If you look at the catalogues of universities in Switzerland and abroad, you will see that history is classified as a discipline as a social science. However, at the University of Chicago, it is classified in humanities and social sciences, and the student has the dubious privilege of choosing whether the discipline should be included in their requirements in the humanities or social sciences. Sociologists are generally convinced that history is a social science, an attitude contested by humanists. Among the students of history, there has been a disagreement: some consider it a social science, while others classify it with the humanities. In the Philippines, history is considered by the vast majority of students and teachers to be social sciences. Only a small minority think that this is part of the humanities and therefore part of the field of literature. In this regard, I think it is appropriate to point out that history is considered worthless as a subject in schools and universities in our country, because I have been told several times that students are forced to memorize data, names of people and places and thus win the hostility of students. At the University of the Philippines in Los Baños, Philippine history was abolished as a subject a few years ago because, according to some students, college authorities felt that the topic was irrelevant and irrelevant, because teachers only taught data that students despised. Unfortunately, the higher authorities of Diliman, Quezon City, have done nothing to prevent the little gods of Los Baños from «killing» a subject so necessary for the proper understanding of our past and therefore our future.

The little gods did not understand that history is never unimportant and that if students do not have sympathy for history as a subject today, it is not because of a lack of discipline, but because of the shortcomings of some history teachers. I am in no way accusing students of abandoning or avoiding history, but I am accusing teachers who think that data and names of people and places are ancient history. Of course, data and names are not a story; they do not make sense if they are not placed in their context and perspective. Getting students to memorize data and names is to prevent them from appreciating what the story really means. History is not just an interesting subject; It is alive, because it is a replica of the past, and the past is always colorful and exciting, especially because we look at it from the point of view of the present – that is, the distance that separates us from the past gives us the necessary perspective to see it as it was: exciting, colorful, and palpitation with life and all the passion, Emotion, fear, joy, sadness, happiness, doubt, hope and despair. That is why it is the most vivid of all humanist studies, and it is alive because it restores the past with a deep sense of realism and truthfulness. No other humanist discipline comes close to history in this regard. I remember Agoncillo when a critic said that I was writing fiction, but he was passing it off as a fact because he said, «History is creation, while literature is creation.» I remember Agoncillo when I judge a historical event or a person, because he said, «There is a great similarity between legal evidence and historical evidence. The only difference is that, for legal evidence, it is the judge who decides whether the presentation of a witness is acceptable or not. The historian is a prosecutor, a defense lawyer, and a judge in one, and that is the narrator and the interpreter. Agoncillo is related to Don Felipe Agoncillo, the Filipino diplomat who represented the Philippines in the negotiations that led to the Treaty of Paris (1898), and Doña Marcela Agoncillo, one of the leading seamstresses of the Philippine flag. . .

.