Except for the special circumstance in which historians record events they themselves have witnessed, historical facts can only be known through intermediary sources. These include testimony from living witnesses; narrative records, such as previous histories, memoirs, letters, and imaginative literature; the legal and financial records of courts, legislatures, religious institutions, or businesses; and the unwritten information derived from the physical remains of past civilizations, such as architecture, arts and crafts, burial grounds, and cultivated land. All these, and many more, sources of information provide the evidence from which the historian deciphers historical facts. The relation between evidence and fact, however, is rarely simple and direct. History books in the past were written to impress Kings. The Greeks and Romans not only to show power but also to show all the good qualities in their political system so that the people would not revolt against the wars being fought continuously. And the Muslims Moghal emperors used it to show pride.
It is very important to see the source of the history that we read today. Writers from different religions, cultures, and in today’s case from different countries (nationalities) all have their own biases. I believe that the biases and prejudices that are present in history is due to a historians back ground and upbringing. But this does not mean that history is unknowable. Today when we look at history we find that biases are present due to past experiences of one generation from another. Although we have tried but the prejudices present in history is mainly due to a conscience, which is present in every ones mind. History does tell us what happened but it gives us a view of a person from a certain background or culture. One example that I will use is the Bangsa Moro Issue. This issue relates to the differences, which have come into being since the independence of the Philippines between the Christian and muslims. For the Filipino majority, Philippine history began in 1896 with the Katipunan Revolt or at the earliest, in the martyrdom of the three priests, Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora. Before this, Philippine history is really history of Spaniards in the Philippines except for the sporadic revolts of the Indios all throughout the Colonial Period. On the other hand, Moro history is partially or completely ignored by Philippine historians. Even in schools and universities, Moro history is not studied or given any importance. But the Moros have a long memory. History is embedded in their culture. Royal families take great care about their family genealogy, which is by them, historical documents. The Christian settlers in Mindanao criticize the Moros for their constant harping on the historical past. These settlers are proud that they do not care about the past but instead look to the future.
But according to philosophical hermeneutics, “history is not separated from the present. We are always simultaneously part of the past, in the present, and anticipating the future. In other words, the past operates on us now in the present, and affects our conception of what is yet to come. At the same time, our present notions of reality affect how we view the past.”
Moro leaders (Philippines Muslims) and intellectuals maintain that if the Philippine government truly wants to solve the so-called Moro Problem, it must exert an honest-to-goodness effort to understand the feelings, sentiments, biases, ideals, prejudices, customs, traditions and historical experience of the Bangsa Moro as enunciated or articulated by the Moros themselves.
In conclusion history will always be used as a propaganda tool and to predict the future, but history will differ due to the difference in opinion of people from different backgrounds, cultures and religion.
