module-3-history.pptx

Module 3 Module 3 “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES & CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY  MAKING SENSE OF THE PAST: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw their own...

Module 3 Module 3 “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES & CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY  MAKING SENSE OF THE PAST: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw their own reading so that their intended audience may understand the historical event, a process that in essence, “makes sense of the past”. The premise is that not all primary sources are accessible to a general audience, and without the proper training and background, a non-historian interpreting a primary source may do more harm than good – a primary source may even cause misunderstanding; sometimes, even resulting in more problems.  Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the primary source, when it was read, and how it was read. Interpretations of historical events 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.  Many of the things we accept as “true” about the past might not be the case anymore; just because these were taught to us as “facts” when we were younger does not mean that it is set in stone- history is, after all , a conflicting and competing accounts of the past that need one’s attention, and can impact the way we view our country’s history and identity. It is important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only by 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 This can be 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, each could be equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well.  With multiperspectivity as an approach in history, we must understand that historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus of dissent.  Exploring multiple perspective in history requires incorporating source materials that reflect different views of an event history, because singular historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate. Different sources that counter each other may create space for more investigation and research, while providing more evidence for those  Different kind of sources also provide different historical truths – an official document may note different aspects of the past than, say, a memoir of an ordinary person on the same event. Different historical agents create different historical truths, and while this may be a burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the historical scholarship.  CASE STUDY 1: WHERE DID THE FIRST CATHOLIC MASS TAKE PLACE IN THE PHILIPPINES? The popularity of knowing where the “firsts” happened in history has been an easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the significance of the site of the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines, but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading historical events.  BUTUAN – has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this has been the case for three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which commemorates the expedition’s arrival and celebration of Mass on 8 April 1521. The Butuan claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.  Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century, together with the increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines, a more nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which brought to light more considerations in going against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino scholars. It must be noted that there are two primary sources that historians refer to in identifying the site of the first Mass. Log kept by Francisco Albo – a pilot of one’s Magellan’s ship, Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The account by Antonio Pigafetta (Primo viaggio intorno al mondo – First Voyage Around the World) Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.  Primary Source: Albo’s Log Source: “Diarrio o dorotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S. Agustin en el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo,” Document no. xxii in Collecion de viages y descumbrimientos que hicierion por mar los Españoles desde fines del siglo XV, 191-225. As cited in Miguel A. Bernard “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Sothern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.  It must be noted that in Albo’s account, the location of Mazava fits the location of the island of Limasawa, at the southern tip of Leyte, 9o54’N. Also. Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon a mountain-top from which could we seen three islands of the west and the southwest, which also fits the southern end of Limasawa.  Primary Source: Pigafetta’s Testimony on the Route of Magellan’s Expedition Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, “Butuan or Limasawa? The site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III. 1-35.  Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work “Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence (1981) lays down the argument that in the Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned – the river. Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach of Masao is in the delta of said river. It is a curious omission in the account of the river, which makes part of a distinct characteristics of Butuan’s geography that seemed to be too important to be missed.  EVIDENCE FOR LIMASAWA 1. The evidence of Albo’s Logbook 2. The Evidence of Pigafetta a. Pigafetta’s testimony regarding the route b. The evidence of Pigafetta’s map c. The two native kings d. The seven days at “Mazaua” e. An argument from omission 3. Summary of the evidence of Albo and Pigafetta. 4. Confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi expedition.  EVIDENCE FOR MASAO 1. The name of the place 2. the route from Homonhon 3. the latitude position 4. The geographical features a. the bonfire b. the balanghai c. house d. abundance of gold e. a developed settlement CASE STUDY 2: WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CAVITE MUTINY? The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priest: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very important milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time,  directly influencing the decisive Revolution toward the end of the century. While the significance is unquestioned, what made this year controversial are the different sides to the story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case study, we zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of nationalism  The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny 1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on how the event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar. Another account from the official report written by then Governor General Rafael Izquierdo implicated the native clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward secularization of parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.  Primary Source: Excerpts from Montero’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872  Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts complimented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines,  , and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora.  The general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an  According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.  When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by strangulation.  Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.  On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino nationalism. Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872 Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and Montero. First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny – according to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the 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. Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny another account by French writer Edmund Plauchut, complemented Tavera’s account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.  Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that remained to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as well as the members of the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo; Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away from Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government failed to conduct an investigation on what truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the public;  ; Fourth, the happy days of the friars were already numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in Spain decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in government affairs as well as in the direction and management of schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth, the Filipino clergy members actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars;  Sixth, Filipinos during the time were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as injustices; and Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish government, for the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots to call for reforms and eventually independence. There may be different versions of the event, but one thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898. CASE STUDY 3: DID RIZAL RETRACT? Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center on ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The great volumes of Rizal’s lifework was committed to this end, particularly the more influential ones, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic religion, but the friars, the main agents of injustice in Philippine society.  It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic church in the Philippines could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document, referred to as “The Retraction,” declares Rizal’s belief in the Catholic faith, and retracts everything he wrote against the church.  Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction There are four interactions of the texts of this retraction: 1. Published in La Voz Española and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. 2. Appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February 1897 from anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer. However the “original” text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four decades of disappearance. The Balaguer Testimony Fr. Vicente Balaguer - was one of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal during his last hours in Fort Santiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to denounce Masonry and return to the Catholic fold. In affidavit executed in 1917 when he had returned to Spain, Balaguer also claimed that he was the one who solemnized the marriage of Josephine Bracken and Rizal hours before the hero’s execution.  Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only an eyewitness account of the writing of the document exists – that of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal woke up several times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which seemed out of character. But since it is the only testimony of allegedly “primary” account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has been used to argue the authenticity of the document.  The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Federico Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to Moreno.  Fr. Pio Pi’s Statement Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the time when Rizal was executed. In 1917, he issued an affidavit recounting his involvement in the alleged retraction of Rizal. Unlike Father Balaguer, however, he was involved only in securing the retraction document from the Archbishop of Manila Bernardino Nozaleda, and writing another shorter retraction document as well which was the one Rizal allegedly copied  Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis Lawyer, writer, educator, and politician was the author of Biografia de Rizal, a work on the life of the National Hero which won a literary contest in 1938 sponsored by the Commonwealth Government. The publication of the book, however, was postponed because of World War II and only saw print in 1949.  That same year, an English translation by Roman Ozaeta with the title Pride of the Malay Race was published by Prentice-Hall, Inc. in the United States. The story of Rizal’s alleged retraction is found in Chapters 32 and 33 with Palma’s analysis in the latter chapter. Austin Coates’s Critical Analysis His interest in Jose Rizal began when he was an Assistant Colonial Secretary and Magistrate in Hong Kong in 1950. His first study on Rizal was on the latter’s year-long stay in Hong Kong (1891-1892). At that time, many of the personalities who knew Rizal were still alive. This early awareness on Rizal eventually led to the writing and publication of his book – Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr (Oxford University Press, 1956) – the first Rizal biography written by a European since Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal by Wenceslao Retana in 1907. The second edition of the book was published in the Philippines by Solidaridad Publishing House in 1992.  Coates’s analyses of Rizal’s retraction and other events that happened before the execution are found in Part VII, Chapter 5 of the book. The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many scholars, however, agree that the document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to continue the revolution, which eventually resulted in independence in 1898.