History may seems the most straightforward. But is actually an extremely contested and problematic field. It takes a lot of study and research to prove history. It is a study of the written records from the pertinent era or later ,draws conclusions, a narrative analysed that explains why the events happened in the past and theoretical understanding of human societies based on those records. History itself is simply a collection and selection of reference able facts and stories that someone believes can be productively brought together under a particular narrative framework. Meanwhile the historiography that is also known for “history of history” or “the investigation of history” is a historical writings from a certain period or a certain country and the totality of historical researches regarding a certain aspect. It is the study of the best ways to interpret historical sources and the ways history is written. The historians do the process by bringing the assumptions and methodologies and comparisons between the various conclusions and interpretations they reach as a result. At the present time, historiography is more a fusion of historiography, philosophy of history and socio-cultural theory, than simply the study of historical methodologies. The difference between the history and historiography, history is the study of past but it wont simply equate to past. It is the narrative that gives representation from the past. while the historiography is the study of sources , methods and assumptions used by historians in writing mainstream history. To easily understand history is like the favourite food we can’t get stop thinking because of its taste while the historiography is the recipe used to make the food.
The history cannot be proven a fact of right if it has no concrete sources to be said or declared fact that makes the sources essential to the study. Without sources, history is mere conjecture, prejudice and speculation if that can be history at all. Historical sources as these are the foundations that future historians will build their review of the period in question. Historian has to support his/her work by reference back to original research and/or the work of other reputable historians. Without the existence of historical sources then any work can rightly be categorised as either fake news or fiction, although historians should also take careful note of potential biases. The study of history distinguishes between sources that are differentiated into two different types, one is the primary sources are what count most and the secondary sources that are more like an interpretation of a primary source. To elaborate more, primary source are necessary to give us a first-hand look at what the people of that time did, thought or experienced and enable researchers to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Historians use primary sources to develop an accurate interpretation of the historical event. The historians will then use those interpretations to develop a cogent timeline that explains how and why those events occurred for example, the diary of German Jewish girl who fled with her family to Amsterdam, to escape Nazi persecution during World War II, Anne Frank; meanwhile the other one is the secondary sources. Secondary sources are analysis, summary, or critique of historical information, written by a historian, often many years after the events being described. These are what we usually consider to be ‘history books’, of the type you can buy or find in a library. Sometimes the distinction between the two is blurred.
Some believe the world is shaped by important people and their actions. Others believe history is driven by class struggles. Yet others say it is when opposing viewpoints encounter one another. History is not just giving straight facts but also makes arguments in a specific topic. Historians use or do the study of historical method and of different ways of writing history is known as historiography. Historiography is about understanding the methods by which historians develop their interpretations, and how these factors influence how history is written. It is analysis of descriptions of the past. Analysis that usually focuses on the narrative, interpretations, worldview, use of evidence, or method of presentation of other historians. The historians use gathered facts from primary sources are shreds of evidence then later on structure them into understandable for the readers or audience to read and understand.
The historian’s methodology is scientific and does not allow the literary artist’s imagination to interfere with the scientific method of investigating the data used in historical writing. The historian’s methodology is scientific and does not allow the literary artist’s imagination to interfere with the scientific method of investigating the data used in historical writing. As said by Teodoro A. Agoncillo whom be considered one of the most important historians of time his way of writing and interpretation introduced a more Filipino-centric style, seeing the events of the Philippines unfold through the eyes of Filipinos. was the first academic historian to analyse the Revolution in terms of the contradiction between different classes in Philippine society. “The country’s underdevelopment can be traced to our colonial history: “This condition was not abolished with independence; it was merely transformed. We see the economic structure as the basis for the iniquitous political system in which economic privilege becomes the pillar of political power – a power that enhances colonial control and further entrenches the hold of the local elite over the people.”” As said by Renato Constantino who were a major influence in the intellectual formation of countless young Filipinos who staked their lives and future in opposing the Marcos dictatorship.
2020-11-13-1605244959