needed.
I must attest that this is the hardest part of teaching; how does one make the subject – especially history, that is notoriously known for being one of the most boring subjects – interesting to students?
From my experience, although I can’t ascertain if this will work for everyone, history teachers must first be masters of their subject. For how can teachers be passionate – or exude that sense of passion – in teaching history to their students if they do not even know or understand what they’re talking about? To do this, they must always update themselves with new knowledge on the subject matter by reading voluminous works – not just one “definitive” textbook – germane to the subject they are teaching. Teachers must develop a habit of reading for learning is incessant in the academe, it’s never ending.
Aside from mastery of the subject, history teachers must also learn to provide historical contexts and be succinct and clear in their explanations on historical events. To make the subject more interesting, they can perhaps try to add a little trivia to capture the attention of the students, then proceed on to discuss the historical events/figures. From thereon, they can provide meaning to the past by connecting it with the present – like for example, in Philippine history: how corruption during the Spanish period, which later on was exacerbated during the American period, still persists today here in the Philippines among politicians and government employees; or how the subservient attitude of the Filipinos during the colonial period still continue to persist at present.
Things will definitely unfold and be more animated for your students if you will be able to use history as an instrument that provides meaning to the present. Only then can the students understand the importance of history, and only then can they truly learn history. Thus, at present, history teachers have a crucial role to play in molding the Filipino youth – to instill in them a sense of history and concomitantly, a sense of nationalism.
To most of the Filipinos, history might seem like an irrelevant subject. I would like to think that this negative perspective on the subject contributes to the lack of progress in our nation. We fail to understand, or we oft-times undermine, history’s importance to nation building. As a result, we continue to repeat the same mistakes of the past – electing leaders that are dishonest and corrupt, allowing them to stay in power due to our insouciance, and the list goes on. This then begs the question: when will we learn?
__________________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]
