Wyatt Earp, one of the more famous 'good guys' of the American Old West, described history accurately when he made that statement. Of course, he wasn't describing history, rather his own life long experiences.

History is an ever challenging field of study. One which must constantly be questioned -- in its simplest, it is a story from the past. That past can be relatively recent, as in someone's own lifetime, or take place further back.

A Personal view of History

Even though history is all around us, we all see and describe 'real time' history from a different point of view.

I am often challenged on this statement; however, you can easily prove its truth by doing a very simple experiment --

You will need two friends to help you. Have one friend stand across from you, facing you. With the two of you 'face-to-face' have the other person stand about a foot to your left side (the right side of the person across from you) and in between the two of you. Now you have formed a simple triangle.

Once you are in place, extend your arm straight out in front of you and place your palm face up, fingers pointing upward (you will see the back of your hand). With this done, each of the three of you describe exactly what you see in-between you.

Obviously you will describe the arm extended, with your fingers pointed up and the back of your hand. The person across from you will give a similar description, however, they will describe the palm, or front, of your hand (since they can not see the back). Finally, the person in the middle will describe the side of your hand (they can not see the front or back).

In this experiment each person experiences the same event, yet, each of you 'witnessed' it from a different point of view. In fact, since there are three different people describing the event, the chances are you would get three different descriptions, even when each of you see the same event. This is because each of you view things slightly different and use different wording when talking about something. This is human nature.

Now back to history. At its simplest, the recording of history is exactly the same. Assuming that history is being recorded in 'real time', it will be described based on the experiences of the person making the recording.

As written by others

In reality, history is usually written some considerable time after the event. Therefore, most history is based on collections of stories that are told. Often times these stories are carried down from one generation to another, being passed by word of mouth. Of course at some point, some one decides to sit and put these words into print.

Once in print, the distribution of the story becomes wide spread. Remember though, since it is written based on the "As I was told by ..." method, it is often times embellished.

So what about modern day history collected from press reports?

If you talk with anyone who has been interviewed by the Press Corps (Newspaper, radio, or other medium), they will often tell you they were misquoted or the story is not accurate. Why? The press is there to make money, pesos, lucre, cash. Once you add this pressure, stories are often made more sensational then the events they cover. This, with the human nature to add one's own views, or slants, into a story, may change the facts extensively.

What is really dangerous about interpreting history through the press corps is that people will take these sources as the absolute truth as time goes by. Especially decades later, when people re-read these sources, assuming they must be correct.

Interpreting the past

In addition to this type of history, there is ancient history with all of its own types of problems. First and foremost, these historians must be detectives, interpreters, and creative thinkers. They are dealing with the past via scraps of evidence -- scrolls, physical items (pottery, weapons, so on). This evidence must be collected, correlated, and analyzed. Once this is done, it must be interpreted. If there are markings or if it is a language, it becomes even more difficult. Why, you ask? Because, language and its purpose is ever growing, ever changing.

For instance, Prior to the 1960's in Americ a and Europe, the word cool referred to either (1) temperature as a relief from heat or (2) emotion as in self control, indifference, or dislike. In the 1960's people described things as cool, representing good, in the late 1980's and early 1990's the term was changed to 'bad', for good (in America). Imagine thousands years from now, someone finding three documents from the 50's, 60's, and 80's. Two document contains word 'cool', one 'bad'. How will they interpret the words?

This same scenario is true for historians and scientists who must decipher written text from a time long, long ago. An accurate translation of words, doesn't guarantee an accurate interpretation of their meaning.

These are just some of the problems we are faced with when reading and writing history. There are many others, like

• history by exclusion -- failure to include information or events,
• pressures of political influence,
• sensationalism,
• false memories,
• falso documents and artifacts,
• planting of artifacts,
  and on and on...

>> Does this mean that we ignore history? Definitely not! You should embrace it!

One must learn from history, to quote, Robert A. Heinlein, one of the inventors of Nuclear energy (the A bomb).

So, please use these links to learn more about the history of the 7107 islands of the Philippines.

Philippine History || Send E-Mail