*may history ba kayo ni crush?* 👉 👈 MEME Playlist: bit.ly/2GtjrNz Maging MEMBER para sa mas maagang uploads, uncensored vids, exclusive emojis: th-cam.com/users/paolulmemesjoin
History is written by various scholars across the world, and by that means there are multitude of perspectives, hindi lang one-sided. Porket nakabasa ka lang ng isang post from social media platforms or isang libro eh magrarant ka na agad about sa validity ng history natin. Cross reference muna
@@nahh9580 "kung first time mo marinig yung istorya pero galing sa tsismis yun yung TRUTH para sayo. but is is not the reality." What? Then it's still, does mean, a 'rumour'. REMEMBER, Truth and Reality may be different (in terms of definition) but BOTH are based on "facts". Your analogy is wrong and contradicting.
Naaapreciate ko kay Tito Pao: may sense. 1. Mahirap i-defend ang "respect my opinion" dahil ito nga ay opinion at hindi palaging paktuwal 2. May functional definition ang history: isang record o branch ng kaalaman na nag iingat sa paktuwal na pangyayari o katotohanan; wala talagang positibong definition ang "tsismis" kasi nga hindi siya napatunayan
I'm also this. It's hard to define History as chismis, but doesn't take it away as sometimes factual. There are times na talagang naging kasaysayan ang bulong-bulong. Pero as said by sioPAO: "Dahan-dahang lumalabas ang katotohanan" Hindi langing chismis ang ating kasaysayan, at nagbabago rin ito sa ating pananaw.
Just like PaoLuL suggested, ang tsismis, at the moment, ay isang possible account or event na pwedeng maging facts later on. Related sya or a part sya of history but not precisely THE history. Pwede sya mapatunayan if may new evidences na naiintroduce or may new techs na tumulong ma enhance ang pagaaral ulit sa tsismis, dumaan sa proper scientific methods and na conclude at the end na factual na sya. As long as dumaan sa scientific methods at ang resulta nirerespeto ng majority of scientists sa field ng history, then, may batayan na sya for defining ang account and/or event na dating tsismis as facts and THE history. Like other sciences, di 100% accurate ang pagdetermine ng history as there will be errors and can be proven wrong for a long time. But kung hindi tayo gumagamit ng scientific methods sa pag determine ng history, mas biased, tsismis/conspiracy prone ang history natin and mahirap ma correct in a long time. Pwede i-refute kaagad ng kahit sinong tao kung baga.
Its like how Goyo died in pasong tirad.. our known history is he died as last man heroically while commanding his men... Pero according nmn sa US military historian, sya daw unang namatay kaya nataranta ang mga sundalo na nagdedefend ng pasong tirad.. so,ano ba talaga? Tsismsi lng yan lahat, kaso inilimbag kaya naging part ng history na...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@alflo4625 yan ang challenge for a lot of historians. Usually, pinagaawayan nila yung ganyang scenarios. There will be errors and biases na need to be corrected pa. Parang same situation for historians and other scientists with the true identity of Jesus Christ and kung legendary figure lang sya or not. At the end of the day, ang goal of historians dapat ay ipresent and idetermine nila yung history talaga and yung mga accounts na tsismis lang with the least amount of biases and with the most reliable sources of evidences to get the most accurate picture of that said event or thing.
"Di' naman porke't naisulat na ang History, tapos na eh. Kasi doon lalakas nang lalakas yaang History na 'yan." - Mary Tess, 10:22 Another interesting thing and what a lot of people dont realize is the same idea can be applied to our "opinions" as well. Much like History, dapat open to change ang mga opinyon natin. Sure, pwede mo ipaglaban, panghawakan ang current opinion mo sa isang bagay pero kapag naintroduce ka sa mga takes na mas may sense, matuto tayong mag internalize and magrevise. Yan ang magpapalakas sa opinyon natin. "Kung kayang palitan yang History na yan, mahina yaang History na yan." same thing, hanggat may butas sa opinyon mo, papasok at papasok ang katotohanan dyan. "Ang Opinyon ay dapat sinasaktan. Ang Opinyon ay dapat tine-test kung maganda yung opinyon mo." - PaoLUL sa debate vid Salamat ulit sa laptrip at makabuluhan na vid Tito Pao! labyu mwah mwah mwah mwah tsup tsup
So when will Philippine textbooks contain the fact that Ferdinand Marcos rang a sex slavery in through his fake guerrilla unit Maharlika? That he is a paedophile? Dovey Beamsm Pretending to break the rules of physics by claiming to be awarded the medal of honour, the American one?
Hindi ang istoryador ang magsasabi na makatotohanan ang kanyang sinulat. Ang tanging maipapangako lamang ng istoryador ay ang paggamit ng kanyang buong husay sa pangangalap ng datos, sa pagsusuri nito gamit ang pinakamataas na pamantayang historiograpikal, at sa pagbuo ng makabuluhang interpretayson. Ang mambabasa ang tanging makapaghuhusga kung makatotohanan o hindi ang nasulat ng isang istoryador batay sa kabuluhan nito sa kanya. Ang mambabasa lamang ang pwedeng magpatutuo sa isang akdang istorikal batay sa kanyang pagkaunawa, karanasan, at paniwala. Para mag-angkin ang isang istoryador ng katotohanan base lamang sa paggamit ng mga factual na sources ay isang pagtataksil sa layunin ng kasaysayan na magkaroon ito ng 'saysay' sa kanyang pinatutungkulan. Sa madaling sabi, walang katotohanang makikita sa kasaysayang walang saysay.
8:52 Pro-tip: pronounce classical Latin words like how they are spelled. All letters should sound like what they actually sound in the original Latin alphabet (which is basically Abakada, with a few exceptions, like U/V and I/J, since Z, J, Y, W, and U do not exist in the Old Latin alphabet). It's not like English or French where the sound of letters can change based on what word it is, or where they are, etc. All vowels are pronounced distinctly. G is always hard G as in Goat. C is always hard C as in Cat (although in early Latin, when G was not present, C followed by A had a G sound, etc.). T is always T as in Tap. Q always has a "kw" sound. etc. K has exactly the same sound as C, but it is rare (introduced later) and only used for foreign words like borrowed Greek (incidentally it was popular in the Byzantine Roman Empire, which was largely ethnically Greek). "Optimates" is pronounced "Op-Ti-Mah-Tess" "Pisces" is pronounced "Pis-Kess" "Positio" is pronounced "Poh-See-Tiyo" "Centurio" is pronounced "Ken-Toor-Yo" "Legionarius" is pronounced "Leg-Yo-Nar-Yoos" "Germinatus" is pronounced "Gerr-Mee-Nah-Toos" "Jesus"(IESVS in orginal Latin) is pronounced "Yeh-Soos" "Julius Caesar" (IVLIVS CAESAR in original Latin) is pronounced "Yoo-li-yoos Kae- Sarr" The "Latin" that you hear being used now in scientific terminology and in the Roman Catholic Church is what is known as "New Latin", they are pronounced according to modern rules. Not based on how they were actually pronounced by actual Romans themselves. Of course, some words have become more familiar in their Anglicized form like "Julius Caesar" being pronounced "Dzhul-yoos Say-Sarr". But when it comes to pronouncing "raw" classical Latin, use the tip I gave. Same thing applies to ancient Greek, btw. "Spartiate" is pronounced "Spar-Tiya-Teh" not "Sparchiyaet" like they might be pronounced using English rules, etc.
"History ay hindi parang tsismis. History are facts na may halong tsismis". Agree ako dito otits, lalo na sa classical antiquity, maraming naiiba ang bersyon dahil sa pagsalin-salin ng istorya throughout the ages, some were lost in translation due to language differences, motives and perspectives that time, plus our incomplete understanding of ancient languages. Just like the story of Troy and the Trojan war, it was only a story until archaeologists proved its existence, now we know Troy and the Trojan war exists, that's a fact, but what really happened during that time still remains a mystery, only the accounts of Homer and greek playwrights are our primary sources, and most of them have different versions, that's why it is under scholarly debate until now.
May point naman talaga si ella cruz WORLD HISTORY NA "TSISMIS" 380 BCE The Earth was the center of the Universe according to Eudoxus, Aristotle and Claudius Ptolemy, whose view of the cosmos persisted for 1500 years base on geocentric model. Sabi ng tatlong marites lahat daw ng planeta kabilang na ang SUN ay nag revolve around the earth. Ito ay naisulat sa world history at napaniwala mga tao sa loob ng 1500 years pero na FACT CHECKED / DEBUNKED in 16th century WORLD HISTORY REVISED 16th century THE SUN is the center of our solar system, and its gravity holds the solar system together. Everything in our solar system revolves around it - the planets, asteroids, comets, and tiny bits of space debris, According to Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton base on mathematics and scientific evidence. Ito na ngayon ang nakasulat sa history natin Dumaan sa butas ng karayum si copernicus at galileo sa kamay ng ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, inakusahan silang HERETIC at historical revisionism daw ginagawa nila. Sounds familiar? search nyo lang ibang details
Yah, but "chismis" is not the appropriate word. It's not chismis if we compare history to its literal translation. History is more of a research to reach conclusions, nababago siya not because sa pasalin salin and rewrite but sa labasan ng valid evidences for updated conclusions. Naa update yan like Tito Pao said, lalabas at lalabas ang katotohanan. Nagkakaiba minsan dahil din sa perspective, that's why it's debated before consideration, and dahil sa internet usually it's simplified without context, YUN ung part na may nagiging biased kasi may choice ka kung pano mo ipapainterpret sa iba ung info.
Siguro sa part ng history na yan applicable sya, pero sa history ng bansa natin na tinutukoy ni Ella hindi since mas maraming records, evidences, at iba pang primary sources and available para pagbasehan ng mga historians natin.
E sabi nga ni Pao para marevise ang history kailangan mo ng madaming pera at social media influence (bayad na accounts para magkalat ng fakenews). Which meron yung isang presidente dyan.
@@wertfasd back then there was no social media, only TV news and newspapers. So just like what you said, one needs money and media influences to revise history. Who do you think owns a lot of money and media influences back then? The Aquinos and Cojuancos.
This is the best TH-camr matatawa ka na matututo ka pa Hindi tulad Ng iba diyan Basta hate Ng masa hate narin pero ito TH-camr na to talagang ipapaliwanag pa talaga sayo maigi. Kudos sayo Pao sana dumami pa Ang subscribers mo at marami pa sanang matutunan galing sayo☺️
Sheeesh hahaha oo nga dami nga matutunan ng ?? Ano nga ba? Ang natutunan natin explain mo nga? Hayy ang mata natin ay naka sara pero ang tinga ay bukas sa maling info kawawa Filipino kung ano man marinig yun ang totoo sheeesh dami ko natutunan? Or saan natutunan???
@@mr.bulldog1244 matuto paano mag isip, hindi basta basta nakiki bandwagon. Sa iba kasi ay preacher ang dating na sasabihin na lang na masama si ganto o ganito yang taong yan. Pero dito, pinapaliwanag niya kung ano bang meron, ano na bang nangyayari, ano ano yung mga factors na dapat i take in. Hindi lang basta basta kung ano ang narinig, yun agad ang gospel. Kitang kita naman din ito dun sa nakaraan niyang upload tungkol sa debate ng same sex marriage
@@nenkonya8542 anoo haha pinapahiwatig ng ano? Si pao ay idol bilang memes of youtuber but pagdating dito hindi natin pwede gawin halimbawa ang pinapahiwatig niya sa atin hindi natin pwde ikumpara ang history sa bawat pinapahiwatig niya us filipino merun tayo history book na pwede tayo mapaliwanagan sa history us filipino
One of the best content creator/TH-camr! I'm so happy and thankful that my late best friend introduced me to you. (RIP BRO). And now my wife and my 5month old daughter is watching your vids. Everytime na manunuod kami ng vids mo palaging nag smile yung anak ko. More meme reviews and knowledgeable content tito pao! God bless!
First of all kala ko talaga TH-camr/Gamer/Streamer/Content creator lang si Tito pao pero you show them some of your knowledge in History. Solid ka talaga PaoLuL may mga natututunan din kami konti sa mga ibang contents mo.
In short, History is a chismiss din but with a collectible facts, hearsay, and opinion and time will tell what really happened base on the evidence na nakukuha.
Mas maiintindihan kita kung statistics ang tawag mo sa history dahil kumukuha tayo ng impormasyon mula sa ibat ibang pagtatala. Ang tsimis ay opinion mo o paglalarawan lng sa kung ano lng ang naintindihan mo sa nakita mo na sobrang unreliable at sobrang bias. Ang history ay higit pa sa pagkuha ng interview, kailangan umakma yan sa ibat ibang kasanayan (weather, documents, legislation, current event noong panahon na iyon) for example. Hindi lng galing sa bibig ang history, remember that. for example pagkamatay ni Ninoy (simple lng mga to pero hindi yan tsimis na pwedeng totoo o hindi, lahat yan TOTOO at nangyare. May ebidensya, inaral, dinokumento.) -mapapatunayan natin na namatay sya sa forensic -mapapatunayan natin na baril ang ginamit sa pagpatay -mapapatunayan natin na nakasakay sya sa eroplano -mapapatunayan natin malapit lng ang bumaril sa kanya -mapapatunayan yung petsa ng kamatayan nya -mapapatunayan natin na tuligsa sya sa marcoses -mapapatunayan nating yung eksatong oras ng pagkamatay nia -Alam natin kung sino ang nasa eroplano -Alam natin ang ruta -Alam natin bakit sya pumunta ng ibang bansa etc.
@@Brookandmoon sa tingin mo ba wala sila kinasuhan? Iba yung walang ebidensya sa mabagal ang hustisya. At higit sa lahat di mo kailangan maguilty since di ako nagName drop. Bato bato sa langit ang matamaan........
@@ppttoons1410 nagegets kita bro but the problem is hindi lahat ng history ay kasing simple ng example mo. Madaming contradiction ang mga source ng history kaya need ng critical thinking at pag aanalyze, may mga kulang na evidence and may mga tao naman na nakakita or magpapatunay pero nag cocontradict ito minsan. Example ko nalang dito is yung Retraction ni Rizal bago siya mamatay, alam mo ba na binawi ni Rizal ang mga kanyang mga sulat at gawa. Para lang mapakasalan ang kanyang asawa? Madaming nagpapatunay na ito ay totoo may mga evidence pa nga eh, pero marami ring nag cocontradict. I just want to say na don't treat history na absolute and pure facts na pagkabasa mo ayun na yung totoo, ang history ay nandiyan na yan but ikaw parin ang mag aanalyze sa mga evidence sa mga CHISMISS and Hearsay ng mga makikita mo. Then in the end ikaw parin gagawa ng conclusion mo kasi eh base sa mga nabasa at nakuha mo na source.
(History is like Tsismis, filter and dagdag na rin) Ang sinabi lang ni Ella n parang tsismis ay yung part n may dagdag na nga daw s history at filtered na... Para saken tama yun.., Ang pagkakaintindi ata ng madami ay "HISTORY IS TSISMIS". ..magkaibang magkaiba naman un.
May masalimuot na prosesong pinagdadaanan ang mga kwento bago ito maging kasaysayan. Maraming tao ang nagsasaliksik at nag-aaral tungkol dito, at sinusubukan nilang pagtagpi tagpiin ang totoong kwento gamit ang mga ebidensya na nakalap nila. Kaya ang kasaysayang nakasulat ay maaaring hindi kumpleto, pero yun ang kwento base sa mga ebidensyang nakuha at nakolekta ng mga historyador sa kasalukuyan. Kung makahukay o makakuha ng mas matibay na ebidensya na nagsasabing iba ang totoong nangyari, ay maaaring pagaralan ito at mabago nito ang nakasulat sa mga libro. Maaari ngang ang ibang kasaysayan ay nagmula sa simpleng 'tsismis'. Pero dahil sa tsismis na ito, nagkaroon ng interes ang mga historian na aralin ito at imbestigihan. At kung mangyaring makakuha sila ng matinding pruweba na totoo ito, maaari itong i-verify ng iba pang historian at itest kung totoo ba. At kung ito ay nag-aagree sa iba pang parte ng kasaysayan naten. Pagkatapos ng masusing pag-aaral ng IBA'T-IBANG EKSPERTO, kung ito ay mapatunayan ngang totoo base sa ebidensya, maari na itong matawag na kasaysayan o history. Kaya nga sa slogan ng show ni Lourd De Vera, ito ay "tsismis NOON, kasaysayan NGAYON". Dahil yung tsismis lang noon, dumaan na sa matinding pagsasaliksik, at napatuyan na base sa ebidensya, kaya naging kasaysayan na ngayon.
Yung iba kasi porke sinabi ng isang kilalang figure they will take it as gospel(history is written by the victors). Makikipag debate tapos ang sagot puro quotes sabay sasabihin "mas matalino kaba sa mga yun?". It can be right at times pero not all the times.
Love your content. Well said.👏👏 from time to time nag-iiba pa ang mga nakatala sa ating kasaysayan. Maraming salamat sa ating mga mabusising tagapaggalugad.
Hindi kelangan ng katotohanan ng makinarya para lumaganap ito. Ganun sya kalakas. Unlike kasinungalingan na malaking effort ang kelangan gawin. Galing mo to pau.
Healthy skepticism kase talaga dapat. Hindi pwedeng lamon ka lang ng lamon ng mga impormasyon na nababasa at naririnig mo. Gather information and be open to new ideas so you can formulate your own opinion on the matter. History is a study of past events kaya may chance na hindi 100% accurate yung mga impormasyon so everything is up for discussion.
knowledge is intersubjective. Ganun ang fact. kailangan may MGA TAO( hindi lang ISA) na naperceive ang parehong data or experience para masabing totoo ito.
Ang tsismis ay ayon sa kwento na walang matibay na patunay. Ang history naman ay mga tsismis na nabigyan ng patunay at mga kasagutan. Kaya tayo may "Tsismis noon, kasaysayan ngayon.
Pag hindi pabor sa idols nila o paniniwala nila yung history sasabihin nila na bias yung history. History is there for you not to like or dislike. It is there for you to learn from it.
Pano naman ung sa Example na "Holodomor" ng Ukraine... Generally Accepted as Truth na genocide daw un according to the West, and Ukraine Countries na it is a systematic genocide ng Soviet Union. But then theres a catch, there are some historians that are pointing out it is not a genocide. Example: Michael Ellman states that Stalin clearly committed crimes against humanity but whether he committed genocide depends on the definition of the term. In his 2007 article "Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited" Hiroaki Kuromiya states that although the famine was man-made and much of the deaths could have been avoided had it not been for Stalin's agricultural policies, he finds the evidence for the charge of genocide to be insufficient, and states that it is unlikely that Stalin intentionally caused the famine to kill millions, that he used famine as an alternative to the ethnic deportations that were commonly used as collective punishment under Stalin's rule, or that the famine was specifically engineered to target Ukrainians. Noting that Stalin had few qualms with killing opponents of his rule and directly ordered several episodes of mass murder, Kuromiya finds the absence of an order to engineer a famine as punishment as unusual, in contrast to the Great Purge and the various deportations and 'national operations' which he personally ordered, and as pointing to the unlikelihood of Stalin deliberately orchestrating mass starvation. He also cites several measures taken by the Soviet government that, although ineffective, provide evidence against the intentionalist thesis, such as nine occasions of curtailing grain exports from different famine-stricken regions and clandestinely purchasing foreign aid to help alleviate the famine. He goes on to suggest that the prioritisation of military food stockpiles over the peasantry was likely motivated by Stalin's paranoia about what he believed to be an impending war with Japan and/or Poland rather than a desire to deliberately starve Ukrainians to death. Robert Conquest Wheatcroft and Davies noted that Conquest would later go onto walk back much of the claims made in his earlier book. In a 2003 letter, Conquest clarified to them that "Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine? No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it." In a 2008 interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Conquest further stated of the famine that "I don't think the word genocide as such is a very useful one ... the trouble is it implies that somebody, some other nation, or a large part of it were doing it ... But I don't think this is true - it wasn't a Russian exercise, the attack on the Ukrainian people." Professors R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft state the famine was man-made but unintentional. They believe that a combination of rapid industrialization and two successive bad harvests (1931 and 1932) were the primary reason of the famine. Historian John Archibald Getty in a critique of The Harvest of Sorrow, which asserted Conquest's original claim that the famine constituted a genocide, states that the conclusion of the famine being engineered is a tempting one but that it is poorly supported by and requires a highly stretched interpretation of the evidence, but that Stalin nonetheless was the entity most responsible for the disaster, citing his role as the prime-backer of hardline collectivisation and excessive demands on the peasantry. Firstly, Getty calls into question the estimate of the death toll at around five million Ukrainians presented in The Harvest of Sorrow as being much too high, citing much lower demographic estimates from Stephen Wheatcroft, Barbara Anderson, and Brian Silver, and notes that the severity of the famine varied greatly between local regions of Ukraine. Secondly, Getty says that the book fails to provide a convincing motive for genocide, and that other explanations for the famine better fit the evidence than the intentional genocide thesis. Getty points to the fact that Stalin's power was not absolute during these years of his rule, and that he had limited de facto control over local bureaucrats, with many of the Kremlin's orders regarding collectivisation during this time being subverted or ignored at lower levels of the chain of command; in some regions, local bureaucrats exceeded Stalin's demands for expropriation of kulaks, whereas in others, Stalin's demands for expropriation were disregarded and contravened. Moreover, even Stalin's own plans during this time period were frequently unclear and subject to constant change, furthering confusion among the lower bureaucracy and the peasantry; in some districts, farms were collectivised, then decollectivised, and then collectivised yet again within the span of less than a year. Getty also attributes the failure of Soviet authorities to relieve the famine once they realised it was going on to Stalin's paranoia and chaotic decision-making, and that as with his reaction to the German invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa, the delays by the central government to adequately respond to the crisis stemmed from Stalin's intense distrust even of his own advisors rather than a calculated, deliberate effort to prolong the starvation. Mark Tauger, professor of history at West Virginia University,[39] stated that the 1932 harvest was 30-40% smaller than official statistics and that the famine was "the result of a failure of economic policy, of the 'revolution from above'", not "a 'successful' nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups." In his 1991 article "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933" According to Stephen Kotkin while "there is no question of Stalin's responsibility for the famine" and many deaths could have been prevented if not for the "insufficient" and counterproductive Soviet measures, there is no evidence for Stalin's intention to kill the Ukrainians deliberately. According to Kotkin, the Holodomor "was a foreseeable byproduct of the collectivization campaign that Stalin forcibly imposed, but not an intentional murder. He needed the peasants to produce more grain, and to export the grain to buy the industrial machinery for the industrialization. Peasant output and peasant production was critical for Stalin's industrialization." Historian Viktor Kondrashin asserts that Stalin's forced collectivisation programme drastically decreased peasants' quality of life and that it was the leading catalyst of the famine, and that although a notable drought did occur in 1931, it and other natural factors were not the primary causes of the famine. However, he rejects the claim that the famine was a targeted genocide of Ukrainians or any other ethnic group in the Soviet Union. According to Kondrashin, in some aspects, conditions for peasants were actually even worse in the Russian regions of the Kuban and Lower Volga. He does note, however, that Stalin took advantage of the famine crisis to neutralise the Ukrainian intelligentsia on the pretexts that they were a subversive force behind anti-Soviet uprisings by peasants. Kondrashin also assigns part of the blame for the famine to foreign governments that continued to trade with and buy food from the Soviet Union, in particular the United Kingdom, which imported approximately two million tonnes of Soviet grain during the famine years of 1932 and 1933 Kahit "based on truth and research" paden ang Journalism at Historians, nagbabago paden ang isang kasaysayan according sa generally accepted truth ng mga other historians. There is still a massive influence ng tampering ng government sa isang history. Which is a problem, ng every historians kc binubura ng mga governments ung mga previous crimes ng government. Look sa US, bakit di nila dinidiscuss ung mga genocides nila sa mga Indians? History is hidden by the victors. Minamanipulate nila ang history in according to their preferred view of history. Hindi naman sa binabago nila ang history kundi tina tago nila ung mga vital parts ng history para maging supported sa views nila ung isang narrative na pinaniniwalaan ng historian. They are looking for evidences that support their narrative and disregards other evidences that contradicts them.
Karamihan kasi ngayon mas gusto yung comfort kesa amining mali sila, napakahalaga ng kanilang ego, yung tipong kahit ikamamatay siguro nila eh hindi mo pa din sila mapipilit na maniwala sa katotohanan, mas gusto na lang nila isipin na walang totoo at lahat nagkakamali, na lahat ay opinion lamang, nakakalunkot na mindset.
"History is written by the victor. History is filled with liars. If he lives and we die, his truth becomes written - and ours is lost. Shepherd will be a hero, 'cause all you need to change the world is one good lie and a river of blood." - Captain Price (CoD: MW2)
Untrue. Just look at WW2. Nazi historians are responsible for the history relating to Nazi Germany and the myth of the unbreakable panzer (The only tank in WW2 to be destroyed by a homemade bomb).
There is only historical correctness when history is written based on facts. There is no such thing as historical truth. Facts can be interpreted in many ways, even in contradicting manner. There can be no truth in that, only persuasive arguments and people being able to relate more to a given point/argument. Truths are one and only one and accepted by all, not subject to debate or disputation. Like the truth that the sun is at the center of our solar system and all the relative things that happens with it subject to specific conditions. When someone speaks of historical truth they are merely saying their interpretion of events are superior to others.
truly truly. di naman naten maiiwasan na karamihan ng history ay nanggaling sa oral storytelling na vinevrify ng researchers para malaman naten ang totoong naganap noon
I think hindi history yung tinutukoy mo. History is based on facts yes, namatay ba si magellan sa mactan? Yes. Yan sample of history, Now kung dinugtungan mo na ng mga words na wala namang factual basis or emotions like "lapu lapu fought bravely and killed magellan". Now ito na yung medyo mali, coz a quick google will show you who really killed magellan but honors was only given to lapu lapu. Thats why history is the search for truth in the written from/by the past and no its not tsimis.
@@fujisyusuuke1709 Malamang may witness nakakita sa pangyayari then kumalat na ang info at nalaman ng ibang tao until many generations later. Also Historians need to interrogate where this source is coming from until this evidence is need to be verified kung tama ba yung information na binigay sa kanila. Then mag-reresearch sila ng ilang years para ma-confirm to connect the dots sa side ng story sa Spain about sa laban ni Magellan and Lapu-Lapu kung correct ba ang location kung saan talaga namatay si Lapu-Lapu. Hanggang meron na silang proof.
Tsismis is based on what "YOU" saw or heard while history is what "EVERYONE" have witnessed. Edit: jusko po kelangan ko pa ba e explain? when I said "everyone" ibig sabihin yung mga taong nakawitness sa panahong yon, history nga eh ibig sabihin yung nakaraan at hindi tungkol sa nakita/nadinig mo ngayun, kaka tsismis niyo pati common sense nawala na xD
I have to disagree dun sa part ng history. As Winston Churchill said "History is written by the victors". At malay naman natin nagiiba ang mensahe ng kuwentu kuwentuhan overtime (Bible for example). Not all history are accurate.
@@watchuganado Depende kase talaga sa perspective. Kung maraming nagsasabing nakaranas na maganda ang buhay nung panahon na yun. Ibigsabihin "facts" yun in their own perspective. Pero hindi ibigsabihin non na babalewalain o di na natin paniniwalaan yung kabilang side nung pangyayareng iyon. It's a matter of perspective talaga. Hahahahaha
Late response, but what's the point of this simile? I could also say that from a certain perspective, "humans are like wolves", but without further context it just lies in the vacuity of meaning. Any simile or figure if speech has to have a neighboring group of statements and significations that clarify it. If Ella Cruz said clearly, explaining the multivocity in history and plurality of perspectives, then said that "history is like gossip, in this regard", with qualifying statements, then perhaps that would be acceptable.
Sa mga nagdedeny ng mga established FACTS at history (climate change deniers, flat earthers, etc.), sana may mas concrete kayong evidence to say otherwise. Hindi dahil may hindi tayo maintindihan o ayaw nating paniwalaang FACT, automatikong magcoconclude na yung exact opposite yung katotohanan. Being critical is great and even necessary; it is how we debunk disinformation and misinformation, and strengthen facts. Pero let us not be ignorant of how a fact is a fact, the history is the history in the first place, not just chismis.
Nah Not unless Buhay ka that time kahit nga naka sulat sa bibliya d natin alam kung totoo o Hindi pero pinapaniwalaan natin kaya kahit ano man sa sabihin Ng tao yaan nalang natin Sila sa opinion nila Kasi ikaw sa sarili mo alam mong may bias ka.
@@johnlawrence6484 Lahat ba ng pangyayari ay maihalintulad mo kung paano ginawa ang bibliya. Hindi di ba? Kahit buhay ka at that time magbigay karin naman ng ebidensiya kung concreto ba yang sinasabi mo, kapag may nagsabi sayo na kaya niyang lumipad pero hindi ka pa buhay noon papaniwalaan mo ba?
Diba and History ay isang record kung ano ang nanyari sa nakaraang pahanon. Tulad ng Biblia o kaya newspaper o magazine na nakasulat ng buhay ng isang artista. Kung and History ay chismis eh parang sinabi rin niya na ang nakasulat sa bibliya ay pawang chismis. Yung mga nakasulat sa newspaper at magazine tungkol sa kanyang buhay ay parang sinabi rin na ang lahat ng yung ay pawang kasinungalingan lamang at ang mga kahapon niya ay pawang kasinungalingan laman o kaya ang buhay niya ay pawang kasinungalingan lamang.
Respect opinion parang respect sa religion. Maraming nagsasabi. Mali ang katoliko. May nagsasabi Mali ang Inc. Mali ang tamang Daan. Mali ang Muslim, kunwari sa pamilya. Imbes na may diskusyon at away. Nirerespeto mo na Lang paniniwala Nila. Pero may sarili Kang paniniwala dahil nag research ka. At nag cross reference ka. Make them believe what they believe. No point of arguing in social media.
I'm not a Marcos Loyalist pero nung una kong nabasa yung statement ni Ella, sabi ko masyado namang overreacting yung mga tao, nag-agree ako sa statement niya and feeling ko may halong bias na rin yung reaksyon ng mga tao given the fact na nasa isang Marcos themed show siya. And I read opinions not just from anybody but from real historians and sabi ko, oo nga no, you can't just underestimate the work of real historians and belittle it as just a "chismis", I still get the point na sinasabi niya but we can't just pretend na sinabi niya yun para pagtakpan yung nasa history natin about Martial Law. I get the point totoo namang mahirap o talagang hindi na natin malalaman ang totoonv nangyari sa lahat ng bagay but you can't just belittle yung honest work ng mga historians.
"The only truth in this world is that there is no truth. Anyone can become God or the Devil, all it takes is for people to believe it." -Eren Kruger (The Owl)
Not all information sa history ay tunay na nangyari dahil ang nagsasalaysay ay isang tao rin hindi isang perpekto, hindi isang timbangang permanenteng pantay sa kabila ng mga impormasyong nakakalap, nalalaman, Hindi isang walang muwang. Hindi talaga mawawala ang pag-bias dahil ito ay isang natural na pagiisip ng isang tao, tulad ng pagpili sa pagitan ng kulay na "black or white" merong mapipili at mapipili parin kahit na sabihin mo ay pareho mong gusto, dahil narin sa iyong experience at kaalaman, pero maaari ito ipagsama sa tulad sa isang sapatos tulad ng history...pero meron paring may mas lamang parin na kulay. Take note ang History ay nanggaling din sa tao hindi ito nagawa lang mula sa kawalan, hindi maiiwasan nandyan ang manipulation at biasing.
Herodotus was the First Historian in world ever known While the Ancient Gossip-ians and Historiadors (Humans): Awawagoo Hoo hoo huwahuwaa huabuabua bleeehh keekeke
Ang problema kasi sa history ng pilipinas ay ang fair distribution of facts. Mas madami ang lumalabas na negative kesa positive, kaya napagkakamalang bias, kasi one sided lang ang palabas ang resulta nagiging good vs. evil na, remember there are two faces of every coin.
Anong always!? D kaba nakikinig nang maayos nung pinanood mo yung video!? Malinaw namn na sinabi ni Paolul na minsan ang mga talunan ang nagsusulat ng history
Maniniwala ka ba kung ang mga Soviets nanalo sa Cold War eh nagsulat sila ng history eh paniniwalaan mo ba? History is not written by the victors. Maniniwala ka ba sa British Empire na mala-anghel daw pero actually gahaman pala sa pera, resources at kapangyarihan? Kung si Napoleon nagsabi eh tandaan mo dati mataas siya sa History considering natalo niya ang Prussia, Spain, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire at Russian Empire. Kung kasi by the victors eh dapat mas maraming pumupuri sa Amerika tungkol sa Afghanistan kaso lumabas ang katotohanan ang Afghanistan ay isang mess at punong puno ng korapsyon ang gobyerno nila.
@@pogiako2463 Tapos pag sinabi mo naman tama na din agad? Abnormal logic aba. Make sense naman na may examples na hindi lagi ang victors ang side na kinuha sa history so it proves that MINSAN hindi victors ang nagsulat.
@@gianevalerio7813 Kung sila ang nanalo sa Cold War that would have been the history na alam natin. Yung isusulat nila. Kasi yan lang ang papayagan nilang malaman ng publiko. Ang gusto ko lang naman sabihin, maswerte tayo na ang mga 'victors' ngayon kinikilala ang freedom of speech. Dahil kung nagkataon na ang mga Soviets nga ang nanalo at nag take over sa mundo, marahil ang reality at history na ituturo nila, yan ang magiging reality at history.
Please correct me if I am wrong, Sabihin natin na unverified na 1 plus 1 equals 2. 5 million ang nagsabi na ang 1+1=3 100 thousand ang nagsabi na 1+1=4 50 tao lang ang nagsabi 1+1=2 Maaari bang maisulat sa history na ang 1+1=3 kasi 5 million na tao ang nagsabi nito?
History is a social science.. Science siya.. therefore ang mga datos, detalye, pangyayari ay dumadaan sa scientific process.. History is definitely not chismis but it may start with chismis.. dahil may ganap.. doon magsisimula ang paghahanap ng katotohanan based on the evidence present.
*may history ba kayo ni crush?* 👉 👈
MEME Playlist: bit.ly/2GtjrNz
Maging MEMBER para sa mas maagang uploads, uncensored vids, exclusive emojis: th-cam.com/users/paolulmemesjoin
10k ni cayetano
ok👍👍👍
Ayun nga
madilim😐
si atty libayan nabili na Ng mga buwaya. Ikaw na Lang natitira.
Nakuha ata ni ella yon kay Lourd de vera."chismis noon kasaysayan ngayon"
History is written by various scholars across the world, and by that means there are multitude of perspectives, hindi lang one-sided. Porket nakabasa ka lang ng isang post from social media platforms or isang libro eh magrarant ka na agad about sa validity ng history natin. Cross reference muna
Kinalumatan Ang Google Scholar pre 😭
Sadly, that is evident to most of the Filipinos. Hindi na nakakapagtaka kung bakit may mga iba na di magkasundo sa iisang bagay.
Yehhh
@@nahh9580 yan ang mental gymnastics.
@@nahh9580 "kung first time mo marinig yung istorya pero galing sa tsismis yun yung TRUTH para sayo. but is is not the reality."
What? Then it's still, does mean, a 'rumour'.
REMEMBER, Truth and Reality may be different (in terms of definition) but BOTH are based on "facts". Your analogy is wrong and contradicting.
_"History is always written by the victors."_
Mga SPARTANS: *"Kami ba ay isang biro sa inyo?!"*
Napoleon Bonaparte at robert lee: "kami rin ba ay isang biro din sa inyo!?"
Heneral Luna:
Che Guevarra:
Pablo Escobar:
Osama Bin:
Naaapreciate ko kay Tito Pao: may sense.
1. Mahirap i-defend ang "respect my opinion" dahil ito nga ay opinion at hindi palaging paktuwal
2. May functional definition ang history: isang record o branch ng kaalaman na nag iingat sa paktuwal na pangyayari o katotohanan; wala talagang positibong definition ang "tsismis" kasi nga hindi siya napatunayan
I'm also this. It's hard to define History as chismis, but doesn't take it away as sometimes factual.
There are times na talagang naging kasaysayan ang bulong-bulong. Pero as said by sioPAO:
"Dahan-dahang lumalabas ang katotohanan"
Hindi langing chismis ang ating kasaysayan, at nagbabago rin ito sa ating pananaw.
Just like PaoLuL suggested, ang tsismis, at the moment, ay isang possible account or event na pwedeng maging facts later on.
Related sya or a part sya of history but not precisely THE history.
Pwede sya mapatunayan if may new evidences na naiintroduce or may new techs na tumulong ma enhance ang pagaaral ulit sa tsismis, dumaan sa proper scientific methods and na conclude at the end na factual na sya.
As long as dumaan sa scientific methods at ang resulta nirerespeto ng majority of scientists sa field ng history, then, may batayan na sya for defining ang account and/or event na dating tsismis as facts and THE history.
Like other sciences, di 100% accurate ang pagdetermine ng history as there will be errors and can be proven wrong for a long time. But kung hindi tayo gumagamit ng scientific methods sa pag determine ng history, mas biased, tsismis/conspiracy prone ang history natin and mahirap ma correct in a long time.
Pwede i-refute kaagad ng kahit sinong tao kung baga.
Its like how Goyo died in pasong tirad.. our known history is he died as last man heroically while commanding his men... Pero according nmn sa US military historian, sya daw unang namatay kaya nataranta ang mga sundalo na nagdedefend ng pasong tirad.. so,ano ba talaga? Tsismsi lng yan lahat, kaso inilimbag kaya naging part ng history na...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@alflo4625 yan ang challenge for a lot of historians.
Usually, pinagaawayan nila yung ganyang scenarios. There will be errors and biases na need to be corrected pa. Parang same situation for historians and other scientists with the true identity of Jesus Christ and kung legendary figure lang sya or not.
At the end of the day, ang goal of historians dapat ay ipresent and idetermine nila yung history talaga and yung mga accounts na tsismis lang with the least amount of biases and with the most reliable sources of evidences to get the most accurate picture of that said event or thing.
@@alflo4625 That is Historiography! The different approaches of such events is what makes these accounts so interesting.
"Di' naman porke't naisulat na ang History, tapos na eh. Kasi doon lalakas nang lalakas yaang History na 'yan." - Mary Tess, 10:22
Another interesting thing and what a lot of people dont realize is the same idea can be applied to our "opinions" as well. Much like History, dapat open to change ang mga opinyon natin. Sure, pwede mo ipaglaban, panghawakan ang current opinion mo sa isang bagay pero kapag naintroduce ka sa mga takes na mas may sense, matuto tayong mag internalize and magrevise. Yan ang magpapalakas sa opinyon natin. "Kung kayang palitan yang History na yan, mahina yaang History na yan." same thing, hanggat may butas sa opinyon mo, papasok at papasok ang katotohanan dyan.
"Ang Opinyon ay dapat sinasaktan. Ang Opinyon ay dapat tine-test kung maganda yung opinyon mo." - PaoLUL sa debate vid
Salamat ulit sa laptrip at makabuluhan na vid Tito Pao! labyu mwah mwah mwah mwah tsup tsup
LOUDEEEER!
Agree
salamat Mankun sa extra.
So when will Philippine textbooks contain the fact that Ferdinand Marcos rang a sex slavery in through his fake guerrilla unit Maharlika? That he is a paedophile? Dovey Beamsm Pretending to break the rules of physics by claiming to be awarded the medal of honour, the American one?
Hindi ang istoryador ang magsasabi na makatotohanan ang kanyang sinulat. Ang tanging maipapangako lamang ng istoryador ay ang paggamit ng kanyang buong husay sa pangangalap ng datos, sa pagsusuri nito gamit ang pinakamataas na pamantayang historiograpikal, at sa pagbuo ng makabuluhang interpretayson.
Ang mambabasa ang tanging makapaghuhusga kung makatotohanan o hindi ang nasulat ng isang istoryador batay sa kabuluhan nito sa kanya. Ang mambabasa lamang ang pwedeng magpatutuo sa isang akdang istorikal batay sa kanyang pagkaunawa, karanasan, at paniwala.
Para mag-angkin ang isang istoryador ng katotohanan base lamang sa paggamit ng mga factual na sources ay isang pagtataksil sa layunin ng kasaysayan na magkaroon ito ng 'saysay' sa kanyang pinatutungkulan. Sa madaling sabi, walang katotohanang makikita sa kasaysayang walang saysay.
Came for the memes nung una kong napanood si tito Pao, kudos sa quality content everytime tungkol sa mga social issues. Thanks for your service.
8:52 Pro-tip: pronounce classical Latin words like how they are spelled. All letters should sound like what they actually sound in the original Latin alphabet (which is basically Abakada, with a few exceptions, like U/V and I/J, since Z, J, Y, W, and U do not exist in the Old Latin alphabet). It's not like English or French where the sound of letters can change based on what word it is, or where they are, etc.
All vowels are pronounced distinctly. G is always hard G as in Goat. C is always hard C as in Cat (although in early Latin, when G was not present, C followed by A had a G sound, etc.). T is always T as in Tap. Q always has a "kw" sound. etc. K has exactly the same sound as C, but it is rare (introduced later) and only used for foreign words like borrowed Greek (incidentally it was popular in the Byzantine Roman Empire, which was largely ethnically Greek).
"Optimates" is pronounced "Op-Ti-Mah-Tess"
"Pisces" is pronounced "Pis-Kess"
"Positio" is pronounced "Poh-See-Tiyo"
"Centurio" is pronounced "Ken-Toor-Yo"
"Legionarius" is pronounced "Leg-Yo-Nar-Yoos"
"Germinatus" is pronounced "Gerr-Mee-Nah-Toos"
"Jesus"(IESVS in orginal Latin) is pronounced "Yeh-Soos"
"Julius Caesar" (IVLIVS CAESAR in original Latin) is pronounced "Yoo-li-yoos Kae- Sarr"
The "Latin" that you hear being used now in scientific terminology and in the Roman Catholic Church is what is known as "New Latin", they are pronounced according to modern rules. Not based on how they were actually pronounced by actual Romans themselves.
Of course, some words have become more familiar in their Anglicized form like "Julius Caesar" being pronounced "Dzhul-yoos Say-Sarr". But when it comes to pronouncing "raw" classical Latin, use the tip I gave.
Same thing applies to ancient Greek, btw. "Spartiate" is pronounced "Spar-Tiya-Teh" not "Sparchiyaet" like they might be pronounced using English rules, etc.
Wow!
Thank you for this.
Salamat po sa info
Yosh Rivera miss na kita! Ano ba talaga social media mo!!?? Lumabas kana! Tagal na yon! Baby you’re my sun and moon❤️🎵🎵🎵
Chismis lang daw yun salamat sa extra
@@PaoLUL_ baby baby ur my sun and moon
Sun and moon....sananmoon......sanamoon.....
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down..
@@PaoLUL_ LODI
Reacted 😠 to your comment.
"History ay hindi parang tsismis. History are facts na may halong tsismis".
Agree ako dito otits, lalo na sa classical antiquity, maraming naiiba ang bersyon dahil sa pagsalin-salin ng istorya throughout the ages, some were lost in translation due to language differences, motives and perspectives that time, plus our incomplete understanding of ancient languages. Just like the story of Troy and the Trojan war, it was only a story until archaeologists proved its existence, now we know Troy and the Trojan war exists, that's a fact, but what really happened during that time still remains a mystery, only the accounts of Homer and greek playwrights are our primary sources, and most of them have different versions, that's why it is under scholarly debate until now.
May point naman talaga si ella cruz
WORLD HISTORY NA "TSISMIS"
380 BCE The Earth was the center of the Universe according to Eudoxus, Aristotle and Claudius Ptolemy, whose view of the cosmos persisted for 1500 years base on geocentric model.
Sabi ng tatlong marites lahat daw ng planeta kabilang na ang SUN ay nag revolve around the earth. Ito ay naisulat sa world history at napaniwala mga tao sa loob ng 1500 years pero na FACT CHECKED / DEBUNKED in 16th century
WORLD HISTORY REVISED
16th century THE SUN is the center of our solar system, and its gravity holds the solar system together. Everything in our solar system revolves around it - the planets, asteroids, comets, and tiny bits of space debris, According to Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton base on mathematics and scientific evidence. Ito na ngayon ang nakasulat sa history natin
Dumaan sa butas ng karayum si copernicus at galileo sa kamay ng ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, inakusahan silang HERETIC at historical revisionism daw ginagawa nila. Sounds familiar? search nyo lang ibang details
"history ay facts na may halong chismis". Therefore para ngang chismis kasi may dagdag bawas ?. Ano ba talaga ser.
Yah, but "chismis" is not the appropriate word. It's not chismis if we compare history to its literal translation. History is more of a research to reach conclusions, nababago siya not because sa pasalin salin and rewrite but sa labasan ng valid evidences for updated conclusions. Naa update yan like Tito Pao said, lalabas at lalabas ang katotohanan. Nagkakaiba minsan dahil din sa perspective, that's why it's debated before consideration, and dahil sa internet usually it's simplified without context, YUN ung part na may nagiging biased kasi may choice ka kung pano mo ipapainterpret sa iba ung info.
Gulo nio yawa
Siguro sa part ng history na yan applicable sya, pero sa history ng bansa natin na tinutukoy ni Ella hindi since mas maraming records, evidences, at iba pang primary sources and available para pagbasehan ng mga historians natin.
9:46 grabe tito pao first time ko lang marinig na may tama din ako chz
From what is happening in Philippines it is really hard to distinguish between gossip and facts. However, it is up to us to scrutinise history.
E sabi nga ni Pao para marevise ang history kailangan mo ng madaming pera at social media influence (bayad na accounts para magkalat ng fakenews). Which meron yung isang presidente dyan.
@@wertfasd back then there was no social media, only TV news and newspapers. So just like what you said, one needs money and media influences to revise history. Who do you think owns a lot of money and media influences back then? The Aquinos and Cojuancos.
@@wertfasd you are out of context sir/ma'am :)
@@maxnocz mas madali before kasi hindi lahat ng tao may access asa internet. kaya isang newspaper lang mababago na lahat
@@maxnocz The Conjuangco's are allies with Marcos tho
Salamat tito pao sa isa na namang masustansyang content
Yay! Another historical/ educational episode!!
Kaya Sabi ni Lourd De Vera "Tsismis noon, kasaysayan Ngayon"
tell me you don't watch the program by not telling me you don't really watch the frkn program
Tsismis noon (na dumaan sa pagaaral, at peer reviews kaya naging) kasaysayan ngayon.
@@arsenusthearsenalswagus4200 exactly
@@sushitraxh6736 Monkey see, monkey do kasi mga yan. haha
This is the best TH-camr matatawa ka na matututo ka pa Hindi tulad Ng iba diyan Basta hate Ng masa hate narin pero ito TH-camr na to talagang ipapaliwanag pa talaga sayo maigi. Kudos sayo Pao sana dumami pa Ang subscribers mo at marami pa sanang matutunan galing sayo☺️
Sheeesh hahaha oo nga dami nga matutunan ng ?? Ano nga ba? Ang natutunan natin explain mo nga? Hayy ang mata natin ay naka sara pero ang tinga ay bukas sa maling info kawawa Filipino kung ano man marinig yun ang totoo sheeesh dami ko natutunan? Or saan natutunan???
@@mr.bulldog1244 but doesn't that contradict your statement, kasi hindi mo alam yung ipinapahiwatig ni pao?
@@mr.bulldog1244 matuto paano mag isip, hindi basta basta nakiki bandwagon. Sa iba kasi ay preacher ang dating na sasabihin na lang na masama si ganto o ganito yang taong yan. Pero dito, pinapaliwanag niya kung ano bang meron, ano na bang nangyayari, ano ano yung mga factors na dapat i take in. Hindi lang basta basta kung ano ang narinig, yun agad ang gospel.
Kitang kita naman din ito dun sa nakaraan niyang upload tungkol sa debate ng same sex marriage
@@tunasalmon1243 indeed, through objective reasoning dapat.
@@nenkonya8542 anoo haha pinapahiwatig ng ano? Si pao ay idol bilang memes of youtuber but pagdating dito hindi natin pwede gawin halimbawa ang pinapahiwatig niya sa atin hindi natin pwde ikumpara ang history sa bawat pinapahiwatig niya us filipino merun tayo history book na pwede tayo mapaliwanagan sa history us filipino
salamat sa kaalaman, teacherLUL 🧀🧀🧀
One of the best content creator/TH-camr! I'm so happy and thankful that my late best friend introduced me to you. (RIP BRO). And now my wife and my 5month old daughter is watching your vids. Everytime na manunuod kami ng vids mo palaging nag smile yung anak ko. More meme reviews and knowledgeable content tito pao! God bless!
history is parang bold ni wally hindi chismis totoong nangyari
The moment na nagtrending si Ella Cruz, alam kong gagatasan mo agad siya Tito Pao. Isa na naman dekalidad na content! Proud to be a kanser!
Keep it up. Araw araw tuyo ulam. 💪
First of all kala ko talaga TH-camr/Gamer/Streamer/Content creator lang si Tito pao pero you show them some of your knowledge in History. Solid ka talaga PaoLuL may mga natututunan din kami konti sa mga ibang contents mo.
In short, History is a chismiss din but with a collectible facts, hearsay, and opinion and time will tell what really happened base on the evidence na nakukuha.
Mas maiintindihan kita kung statistics ang tawag mo sa history dahil kumukuha tayo ng impormasyon mula sa ibat ibang pagtatala. Ang tsimis ay opinion mo o paglalarawan lng sa kung ano lng ang naintindihan mo sa nakita mo na sobrang unreliable at sobrang bias.
Ang history ay higit pa sa pagkuha ng interview, kailangan umakma yan sa ibat ibang kasanayan (weather, documents, legislation, current event noong panahon na iyon) for example.
Hindi lng galing sa bibig ang history, remember that.
for example pagkamatay ni Ninoy (simple lng mga to pero hindi yan tsimis na pwedeng totoo o hindi, lahat yan TOTOO at nangyare. May ebidensya, inaral, dinokumento.)
-mapapatunayan natin na namatay sya sa forensic
-mapapatunayan natin na baril ang ginamit sa pagpatay
-mapapatunayan natin na nakasakay sya sa eroplano
-mapapatunayan natin malapit lng ang bumaril sa kanya
-mapapatunayan yung petsa ng kamatayan nya
-mapapatunayan natin na tuligsa sya sa marcoses
-mapapatunayan nating yung eksatong oras ng pagkamatay nia
-Alam natin kung sino ang nasa eroplano
-Alam natin ang ruta
-Alam natin bakit sya pumunta ng ibang bansa etc.
@@ppttoons1410 may nalimutan ka 😂 nahuli ba ANG pumatay sa kanya ?
@@Brookandmoon baka kilala mo ah palagay nalang dito, chismis lang naman pala yung history eh dagdag nalang natin.
@@Brookandmoon sa tingin mo ba wala sila kinasuhan?
Iba yung walang ebidensya sa mabagal ang hustisya. At higit sa lahat di mo kailangan maguilty since di ako nagName drop. Bato bato sa langit ang matamaan........
@@ppttoons1410 nagegets kita bro but the problem is hindi lahat ng history ay kasing simple ng example mo. Madaming contradiction ang mga source ng history kaya need ng critical thinking at pag aanalyze, may mga kulang na evidence and may mga tao naman na nakakita or magpapatunay pero nag cocontradict ito minsan.
Example ko nalang dito is yung Retraction ni Rizal bago siya mamatay, alam mo ba na binawi ni Rizal ang mga kanyang mga sulat at gawa. Para lang mapakasalan ang kanyang asawa?
Madaming nagpapatunay na ito ay totoo may mga evidence pa nga eh, pero marami ring nag cocontradict.
I just want to say na don't treat history na absolute and pure facts na pagkabasa mo ayun na yung totoo, ang history ay nandiyan na yan but ikaw parin ang mag aanalyze sa mga evidence sa mga CHISMISS and Hearsay ng mga makikita mo.
Then in the end ikaw parin gagawa ng conclusion mo kasi eh base sa mga nabasa at nakuha mo na source.
(History is like Tsismis, filter and dagdag na rin)
Ang sinabi lang ni Ella n parang tsismis ay yung part n may dagdag na nga daw s history at filtered na... Para saken tama yun..,
Ang pagkakaintindi ata ng madami ay
"HISTORY IS TSISMIS".
..magkaibang magkaiba naman un.
Ang galing mo talaga PaoLUL puwede ka na maging youtuber..
May masalimuot na prosesong pinagdadaanan ang mga kwento bago ito maging kasaysayan. Maraming tao ang nagsasaliksik at nag-aaral tungkol dito, at sinusubukan nilang pagtagpi tagpiin ang totoong kwento gamit ang mga ebidensya na nakalap nila. Kaya ang kasaysayang nakasulat ay maaaring hindi kumpleto, pero yun ang kwento base sa mga ebidensyang nakuha at nakolekta ng mga historyador sa kasalukuyan. Kung makahukay o makakuha ng mas matibay na ebidensya na nagsasabing iba ang totoong nangyari, ay maaaring pagaralan ito at mabago nito ang nakasulat sa mga libro.
Maaari ngang ang ibang kasaysayan ay nagmula sa simpleng 'tsismis'. Pero dahil sa tsismis na ito, nagkaroon ng interes ang mga historian na aralin ito at imbestigihan. At kung mangyaring makakuha sila ng matinding pruweba na totoo ito, maaari itong i-verify ng iba pang historian at itest kung totoo ba. At kung ito ay nag-aagree sa iba pang parte ng kasaysayan naten. Pagkatapos ng masusing pag-aaral ng IBA'T-IBANG EKSPERTO, kung ito ay mapatunayan ngang totoo base sa ebidensya, maari na itong matawag na kasaysayan o history. Kaya nga sa slogan ng show ni Lourd De Vera, ito ay "tsismis NOON, kasaysayan NGAYON". Dahil yung tsismis lang noon, dumaan na sa matinding pagsasaliksik, at napatuyan na base sa ebidensya, kaya naging kasaysayan na ngayon.
Lupit mo talaga Tito Pao, well-explained lahat. Waiting lang sa mga upload mo na naghihimay ng mga debates.
Kaya fave youtuber ko to si tito pao e. Pati sa memes may natututunang maganda
2:09 rokuhoudou yotsuiro biyori
6:24 Maken-Ki! Battling Venus
:)
The hero we need
Not all heroes wear capes. salamat
A hero has descended
Sa wakas. Salamat
The legend delivers!
Yung iba kasi porke sinabi ng isang kilalang figure they will take it as gospel(history is written by the victors). Makikipag debate tapos ang sagot puro quotes sabay sasabihin "mas matalino kaba sa mga yun?". It can be right at times pero not all the times.
reminds me of Lourd De Veyra's line "tsismis noon, kasaysayan ngayon"
Ito rin naisip ko
Ay oo nga no haha
Love your content. Well said.👏👏 from time to time nag-iiba pa ang mga nakatala sa ating kasaysayan. Maraming salamat sa ating mga mabusising tagapaggalugad.
With honors ako tito pao, sabi ni mama kung ano daw gusto kong reward, sbi ko “mag pa membership kay tito pao” 🤙🏻🤙🏻🤙🏻😘😘
Hindi kelangan ng katotohanan ng makinarya para lumaganap ito. Ganun sya kalakas. Unlike kasinungalingan na malaking effort ang kelangan gawin. Galing mo to pau.
wala muna akong membership this month tito pao, bawi ako next month
sige lang hedgehog, no pressure
Healthy skepticism kase talaga dapat. Hindi pwedeng lamon ka lang ng lamon ng mga impormasyon na nababasa at naririnig mo. Gather information and be open to new ideas so you can formulate your own opinion on the matter. History is a study of past events kaya may chance na hindi 100% accurate yung mga impormasyon so everything is up for discussion.
"To be neutral is to know all sides" - Sun Tzu
knowledge is intersubjective. Ganun ang fact. kailangan may MGA TAO( hindi lang ISA) na naperceive ang parehong data or experience para masabing totoo ito.
Ang tsismis ay ayon sa kwento na walang matibay na patunay. Ang history naman ay mga tsismis na nabigyan ng patunay at mga kasagutan.
Kaya tayo may "Tsismis noon, kasaysayan ngayon.
Nice one Tito PaoLUL. Ito yung pinaka open minded na reaksyon na hinahanap ko patungkol sa isyu na yan. Ito talaga yung inaabangan ko eh hahaha
i always love the live fact checks pag nag re review si tito eh. sigurista HAHAHAHA
ABA!! 3 months lang akong nd nanuod gumwapo si pao ah hahahaha
"Tsimis noon, history ngaun. History"
-lourd de vera
"Kasaysayan ngayon"
"Tsismis noon"
Halatang never nakapanood ng HISTORY ni Lourd. Nakita lang sa facebook comments kaya nakigaya nalang. lul
@@bullymaguire6773 hindi, cristy per minute pinapanood ko eh
Nung una hindi ako sang-ayon sa statement nya, buti nalang pinalawak ni Pao ung understanding ko! Join na kaya ako 🤔
Pag hindi pabor sa idols nila o paniniwala nila yung history sasabihin nila na bias yung history. History is there for you not to like or dislike. It is there for you to learn from it.
Thanks Tito Pao, nag enjoy na ko natututo pa 👌
Pano naman ung sa Example na "Holodomor" ng Ukraine...
Generally Accepted as Truth na genocide daw un according to the West, and Ukraine Countries na it is a systematic genocide ng Soviet Union.
But then theres a catch, there are some historians that are pointing out it is not a genocide.
Example:
Michael Ellman
states that Stalin clearly committed crimes against humanity but whether he committed genocide depends on the definition of the term. In his 2007 article "Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited"
Hiroaki Kuromiya
states that although the famine was man-made and much of the deaths could have been avoided had it not been for Stalin's agricultural policies, he finds the evidence for the charge of genocide to be insufficient, and states that it is unlikely that Stalin intentionally caused the famine to kill millions, that he used famine as an alternative to the ethnic deportations that were commonly used as collective punishment under Stalin's rule, or that the famine was specifically engineered to target Ukrainians.
Noting that Stalin had few qualms with killing opponents of his rule and directly ordered several episodes of mass murder, Kuromiya finds the absence of an order to engineer a famine as punishment as unusual, in contrast to the Great Purge and the various deportations and 'national operations' which he personally ordered, and as pointing to the unlikelihood of Stalin deliberately orchestrating mass starvation. He also cites several measures taken by the Soviet government that, although ineffective, provide evidence against the intentionalist thesis, such as nine occasions of curtailing grain exports from different famine-stricken regions and clandestinely purchasing foreign aid to help alleviate the famine. He goes on to suggest that the prioritisation of military food stockpiles over the peasantry was likely motivated by Stalin's paranoia about what he believed to be an impending war with Japan and/or Poland rather than a desire to deliberately starve Ukrainians to death.
Robert Conquest
Wheatcroft and Davies noted that Conquest would later go onto walk back much of the claims made in his earlier book. In a 2003 letter, Conquest clarified to them that "Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine? No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it." In a 2008 interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Conquest further stated of the famine that "I don't think the word genocide as such is a very useful one ... the trouble is it implies that somebody, some other nation, or a large part of it were doing it ... But I don't think this is true - it wasn't a Russian exercise, the attack on the Ukrainian people."
Professors R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft
state the famine was man-made but unintentional. They believe that a combination of rapid industrialization and two successive bad harvests (1931 and 1932) were the primary reason of the famine.
Historian John Archibald Getty
in a critique of The Harvest of Sorrow, which asserted Conquest's original claim that the famine constituted a genocide, states that the conclusion of the famine being engineered is a tempting one but that it is poorly supported by and requires a highly stretched interpretation of the evidence, but that Stalin nonetheless was the entity most responsible for the disaster, citing his role as the prime-backer of hardline collectivisation and excessive demands on the peasantry.
Firstly, Getty calls into question the estimate of the death toll at around five million Ukrainians presented in The Harvest of Sorrow as being much too high, citing much lower demographic estimates from Stephen Wheatcroft, Barbara Anderson, and Brian Silver, and notes that the severity of the famine varied greatly between local regions of Ukraine. Secondly, Getty says that the book fails to provide a convincing motive for genocide, and that other explanations for the famine better fit the evidence than the intentional genocide thesis. Getty points to the fact that Stalin's power was not absolute during these years of his rule, and that he had limited de facto control over local bureaucrats, with many of the Kremlin's orders regarding collectivisation during this time being subverted or ignored at lower levels of the chain of command; in some regions, local bureaucrats exceeded Stalin's demands for expropriation of kulaks, whereas in others, Stalin's demands for expropriation were disregarded and contravened. Moreover, even Stalin's own plans during this time period were frequently unclear and subject to constant change, furthering confusion among the lower bureaucracy and the peasantry; in some districts, farms were collectivised, then decollectivised, and then collectivised yet again within the span of less than a year. Getty also attributes the failure of Soviet authorities to relieve the famine once they realised it was going on to Stalin's paranoia and chaotic decision-making, and that as with his reaction to the German invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa, the delays by the central government to adequately respond to the crisis stemmed from Stalin's intense distrust even of his own advisors rather than a calculated, deliberate effort to prolong the starvation.
Mark Tauger,
professor of history at West Virginia University,[39] stated that the 1932 harvest was 30-40% smaller than official statistics and that the famine was "the result of a failure of economic policy, of the 'revolution from above'", not "a 'successful' nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups." In his 1991 article "The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933"
According to Stephen Kotkin
while "there is no question of Stalin's responsibility for the famine" and many deaths could have been prevented if not for the "insufficient" and counterproductive Soviet measures, there is no evidence for Stalin's intention to kill the Ukrainians deliberately. According to Kotkin, the Holodomor "was a foreseeable byproduct of the collectivization campaign that Stalin forcibly imposed, but not an intentional murder. He needed the peasants to produce more grain, and to export the grain to buy the industrial machinery for the industrialization. Peasant output and peasant production was critical for Stalin's industrialization."
Historian Viktor Kondrashin
asserts that Stalin's forced collectivisation programme drastically decreased peasants' quality of life and that it was the leading catalyst of the famine, and that although a notable drought did occur in 1931, it and other natural factors were not the primary causes of the famine. However, he rejects the claim that the famine was a targeted genocide of Ukrainians or any other ethnic group in the Soviet Union. According to Kondrashin, in some aspects, conditions for peasants were actually even worse in the Russian regions of the Kuban and Lower Volga. He does note, however, that Stalin took advantage of the famine crisis to neutralise the Ukrainian intelligentsia on the pretexts that they were a subversive force behind anti-Soviet uprisings by peasants. Kondrashin also assigns part of the blame for the famine to foreign governments that continued to trade with and buy food from the Soviet Union, in particular the United Kingdom, which imported approximately two million tonnes of Soviet grain during the famine years of 1932 and 1933
Kahit "based on truth and research" paden ang Journalism at Historians, nagbabago paden ang isang kasaysayan according sa generally accepted truth ng mga other historians. There is still a massive influence ng tampering ng government sa isang history. Which is a problem, ng every historians kc binubura ng mga governments ung mga previous crimes ng government. Look sa US, bakit di nila dinidiscuss ung mga genocides nila sa mga Indians? History is hidden by the victors. Minamanipulate nila ang history in according to their preferred view of history. Hindi naman sa binabago nila ang history kundi tina tago nila ung mga vital parts ng history para maging supported sa views nila ung isang narrative na pinaniniwalaan ng historian. They are looking for evidences that support their narrative and disregards other evidences that contradicts them.
Karamihan kasi ngayon mas gusto yung comfort kesa amining mali sila, napakahalaga ng kanilang ego, yung tipong kahit ikamamatay siguro nila eh hindi mo pa din sila mapipilit na maniwala sa katotohanan, mas gusto na lang nila isipin na walang totoo at lahat nagkakamali, na lahat ay opinion lamang, nakakalunkot na mindset.
5:33 ABXHHSHDHSHSHS feel na feel kita beh
Ganda talaga ng contents mo tito, nakakataba ng utak.
"History is written by the victor. History is filled with liars. If he lives and we die, his truth becomes written - and ours is lost. Shepherd will be a hero, 'cause all you need to change the world is one good lie and a river of blood."
- Captain Price (CoD: MW2)
*BRAVO SIX GOING DARK*
Untrue. Just look at WW2. Nazi historians are responsible for the history relating to Nazi Germany and the myth of the unbreakable panzer (The only tank in WW2 to be destroyed by a homemade bomb).
War. War never changes.
@@AngryKittens fallout naman yan ehh
what kind of name is soap
dami kong natutunan sir Pao kaso nung una nakalimutan ko kaya pinanood ko ng dalawang beses💆
There is only historical correctness when history is written based on facts. There is no such thing as historical truth.
Facts can be interpreted in many ways, even in contradicting manner. There can be no truth in that, only persuasive arguments and people being able to relate more to a given point/argument.
Truths are one and only one and accepted by all, not subject to debate or disputation. Like the truth that the sun is at the center of our solar system and all the relative things that happens with it subject to specific conditions.
When someone speaks of historical truth they are merely saying their interpretion of events are superior to others.
Those who insist that there is historical truth are not after the truth of the past. It's about whose narrative should prevail.
It's about power.
Kaya naka subscribe ako sayo tito eh! Mga memes tska may matutunan ka na tumatawa 🤣
TSISMIS + FACTS from researchers and historian = HISTORY
truly truly. di naman naten maiiwasan na karamihan ng history ay nanggaling sa oral storytelling na vinevrify ng researchers para malaman naten ang totoong naganap noon
I think hindi history yung tinutukoy mo. History is based on facts yes, namatay ba si magellan sa mactan? Yes. Yan sample of history,
Now kung dinugtungan mo na ng mga words na wala namang factual basis or emotions like "lapu lapu fought bravely and killed magellan". Now ito na yung medyo mali, coz a quick google will show you who really killed magellan but honors was only given to lapu lapu.
Thats why history is the search for truth in the written from/by the past and no its not tsimis.
@@711ronin99 nailed it 😉
@@fujisyusuuke1709 Malamang may witness nakakita sa pangyayari then kumalat na ang info at nalaman ng ibang tao until many generations later. Also Historians need to interrogate where this source is coming from until this evidence is need to be verified kung tama ba yung information na binigay sa kanila. Then mag-reresearch sila ng ilang years para ma-confirm to connect the dots sa side ng story sa Spain about sa laban ni Magellan and Lapu-Lapu kung correct ba ang location kung saan talaga namatay si Lapu-Lapu. Hanggang meron na silang proof.
@@711ronin99 Hindi ba si Antonio Pigafetta ung nag record ng event?
10:18
10:42
10:48 "pinapasok? 🧐" (*enter background music)
Tsismis is based on what "YOU" saw or heard while history is what "EVERYONE" have witnessed.
Edit: jusko po kelangan ko pa ba e explain? when I said "everyone" ibig sabihin yung mga taong nakawitness sa panahong yon, history nga eh ibig sabihin yung nakaraan at hindi tungkol sa nakita/nadinig mo ngayun, kaka tsismis niyo pati common sense nawala na xD
not everyone had witnessed what happened
lol no. jose rizal is history pero i havent seen him at least once lmao
@@noimnot2205 HAHAHA
I have to disagree dun sa part ng history. As Winston Churchill said "History is written by the victors". At malay naman natin nagiiba ang mensahe ng kuwentu kuwentuhan overtime (Bible for example). Not all history are accurate.
@@watchuganado Depende kase talaga sa perspective. Kung maraming nagsasabing nakaranas na maganda ang buhay nung panahon na yun. Ibigsabihin "facts" yun in their own perspective. Pero hindi ibigsabihin non na babalewalain o di na natin paniniwalaan yung kabilang side nung pangyayareng iyon. It's a matter of perspective talaga. Hahahahaha
Sobra yung suporta ko sayo Paolul, ini-skip ko agad yung mga Ads para mapanood agad mga videos mo. ☺️☺️☺️
The buzz 😂
Ano ba college course ni boss paolul, solid di lang puro memes nagagawa paring ipasok yung educational aspect. More power tito pao
something about journalism ata, mascom or related or humanities, tito sagot lol
ang history ay baby baby you're my sun and moon, you make the stars polite
Kaka-subscribe ko lang sayo pero grabe good vibes na dala ng contents mo.
Saludo po ako sa mga katulad nyo, na kahit sobrang dami na ng problema sa mundo nakuha nyo pang dagdagan.
???
@@miryu5120 siya ata ung typical bbm supporter na tuwang tuwa sa lutang jokes at cayetano jokes
seems nasaktan siya sa mga sinabi no PAOLOL kawawang minor
LoL malding Apollo10 spotted
Troll
History is LIKE chismis.
Not
History is chismis. May different perspectives talaga. Yun ang katotohanang kailangan nating tanggapin.
Late response, but what's the point of this simile? I could also say that from a certain perspective, "humans are like wolves", but without further context it just lies in the vacuity of meaning. Any simile or figure if speech has to have a neighboring group of statements and significations that clarify it. If Ella Cruz said clearly, explaining the multivocity in history and plurality of perspectives, then said that "history is like gossip, in this regard", with qualifying statements, then perhaps that would be acceptable.
Mag vlog kana tito pao baka naman
sakit sa ulo. dami ng mga magandang matutunan, di kaya ng utak ko. salamat tito pao. u da best 💕
90% paolul explaning why history is not chismiss
10%memes
Nope, may mas malalim pang pinaliwanag si paolul. History is a chimiss din but with a facts.
dimo ata natapos yung video
@@neilzion7830 akala ko mali ako ng interpretation buti same tayo ng pagkakaintindi. 😄😄
ito ung nagcomment siya pero di pa natatapos ung video hahahah
di ka ata nakikinig e
chismis noon, kasaysayan ngayon. naalala ko tuloy show ni sir lourd de vera haha
Sa mga nagdedeny ng mga established FACTS at history (climate change deniers, flat earthers, etc.), sana may mas concrete kayong evidence to say otherwise. Hindi dahil may hindi tayo maintindihan o ayaw nating paniwalaang FACT, automatikong magcoconclude na yung exact opposite yung katotohanan. Being critical is great and even necessary; it is how we debunk disinformation and misinformation, and strengthen facts. Pero let us not be ignorant of how a fact is a fact, the history is the history in the first place, not just chismis.
Nah Not unless Buhay ka that time kahit nga naka sulat sa bibliya d natin alam kung totoo o Hindi pero pinapaniwalaan natin kaya kahit ano man sa sabihin Ng tao yaan nalang natin Sila sa opinion nila Kasi ikaw sa sarili mo alam mong may bias ka.
Hindi po ba kayo naniniwalang nasakop ng Espanya ang Pilipinas dahil hindi pa po tayo buhay noon?
@@johnlawrence6484 Lahat ba ng pangyayari ay maihalintulad mo kung paano ginawa ang bibliya. Hindi di ba? Kahit buhay ka at that time magbigay karin naman ng ebidensiya kung concreto ba yang sinasabi mo, kapag may nagsabi sayo na kaya niyang lumipad pero hindi ka pa buhay noon papaniwalaan mo ba?
@@johnlawrence6484 d kelangan na buhay ka sa panahon na yon pra masabi mo na nangyari nga iyon. KAYA NGA NAGRERESEARCH ANG MGA TAO EH!!!
Pov: Hindi ka maka move-on sa election 💀
Diba and History ay isang record kung ano ang nanyari sa nakaraang pahanon. Tulad ng Biblia o kaya newspaper o magazine na nakasulat ng buhay ng isang artista. Kung and History ay chismis eh parang sinabi rin niya na ang nakasulat sa bibliya ay pawang chismis. Yung mga nakasulat sa newspaper at magazine tungkol sa kanyang buhay ay parang sinabi rin na ang lahat ng yung ay pawang kasinungalingan lamang at ang mga kahapon niya ay pawang kasinungalingan laman o kaya ang buhay niya ay pawang kasinungalingan lamang.
Grabe ka na Tito Pao maraming salamat sa pagpapasaya, lagi ka namin pinapanood ng jowa ko😅❤️
Siguro kaya nasabi ni Ella Cruz na Tismis ang History. Dahil dun sa title ni Lourd de veyra na "Tsimis noon, history na ngayon" lol
PAO GAWA TAYO HISTORY
Proud akong si tito pao isa sa fav kong youtuber na marami mapupulutan na aral❤️
Day 22 asking Tito Pao for Book Review
naalala ko bgla yung program ni Lourd De Veyra, yung may line sya na Chismis noon, Kasaysayan ngayon.
Tsismis🤝🏾ham & cheese
Si tito pao ang pagasa ng kabataan, hindi lang puro kalokohan talagang may matututunan ka din.
naol nakawireless na hahaha! salamat sa dekalidad na bidyow!
Respect opinion parang respect sa religion. Maraming nagsasabi. Mali ang katoliko. May nagsasabi Mali ang Inc. Mali ang tamang Daan. Mali ang Muslim, kunwari sa pamilya. Imbes na may diskusyon at away. Nirerespeto mo na Lang paniniwala Nila. Pero may sarili Kang paniniwala dahil nag research ka. At nag cross reference ka. Make them believe what they believe. No point of arguing in social media.
7:37
I think it's more likely
"History is not written by the victors, but by those who are skilled at documentation."
One of my favorite videos ni Tito Pau napanood ko.
I'm not a Marcos Loyalist pero nung una kong nabasa yung statement ni Ella, sabi ko masyado namang overreacting yung mga tao, nag-agree ako sa statement niya and feeling ko may halong bias na rin yung reaksyon ng mga tao given the fact na nasa isang Marcos themed show siya. And I read opinions not just from anybody but from real historians and sabi ko, oo nga no, you can't just underestimate the work of real historians and belittle it as just a "chismis", I still get the point na sinasabi niya but we can't just pretend na sinabi niya yun para pagtakpan yung nasa history natin about Martial Law. I get the point totoo namang mahirap o talagang hindi na natin malalaman ang totoonv nangyari sa lahat ng bagay but you can't just belittle yung honest work ng mga historians.
In short, you are a dilawan and an anti-marcos 👍
Agreed. Though I do not agree about the statement, I believe that it could have been worded better.
A fair opinion in a bad place, sadly.
Ganda ng chemistry ng channel ni Tito Pao. Pag nakita kita Tito Pao, palo ka saken
"The only truth in this world is that there is no truth. Anyone can become God or the Devil, all it takes is for people to believe it." -Eren Kruger (The Owl)
Wow aot quotes
Is this from an anime?
@@lesterantenor1026 yes, attack on titan
Kailangan ng mga maraming Maritessocus to confirm Chismis to History. May silbi nga talaga siguro ang mga chismosa sa kanto namin.
Speaking of history, Tito pao, kelan Browser History reveal?
lol
Not all information sa history ay tunay na nangyari dahil ang nagsasalaysay ay isang tao rin hindi isang perpekto, hindi isang timbangang permanenteng pantay sa kabila ng mga impormasyong nakakalap, nalalaman, Hindi isang walang muwang. Hindi talaga mawawala ang pag-bias dahil ito ay isang natural na pagiisip ng isang tao, tulad ng pagpili sa pagitan ng kulay na "black or white" merong mapipili at mapipili parin kahit na sabihin mo ay pareho mong gusto, dahil narin sa iyong experience at kaalaman, pero maaari ito ipagsama sa tulad sa isang sapatos tulad ng history...pero meron paring may mas lamang parin na kulay. Take note ang History ay nanggaling din sa tao hindi ito nagawa lang mula sa kawalan, hindi maiiwasan nandyan ang manipulation at biasing.
Herodotus was the First Historian in world ever known
While the Ancient Gossip-ians and Historiadors (Humans):
Awawagoo Hoo hoo huwahuwaa huabuabua bleeehh keekeke
Ang problema kasi sa history ng pilipinas ay ang fair distribution of facts. Mas madami ang lumalabas na negative kesa positive, kaya napagkakamalang bias, kasi one sided lang ang palabas ang resulta nagiging good vs. evil na, remember there are two faces of every coin.
No matter how we put it, history was always written by victors. We are just lucky now that the victors cherish freedom of speech.
Anong always!? D kaba nakikinig nang maayos nung pinanood mo yung video!? Malinaw namn na sinabi ni Paolul na minsan ang mga talunan ang nagsusulat ng history
Maniniwala ka ba kung ang mga Soviets nanalo sa Cold War eh nagsulat sila ng history eh paniniwalaan mo ba?
History is not written by the victors.
Maniniwala ka ba sa British Empire na mala-anghel daw pero actually gahaman pala sa pera, resources at kapangyarihan?
Kung si Napoleon nagsabi eh tandaan mo dati mataas siya sa History considering natalo niya ang Prussia, Spain, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire at Russian Empire.
Kung kasi by the victors eh dapat mas maraming pumupuri sa Amerika tungkol sa Afghanistan kaso lumabas ang katotohanan ang Afghanistan ay isang mess at punong puno ng korapsyon ang gobyerno nila.
@@lesterantenor1026 Ganiyan kasi pag one sided ka lang. Hindi porket sinabi ni kuya Pao, tama na kaagad.
@@pogiako2463 Tapos pag sinabi mo naman tama na din agad? Abnormal logic aba. Make sense naman na may examples na hindi lagi ang victors ang side na kinuha sa history so it proves that MINSAN hindi victors ang nagsulat.
@@gianevalerio7813 Kung sila ang nanalo sa Cold War that would have been the history na alam natin. Yung isusulat nila. Kasi yan lang ang papayagan nilang malaman ng publiko.
Ang gusto ko lang naman sabihin, maswerte tayo na ang mga 'victors' ngayon kinikilala ang freedom of speech. Dahil kung nagkataon na ang mga Soviets nga ang nanalo at nag take over sa mundo, marahil ang reality at history na ituturo nila, yan ang magiging reality at history.
Chismis noon
Kasaysayan ngayon HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TV5
nood muna ako bago ang virtual interview ko sa BS accountancy
Sabi ng teacher namin sa AP nung grade 7 ako dahil daw sa chismis na pasalin dila yung mga kuwentong pambata ngayon. Totoo ba yun?
Nakakatawa ka dito Paolul LITERALLY.
Labyu Tito Pao. You complete my day
galing nito. well explained. thanks tito Pao! :D
Please correct me if I am wrong,
Sabihin natin na unverified na 1 plus 1 equals 2.
5 million ang nagsabi na ang 1+1=3
100 thousand ang nagsabi na 1+1=4
50 tao lang ang nagsabi 1+1=2
Maaari bang maisulat sa history na ang 1+1=3 kasi 5 million na tao ang nagsabi nito?
History is a social science.. Science siya.. therefore ang mga datos, detalye, pangyayari ay dumadaan sa scientific process.. History is definitely not chismis but it may start with chismis.. dahil may ganap.. doon magsisimula ang paghahanap ng katotohanan based on the evidence present.
Kahapon lang issue tapos ginatas na agad🤣🤣🤣
Why i like paoLUL? Kahit panay kalokohan madami pading matututunan
Chismis noon, kasaysayan ngayon. History lagi kotong pinanapanood date sa tv 5 e tas yan yung tagline nila.