What's new
By:

🎓 Course Coursehero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anthony_111 said:
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.



You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.


Paunlock po thank you in advance
Click to expand...
1. Compare and contrast Rizal and Morga's different views about Filipinos and Philippine culture.

The greatest contrast between Rizal and Morga is their differing cultures. Morga, despite being a high-ranking official in the Philippines, views through the eyes of a foreigner, whereas Rizal’s views are that of a local. Despite living in the Philippines, the differing culture still serves as an inevitable barrier between these two historians. An example of this is Morga’s anecdotes towards the Filipino palate. He states, “Their daily fare is composed of... beef and fish which they know is best when it has started to rot and stink.” This statement is then contradicted by Rizal, saying that those of differing cultures often associate food they are not accustomed to with disgust. Additionally, he mentioned that the “rotting fish” Morga is referring to is called bagoong, or fermented shrimp paste.

Morga’s inconsistency is also a factor that separates him from Rizal. Given that Morga is not a native Filipino, his anecdotes are rather erratic. An example of this is Morga’s narrative on the native, air-dried fish he refers to as lawlaw, which Rizal later corrects is actually dilis.

Lastly, Rizal and Morga’s contrast lies in a sense of patriotism, or the lack thereof. In Historia de Ilocos, de los Reyes calls out Rizal due to the discrepancy between his annotations. Furthermore, de los Reyes explains that Rizal’s opinions are greatly affected by his “excessive patriotism.” On the other hand, Morga’s views are rather demeaning. He claims that native Filipino tribes are barbaric and have little mental capacity. He also refers to nipa huts as homes of less significant people.

2. Analyze the idea of Rizal in rewriting Philippine History.

Rizal’s annotation of Morga’s work creates a sense of national consciousness or identity, and paves the way for Filipino historians to contribute amidst the historical commentaries written by foreigners. Commentaries in which Rizal abhorred as they were written by friars who were undeniably racist and wrote their narratives in the context of Spain’s history. In an attempt to educate the Filipino people, Rizal created the first historical report written from the point of view of the colonized, rather than the colonizer. Having someone of Filipino blood write these accounts ensures that these writings encapsulate what it truly means to be a Filipino living in the Philippines. Furthermore, his historical assertions have instilled pride in the Filipinos after being subjected to years of colonization. As said by Rizal in Ocampo (1998), “I do not write for the Spaniards of Manila, I write for my countrymen.” Truly, Rizal’s work gives us a different perspective to Philippine history.

3. Discuss historical facts and give an example of such.

As discussed by Fales (1951), a historical fact is an event that influences one’s mind and brings forth unique and irrevocable changes to their pattern of thought. Furthermore, it initiates noticeable changes in their way of living. Becker (1955) also notes that historical facts are solid and substantial. With this, one may infer that historical facts are fragments of what has happened in the past, and how these affect our present day happenings. An example of this is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. These two cities were bombed by the United States to force Japan into surrendering during the second World War. These events have evoked the formation of the United Nations, and the revision of rules under the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, artifacts from the bombings can be found in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Some of these artifacts include: decimated clothing from children, roof tiles melted from the immense heat, and kitchen utensils that were diminished into barely recognizable lumps. These artifacts serve as a grim reminder of the devastation the Atomic bomb has caused. Despite this event occurring 75 years ago, the devastation is still very much alive in the hearts of the Japanese people, as well as those who did not directly feel the repercussions of this occurrence. Furthermore, this event, along with the historical artifacts that were left behind, have shaped Hiroshima and Nagasaki to what it is today.

4. Explain this passage

" The past is intelligent to us only in the light of the present and the present can be fully understood only in the light of the past. "

Carr (1961) articulates, “history is seeing the past through the eyes of the present and in light of its problems.” The passage refers to the interdependent and reciprocal relationship between these two points in time. It is vital for one to understand the past, for it enables us to perceive the present at a different light. More often than not, the problems we face in today’s society follows a similar pattern to those of the past (Landes & Tilly, 1971). By learning about the historical events that formerly occurred, we may be able to learn from their mistakes and apply these learnings to our present-day troubles. In a similar manner, Carr (1961) also notes that we can thoroughly understand these former experiences through the eyes of the present. What could have been deemed irrelevant back then could be claimed as significant in recent times, since these past events have molded and shaped our world to what it has become today. The Filipino proverb, “Ang hindi marunong lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay hindi makakarating sa pinaroroonan,” fully encapsulates what this passage stands for; that the past is an important tool to understand the present.



5. Is history objective, why or why not?

History is subjective, for as stated by Professor Barraclough in Carr (1961), “the history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgements.” Although it is a historian’s constant endeavor to remain objective and unbiased, one ultimately cannot write historical accounts without examining which facts are deemed relevant or not first. This, in turn, makes historical writing subjective, for what is considered essential may differ from one historian to another. In analyzing historical data, historians are affected by factors such as age, religion, gender, and social class. The difference in perspective can greatly affect the historical accounts being written. Carr (1961) also articulates that “history is the reenactment of the historian’s mind of the thought whose history he is studying.” These factors also widen the gap between the author and the person of whom he is writing about. The very fact that historians have no firsthand experiences on the accounts that happened in the past proves that historical writing is not what has occurred, but rather, what the author makes of these occurrences.





REFERENCES

Becker, C. (1955). What are Historical Facts? The Western Political Quarterly, 8(3), 327-340. doi:10.2307/442890



Fales, W. (1951). Historical Facts. The Journal of Philosophy, 48(4), 85-94. doi:10.2307/2021436



Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum (n.d.). Bomb artifacts｜Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum Peace Database. Retrieved September 19, 2020, from You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Landes, David, and Charles Tilly. “History as Social Science.” Items: Insights from the Social Sciences, 1971.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..


Ocampo, A. (1998). Rizal's Morga and Views of Philippine History. Philippine Studies, 46(2), 184-214. Retrieved September 19, 2020, from You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.





His writings are a breather from the multitude of anecdotes written by westerners. On the other side of the spectrum, however, is Rizal’s undeniable bias towards the Filipinos. As noted in Ocampo (1998), Rizal's annotations are a combination of straightforward historical anecdotes, and commentaries with a strong anticlerical bias. Although having a Filipino recount these historical happenings is a positive thing, it is undeniable that he sometimes drew from imagination rather than factual evidence. It was discussed in Ocampo’s book that Rizal utilized history as a weapon against Spain, and his propagandist efforts were evident in his annotations. Despite this, though, it is certain that his historical assertions are indeed necessary for his time and purpose, for Rizal’s writings have instilled pride in the Filipino people after being subjected to years of colonization. It is through Rizal that they were able to embody true nationalism.







Amidst the historical commentaries written by foreigners
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

About this Thread

  • 74
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 24
    Participants
Last reply from:
C O V S

New Topics

Trending Topics

Online now

Members online
1,136
Guests online
1,198
Total visitors
2,334

Forum statistics

Threads
2,271,540
Posts
28,936,291
Members
1,238,658
Latest member
MR BAM
Back
Top