Readings in Philippine History
Metacognitive Reading Report # 1
Title of the Article: The Source: The Basis of Our Knowledge About the Past
Name: Charles Ian S. Monteloyola
Date: 08/20/2021
1. Three (3) Things that I significantly learned from the readings:
i.
Historical sources are testimonies, artifacts, happenings, and approximations of
evidence, facts, and opinions. Sources classify into primary and secondary sources.
Primary sources come from the origin of information, such as transcripts, artifacts, or
accounts of an event from an individual. Secondary sources link to primary sources,
but as interpretations like books, reports, or rumors, they could be further from the
truth or closer. To validate a source, one must investigate - the origins, date, and
ownership - and confirm with other sub-sources.
ii.
The technology industry has paved the way for us to store, interpret, and handle
information through media. Information became more accessible with the power of
modern-day communications and ongoing innovations. The quality and accuracy of
messages increased as prints replaced oral transmissions.
iii.
Transcripts and oral sources, although different, were complementary with one
another. Stories handed down from past generations were as stable and reliable as
detailed accounts, if passing tests that they are genuinely reliable through evidence,
comparisons, and evaluations. Interviews provide real value to historians as
happenings are reconstructed precisely with engaging questions that focus on the
information sought to be 'fact-finding.'
2. Three (3) Things that are still unclear to me:
i.
Freedom of the press is not 'free' in some cases because of censorship and
dictatorships. There is power and influence in knowledge, whereas this is utilized to
control the masses to criminalize citizens for criticizing the government or having
legal battles with organizations and other people of power.
ii.
The constant advancement of technology holds and improves the quality of sources
but faces a barrier of being compatible with past sources and may become
inaccessible. It is similar to languages shrinking with smaller populations and slowly
becoming extinct as it is no longer passed down to posterity or shared with society.
iii.
A message can be distorted from generation to generation as it passes, and the reader
or listener can even misinterpret it due to language, societal and cultural barriers. The
case becomes severe with minority and conservative groups, even more with those
uneducated on dealing with sources, as biases and subjectivity may exist. Why can't
history be fair so that we are not doomed to repeat it?
3. I used to think that..:
Even the most ancient source of information was rightfully trustworthy, as this was
preserved and unchanged over time. Sources concern validity, historiography, and
context (literally from the original or an interpretation) of which they are derived directly
or indirectly. Even past historians and archaeologists agree that the events did happen and
that eyewitnesses, transcripts, records, and sources agree and came to conclusive truth.
However, due to changing times and opportunists, there are biases, arguments, and
falsifications appearing unexpectedly for the power of influencing the masses.
4. Three (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings:
i.
The press was created for the people of which they supplied news of the events
around the world and were subject to political control and biases. Journalists are
responsible for reporting factually and must verify sources, intending to inform
rightfully, yet some do the opposite. With sensationalism growing ever-popular, how
do the masses become informed and not be saturated with insignificant news?
ii.
Can we trust most sources like the media? Will there ever be a democracy and justice
for the masses as the government and the media control the influences and flow of
information? Will people have to lean on independent journalism and be their source
to avoid extrapolation and misconduct?
iii.
It is widely known that history has been manipulated with half-truths and blatant
falsifications. How will people differentiate what's fact or fiction if somebody
changed even secondary or yet primary sources? How careful will scholars have to be
with handling sources without degrading them or misinterpreting them?
Source:
Gottschalk, Louis. Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method. New York:
A.A. Knopf, 1969.