Usapan:Kasaysayan

Latest comment: 15 year ago by Jojit fb

Edward Hallet Carr, an English historian, defined history as what the historian makes. Robin George Collingwood, another English historian, described it as the re-enactment in the historian’s mind of the thought whose history he is studying and Michael Joseph Oakeshott, an English philosopher, stated that history is the historian’s experience

History as a Eurocentric concept does not have a direct translation in Filipino, and thus, following the rules of the Filipino language on the spelling of borrowed/loaned words, the equivalent of history in the Filipino language would be histori or historiya, not kasaysayan.

Perhaps one asks why it has become necessary to reject the Eurocentric definition of history as insufficient in explaining/defining the Filipino concept of kasaysayan. History is different from kasaysayan in that they are constructed differently. Kasaysayan relies on written records and material history to recreate the past. History on the other hand is reconstructed through written and non-written sources. While Kasaysayan does not recognize myths and epics as valid and objective sources of history, Historh recognizes oral literature and oral accounts of history as valid. This is so because while history is concerned with the objective study/recreation of the past, kasaysayan as a discipline is concerned with relevance.

Dahil Tagalog na Wikipedia ito, sasagutin kita ng Tagalog. ;-) Para malutas ang problema sa artikulo, gumawa ako sa itaas ng paglilinaw na may ibang kahulugan ang katawagang "kasaysayan" at iyon ay salaysay. Ang history po ay "kasaysayan" sa Tagalog. Ayon po iyan sa iba't ibang mga diksyunaryong Ingles-Tagalog, partikular ang Disyunaryong Ingles-Tagalog ni Leo James English. Ngunit tama kayo na may ibang gamit ang katawagang kasaysayan, kaya nilinaw ko na ito sa artikulo. Salamat sa pagpuna. --Jojit (usapan) 14:50, 2 Hunyo 2009 (UTC)Reply
Return to "Kasaysayan" page.