Philippine History: Conflict and Controversies Past Paper PDF

**Group 2: Philippine History: Conflict and Controversies** **Introduction** Two key concepts that need to be defined before proceeding to the historical analysis of problems in history are ***interpretation*** and ***multiperspectivity.*** **Historical Interpretation** **Geoffrey Barraclough:**...

**Group 2: Philippine History: Conflict and Controversies** **Introduction** Two key concepts that need to be defined before proceeding to the historical analysis of problems in history are ***interpretation*** and ***multiperspectivity.*** **Historical Interpretation** **Geoffrey Barraclough:** history as *"the attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence, the significant things about the past.*‖ \- he also notes *"the history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking , not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgments."* Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw their own reading so that their intended audience my understand the historical event, a process that in essence, *"makes sense of the past."* As students of history, we must be well equipped to recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ from each other, and how critically sift these interpretations through historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical event change over time; thus, it is an important skill for a student of history to track these changes in an attempt to understand the past. We accept as ―true‖ about the past might not be the case anymore; just because these taught to us as ―facts‖ when we were younger does not mean that it is set in stone history is, after all, a construct. It is important to subject to evaluation not only the primary source, but also the historical interpretation of the same, to ensure that the current interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past. **Multiperspectivity** Defined as a way of looking at historical events, personalities, developments, cultures, and societies from different perspectives. This means that there is a multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well. By definition, biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The historians decide on what to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is. With multiperspective as an approach in history, we must understand that historical interpretations contain discrepancies, ambiguities, and are often the focus of dissent. Different sources that counter each other may create space for more investigation and research, while providing more evidence for those truths that these sources agree on. Different historical interpretations, it provides for the audience a more complete and rather understanding of the past. **What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?** The Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of the here priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora or GOMBURZA. These events are very important milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time, directly influencing the decisive events of the Philippines Revolution toward the end of the century. *Spanish Accounts* **Primary Source:** *Excerpts from Montero's Account of the Cavity Mutiny*  The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal ex exemption from the attribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were, however, other causes.  It was towards this goal that they started to work, with the powerful assistance of a certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite towards, made common cause with the enemies of the mother country.  Year 1872, the authorities received anonymous communications with the information that a great uprising would break out against the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite left for the South, and that all would assassinated, including the friars. But nobody gave importance to these notices. The conspiracy had been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy.  At times, the principal leaders met either in the house of Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, or in that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these meetings were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor, the soul of the movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a strong influence. **Primary Source:** *Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavity Mutiny of 1872*  It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos...  It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the ―revolution‖; the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute and employed in *polos y servicios,* or force labor. **41**  The presence of the native clergy, who out spite against the Spanish friars, ―conspired and supported‖ the rebels.  Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report, highlighted that attempt to overthrow the Spanish Government in the Philippines to install a new ―hari‖ in the persons of Father Burgos and Zamora. According to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight would not fail because they had God's support, aside from promises of lofty rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.  1872 was premeditated, was part of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers, and residents of Manila and Cavite.  They allegedly planned to liquidate high ranking Spanish Officers, then kill the friars. The signal they identified among the se conspirators of manila and Cavite was the rockets forced from Intramuros.  January 20, 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display.  The Caviteňos allegedly mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack. the 200 men contingent lead by Sergeant Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.  Izquierdo, upon learning of the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt.  Leaders of the plot were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora were tried by a court martial and sentenced to be executed.  February 17, 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos. *Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872* **Primary Source:** *Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of the Cavite Mutiny* Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only aspiration of the people as to secure the material and education advancement of the country...  The incident was merely a mutiny by the Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of Izquirdo, such as abolition of the privileges and prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos which the General saw as a smokescreen to creating a political club.  During this time, the Central Government is Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and direction and management of educational institutions.  The friars needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity.  The Central Government introduced an educational decree fusing sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve the standard education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by the most Filipinos **Primary Source:** *Excerpts from Plauchut's Account of the Cavite Mutiny* There was created by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate the same problems submitted to the Manila committee. It was found out that they came to the same conclusions. Summary of reforms they considered necessary to introduce; 1\. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection. 2\. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations. 3\. Reduction of export fees. 4\. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real state, enjoy freedom of worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag. 5\. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented. 6\. Changes in primary and secondary education. 7\. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines, rendering unnecessary the sending home of short term civil officials time there is a change of ministry. 8\. Study of direct-tax system. 9\. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly. The prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were probably expected as a result of the bitter disputes between the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such as policy must really end I a strong desire on the part of the other to repress cruelly. To repress the growth of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the opening of the school, the day previous to the scheduled inauguration. The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction and pay taxes every year. Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the Governor withdrew from such old employees their retirement privileges and declassified them into the ranks of those who worked on public roads. The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their dominance, which had started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos. They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy if the Philippines by the Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government. Unintentionally, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 resulted in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898. **Where did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?** **Primary Source:** *Accounts of the Cry* Source: Guillermo Masangkay, ―Cry of Balintawak‖ in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Phlippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 307 -- 309 *On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enriques Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cabite, and Morong were also present.* *At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed to staring in the revolution early. Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and talked to the people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the people that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to them in a fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the fate of our countrymen who were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say?"* *"Revolt!" the people shouted as one.* **46** *Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were the cedula tax charged each citizen. "If it is true that you are ready to revolt.... I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards."* **Pio Valenzuela** Source: Pio Valenzuela, ―Cry of Pugad Lawin,‖ in Gregorio Zaide and Soina Zaide, *Documentary Sources of Philippine History,* Volume 8. (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 301-302 *The first place of refuge if Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was B alintawak, the first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first place where some 500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who were there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others.* *It was in Pugad Lawin, the house store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the revolution against the Spanish government should be started on August 29, 1896. After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted "Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!"* Using the primary and secondary sources, four places have been identifie: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896. Valenzuela's account: He once told the Spanish investigator that the ―Cry‖ happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26 August 1896, Much later, he wrote in his *Memoirs of the Revolution* that tit happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in accounts should always be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary sources. As for the dates, Bonifacio and his troops may have been moving from one place to another to avoid being located by the Spanish government, which could explain why there are several accounts of the cry. According to Geurrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are in Balintawak.