GEC 2: Readings in Philippine History - Lesson 6 PDF

**[Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation]** History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey Barraclough defines history as \"the attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence,...

**[Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation]** History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey Barraclough defines 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.\" Such judgments of historians on how the past should be seen make the foundation of historical interpretation. The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas. Before it was revealed as a hoax, it was a source of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker was installed in the town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the following text: It was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Scott, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Santo Tomas, defended his research on pre-Hispanic sources in Philippine history. He attributed the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de la Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the code itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scott\'s findings, but there are still some who would like to believe that the code is a legitimate document. 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 misunderstandings; 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. As students of history, we must be well equipped to recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ from each other, and how to critically sift these interpretations through historical evaluation. 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. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **\"Sa Aking Mga Kabata\"** is a poem purportedly written by Jose | | Rizal when he was eight years old and is probably one of Rizal\'s | | most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that | | this poem, with the now immortalized lines \"Ang hindi magmahal sa | | kanyang salita/mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda\" was written by | | Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal\'s authorship of the | | poem seems all unassailable. | | | | There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem | | was first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz | | said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed | | to have received it in 1884 from Rizal\'s close friend, Saturnino | | Raselis. Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his | | writings, and more importantly, he never mentioned of having a close | | friend by the person of Raselis. | | | | Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful | | attribution of the poem to Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and | | referred to the word \"kalayaan.\" But it was documented in Rizal\'s | | letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del | | Pilar\'s translation of Rizal\'s essay \"El Amor Patrio,\" where it | | was spelled as \"kalayahan.\" | | | | While Rizal\'s native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish, | | starting from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express | | disappointment in his difficulty in expressing himself in his native | | tongue. | | | | The poem\'s spelling is also suspect-the use of letters \"k\" and | | \"w\" to replace \"c\" and \"u,\" respectively was suggested by Rizal | | as an adult. If the poem was indeed written during his time, it | | should use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his | | time. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 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 construct. And as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There might be 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 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]** With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we must note is 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, and each could be equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The historian decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without considering other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many of the ways a historian may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. 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 perspectives in history require incorporating source materials that reflect different views of an event in 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 truths that these sources agree on. Different kinds 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. Taking these in close regard in the reading of historical interpretations, it provides for the audience a more complex, but also a more complete and richer understanding of the past. **[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 (or lack thereof) 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 only two primary sources that historians refer to in identifying the site of the first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of 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 other, and the more complete, was 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: \"Diario ó derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S. Agustín en el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo,\" Document no. xxii in Colleción de viages y descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los Españoles desde fines del siglo XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5 Vols.) IV, 191-225. 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. 1\. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from Ladrones, they saw land towards the northwest; but owing to many shallow places they did not approach it. They found later that its name was Yunagan. 2\. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island named Suluan, and there they anchored. There they saw some canoes but these fled at the Spaniards\' approach. This island was at 9 and two-thirds degrees North latitude. 3\. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an uninhabited island of \"Gada\" where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea around that island was free from shallows. (Albo does not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigafetta\'s testimony, this seems to be the \"Acquada\" or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North latitude.) 4\. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island names Seilani that was inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani or, as Pigafetta calls it, \"Ceylon\" was the island of Leyte.) 5\. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a small island called \"Mazava.\" That island is also at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North. 6\. The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the Spaniards planted a cross upon a mountain-top, and from there they were shown three islands to the west and southwest, where they were told there was much gold. \"They showed us how the gold was gathered, which came in small pieces like peas and lentils.\" 7\. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. They followed the coast of Seilani in a northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small islands. 8\. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they saw three islets, where they dropped anchor for the night. In the morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a latitude of 10 and one-third degree. There they entered a channel between two islands, one of which was called \"Matan\" and the other \"Subu.\" 9\. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and anchored at the town (la villa) of Subu where they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact with the local king. 10\. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and Mazava. But between Mazava and Subu, there were so many shallows that the boats could not go westward directly but has to go (as they did) in a round-about way. 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, 9°54\'N. Also, Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon a mountain-top from which could be seen three islands to the west and 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. 1\. Saturday, 16 March 1521 - Magellan\'s expedition sighted a \"high land\" named \"Zamal\" which was some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the Marianas) Islands. 2\. Sunday, March 17 - \"The following day\" after sighting Zamal Island, they landed on \"another island which was uninhabited\" and which lay \"to the right\" of the above-mentioned island of \"Zamal.\" (To the \"right\" here would mean on their starboard going south or southwest.) There they set up two tents for the sick members of the crew and had a sow killed for them. The name of this island was \"Humunu\" (Homonhon). This island was located at 10 degrees North latitude. 3\. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire archipelago the \"Islands of Saint Lazarus,\" the reason being that it was Sunday in the Lenten season when the Gospel assigned for the Mass and the liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. 4\. Monday, March 18- In the afternoon of their second day on that island, they saw a boat coming towards them with nine men in it. An exchange of gifts was effected. Magellan asked for food supplies, and the men went away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in \"four days.\" 5\. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also they saw there some indications that there was gold in these islands. Consequently Magellan renamed the island and called it the \"Watering Place of Good Omen\" (Acquada la di bouni segnialli). 6\. Friday, March 22 - At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two boats, and they brought food supplies. 7\. Magellan\'s expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, March 17, to the Monday of the following week, March 25. 8\. Monday, March 25- In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the island of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March 25) was the feast-day of the Incarnation, also called the feast of the Annunciation and therefore \"Our Lady\'s Day.\" On this day, as they were about to weigh anchor, an accident happened to Pigafetta: he fell into the water but was rescued. He attributed his narrow escape from death as grace obtained through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on her feast-day. 9\. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was \"toward the west southwest, between four islands: namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson and Albarien.\" Very probably \"Cenalo\" is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta in his map calls \"Ceilon\" and Albo calls \"Seilani\": namely the island of Leyte. \"Hiunanghan\" (a misspelling of Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island, but is actually on the mainland of Leyte (i.e., \"Ceylon\"). On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta\'s Ibusson) is an island east of Leyte\'s southern tip. Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing \"toward the west southwest\" past those islands. They left Homonhon sailing westward towards Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast southward, passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside and Hiunangan Bay on their starboard, and then continued southward, then turning westward to \"Mazaua.\" 10\. Thursday, March 28- In the morning of Holy Thursday, March 28, they anchored off an island where the previous night they had seen a light or a bonfire. That island \"lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the Arctic Pole (i.e., North) and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from the Acquada, and is called Mazaua.\" 11\. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island. 12\. Thursday, April 4 - They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were guided thither by the king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five \"islands\" namely: \"Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan.\" 13\. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group, namely, Poro, Pasihan and Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up with them, since the Spanish ships were much faster than the native balanghai-a thing that excited the admiration of the king of Mazaua. 14\. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards \"Zubu.\" 15\. Sunday, April 7 - At noon they entered the harbor of \"Zubu\" (Cebu). It had taken them three days to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu. It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta\'s testimonies coincide and corroborate each other. Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during their weeklong stay at Mazaua. **Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua** 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. 1\. Thursday, March 28- In the morning they anchored near-an island where they had seen a light the night before a small boat (boloto) came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, but two hours later two larger boats (balanghai) came, in one of which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellan\'s invitation some of the natives went up the Spanish ship, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts was effected. In the afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer to shore, anchoring near the native king\'s village. This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday in Holy Week, i.e., Holy Thursday. 2\. Friday, March 29- \"Next day. Holy Friday,\" Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he could provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had come as friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or eight men, and this time went up Magellan\'s ship and the two men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was made. The native king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan\'s expedition as guests for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta. 3\. Saturday, March 30 - Pigafetta and his companion had spent the previous evening feasting and drinking with the native king and his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday, they had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his companion took leave of their hosts and returned to the ships. 4\. Sunday, March 31 - \"Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day,\" Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning Magellan landed with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross was venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon-day meal, but in the afternoon they returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross were the king of Mazaua and the king of Butuan. 5\. Sunday, March 31 - On that same afternoon, while on the summit of the highest hill, Magellan asked the two kings which ports he should go to in order to obtain more abundant supplies of food than were available in that island. They replied that there were three ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu, and Calagan. Of the three, Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan then said that he wished to go to Zubu and to depart the following morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The kings replied that the pilots would be available \"any time.\" But later that evening the king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that he would himself conduct Magellan to Zubu but that he would first have to bring the harvest in. He asked Magellan to send him men to help with the harvest. 6\. Monday, April 1 - Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but no work was done that day because the two kings were sleeping off their drinking bout the night before. 7\. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3 - Work on the harvest during the \"next to days,\" i.e., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April. 8\. Thursday, April 4 - They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu. 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 characteristic of Butuan\'s geography that seemed to be too important to be missed. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **The Age of Exploration** is a period of competition among European | | rulers to conquer and colonize lands outside their original domains. | | Initially, the goal was to find alternative routes by sea to get to | | Asia, the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing | | routes to Asia were mainly by land and cost very expensive. A sea | | route to Asia means that Europeans could access the spice trade | | rectly, greatly reducing costs for traders. Spain\'s major foray into | | the exploration was through Christopher Columbus, who proposed to | | sail westward to find a shortcut to Asia. He was able to reach the | | Americas, which was then cut-off from the rest of the known world. | | | | Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South America in | | the sixteenth century. They were also able to reach the Philippines | | and claim it for the Spanish crown. Later on, other European rulers | | would compete with the activities of exploring and conquering lands. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan\'s death, the survivors of his expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly describes a trip in a river. But note that this account already happened after Magellan\'s death. **[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 priests: 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 events of the Philippine 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 among the Filipinos of that time. ***Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny*** 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** Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, \"Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,\" in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 269 273. The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption from the tribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were, however, other causes. The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by an unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentatory \[sic\] of the most sacred respects towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the speeches and preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outbursts of the American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary government sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their independence. 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 toward friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother country. At various times but especially in the beginning of 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 be 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 Cavite Mutiny of 1872** Source: Rafael Izquierdo, \"Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny,\" in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281-286. \...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 being employed in polos y servicios, or force labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly made the issue a lot more serious, which included the presence of the native clergy, who, out of 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 Fathers 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. In the Spaniard\'s accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated, and was part of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers, and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate high ranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The signal they identified among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from Intramuros. The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The Caviteños allegedly mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent led 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. The \"revolution\" was easily crushed, when the Manileños who were expected to aid the Caviteños did not arrive. 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. Others who were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and other Filipino lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested, and sentenced to life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by Peninsulares. On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again. **[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** Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, \"Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny,\" in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 274 280. 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. Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in 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. However, the Central Spanish 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 of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos. Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut, complemented Tavera\'s account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. **Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut\'s Account of the Cavite Mutiny** Source: Edmund Plauchut, \"The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za,\" in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 251-268. 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 in the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government. Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 resulted in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests | | Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as | | the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They were prominent Filipino | | priests charged with treason and sedition. It is believed that the | | Spanish clergy connected the priests to the mutiny as part of a | | conspiracy to stifle the movement of secular priests who desired to | | have their own parishes instead of being merely assistants to the | | regular friars. The GOMBURZA were executed by garrote in public, a | | scene purportedly witnessed by a young Jose Rizal. | | | | Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine | | nationalism in the nineteenth century, with Rizal dedicating his | | second novel, El Filibusterismo, to their memory: | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ **[Case Study 3: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?]** 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 volume 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 the 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** *Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia* There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Voz Española and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February 1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be FrVicente 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** Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only one 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 a \"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. This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence. However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary source to the writing of the document. 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. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Rizal\'s Connection to the Katipunan** is undeniable-in fact, the | | precursor of the Katipunan as an organization is the La Liga | | Filipina, an organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as one | | of its members. But La Liga Filipina was short-lived as the Spaniards | | exiled Rizal to Dapitan. Former members decided to band together to | | establish the Katipunan a few days after Rizal\'s exile on 7 July | | 1892. | | | | Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the | | Katipuneros showed great appreciation of his work toward the same | | goals. Out of the 28 members of the leadership of the Katipunan | | (known as the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian ng Katipunan) from 1892 to | | 1896, 13 were former members of La Liga Filipina. Katipuneros even | | used Rizal\'s name as a password. | | | | In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to | | launch the revolution, and sent Pio Valenzuela to visit Rizal in | | Dapitan. Valenzuela\'s accounts of his meeting with Rizal have been | | greatly doubted by many scholars, but according to him, Rizal | | objected to the plans, saying that doing so would be tantamount to | | suicide since it would be difficult to fight the Spaniards who had | | the advantage of military resources. He added that the leaders of the | | Katipunan must do everything they could to prevent the spilling of | | Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution could | | inevitably break out if the Katipunan were to be discovered by the | | Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela that the Katipunan should first | | secure the support of wealthy Filipinos to strengthen their cause, | | and suggested that Antonio Luna be recruited to direct the military | | movement of the revolution. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ **[Case Study 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?]** Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late nineteenth century, including the Philippines. Journalists of the time referred to the phrase \"El Grito de Rebelion\" or \"Cry of Rebellion\" to mark the start of these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened. In the Philippines, this happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, where they declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government. These events are important markers in the history of colonies that struggled for their independence against their colonizers. The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date and place where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers identified the first military event with the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned an \"Himno de Balintawak\" to inspire the renewed struggle after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato failed. A monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection of Epifanio de los Santos (EDSA) Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was chosen for an unknown reason. **Different Dates and Places of the Cry** Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 25 August 1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks the place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of August 1896. Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in Cavite, put the Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, according to statements by Pio Valenzuela. Research by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event took place in Tandang Sora\'s barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on 24 August 1896. From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, four places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896. Valenzuela\'s account should be read with caution: He once told a Spanish investigator that the \"Cry\" happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26 August 1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it 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. According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are in Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. 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.