Module-3-in-GE2new 2.docx

Module 3 One Past but Many Histories At the end of the discussion, students will be able to 1. Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular issue using primary sources A. **First Mass in the Philippines** There is an issue or a controversy on the site of...

Module 3 One Past but Many Histories At the end of the discussion, students will be able to 1. Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular issue using primary sources A. **First Mass in the Philippines** There is an issue or a controversy on the site of the first mass in the Philippines. Two conflicting claims emerged as to the identity of the place -- Limasawa, a little island on the southern part of Leyte and Masao, a beach located at the mouth of the Agusan River in the northern part of Mindanao. **Limasawa,: Site of the First Mass** +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | In the article written by Linda B. Valencia, it is stated that the | | first mass was celebrated by Pedro Valderama, a priest that | | accompanied Magellan in Limasawa, an islet at the southern tip of | | Leyte on March 31, 1521. Valencia narrated that the people of | | Limasawa welcomed the foreigners with a true spirit of love and with | | a tangible feeling of pride and dignity. This author argued that a | | law was passed by Congress on June 19, l960 (Republic Act No. 2733), | | declaring the site in Magallanes, Limasawa Island, Leyte, as the | | national shrine to commemorate the First Mass and hence \"the birth | | of Christianity\" in the Philippines in that location. | | | | According to Valencia, the location has been accepted by American and | | Filipino scholars, notably Emma H. Blair and James A. Robertson, | | Prof. Teodoro A. Agoncillo, and Dr. Gregorio F. Zaide. The historical | | basis for locating the first Easter Mass in Limasawa, Leyte, dates | | back to the translation of Antonio Pigafetta\'s diary of Magellan\'s | | expedition. | +=======================================================================+ | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ### **Butuan, the first mass held** Some Filipino historians have long contested the idea that Limasawa was the site of the first Catholic mass in the country. Historian Sonia Zaide identified Masao (also Mazaua) in [Butuan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butuan) as the location of the first Christian mass. The basis of Zaide\'s claim is the diary of [Antonio Pigafetta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Pigafetta), chronicler of Magellan\'s voyage. In 1995 then Congresswoman Ching Plaza of Agusan del Norte-Butuan City filed a bill in Congress contesting the Limasawa hypothesis and asserting the \"site of the first mass\" was Butuan. The Philippine Congress referred the matter to the National Historical Institute for it to study the issue and recommend a historical finding. Then NHI chair Dr. Samuel K. Tan reaffirmed Limasawa as the site of the first mass. (. However, Ben Serrano in 2006 stated; ### Confusion on meeting the king of Butuan According to Bernad (2002)^\[^, the confusion originated on the misinterpretation of some of the 17th century historians such as Colin and Combes, often yielding incorrect representation of Magellan's voyage, which ultimately led to the misconception of the first mass being held at [Butuan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butuan), rather than Limasawa. The writings of the previous historians failed to depict the correct route of Magellan's ships toward the [Philippines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines). Some write-ups accounted for the entrance of the ships from the southern part of the country whereas the account of [Antonio Pigafetta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Pigafetta) revealed the entrance from the eastern part of the country, from the direction of the Pacific region. Of utmost significance other than the non-verisimilar picture of the route of the voyage is the confusion on the encounter between the explorer [Ferdinand Magellan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan) and the two datus when the former reached the island of Limasawa, formerly called \"Mazaua\". According to the previous writings, after the Spaniards visited the island, they went, together with the two native kings to [Butuan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butuan) and there erected a cross on top of a hill to symbolize friendship with the natives and to serve as a sign to future Spanish explorers. After the erection of the cross and going about the events in the first mass, the men went to [Cebu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cebu), by the initiative of Magellan, in search for resources. This account rooted from the misunderstanding of the meeting between the three persons. According to Pigafetta, Magellan met the datu of Limasawa, and another datu, whom the scribe himself called "one of his brothers", namely the king of [Butuan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butuan). This highlights the origin of the confusion -- Magellan in fact never went to [Butuan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butuan); he and his men celebrated the first mass on the island of Limasawa, together with the two datus: one from the island and another from [Butuan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butuan), before proceeding to [Cebu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cebu). Previous historians, in difference from Pigafetta's account, thought that Magellan went to [Butuan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butuan) and there held the first mass on the basis of the explorer's meeting with the island's king. In reality, Magellan's route never included [Butuan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butuan) as one of its destinations. From the eastern part of the Philippines, reaching the island of Homonhon, Magellan proceeded to Limasawa and thereupon met two kings, namely the datu of Limasawa and the datu of [Butuan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butuan). After celebrating the first mass in that same island, the explorer and his men set out for [Cebu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cebu) in search for greater resources. The National Historical Institute first took action on Limasawa-Butuan controversy in 1980 followed by creation of two more panels in 1995 and 2008. The government has consistently concluded Limasawa as the site of the first Easter Sunday Mass in the country. Another panel led by prominent historian Resil B. Mojares was formed in 2018 by now National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) to further review continued claims in favor of Butuan. The pro-Butuan group presented non-eyewitness accounts decades after the Mass as their proofs. Meanwhile, the pro-Limasawa group provided the panel coordinates of Mazaua given by the eyewitnesses, studies and projects that retraced the Magellan-Elcano expedition using modern navigational instruments, and the copies of Pigafetta\'s original accounts. Ahead of the quincentennial celebration of the Christianization of the Philippines, the NHCP dismissed the Butuan claim due to insufficient evidences to change the government\'s current position and reaffirmed Limasawa as the site of the first Easter Sunday Mass in the country.^[\[25\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mass_in_the_Philippines#cite_note-:3-25)[\[26\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mass_in_the_Philippines#cite_note-:1-26)[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mass_in_the_Philippines#cite_note-:2-2)^ The panel also endorses the changes proposed by historian Rolando Borrinaga to recognize Barangay Triana instead of Barangay Magalles as the specific location in Limasawa of the first Mass and Saub Point in Triana as the site of the cross planted by the Magellan expedition. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_Mass\_in\_the\_Philippines) Let us discuss some evidences to prove the claims starting with the work of Antonio Pigafetta, the assistant of Magellan who witnessed the event on Easter Sunday the 31^st^ day of March,1521. The First Voyage Round the World By: Antonio Pigafetta Saturday, the 16th of March, 1521, we arrived at daybreak in sight of a high island, three hundred leagues distant from the before-mentioned Thieves\' island. This isle is named Zamal. The next day the captain-general wished to land at another uninhabited island near the first,to be in greater security and to take water, also to repose there a few days. He set up there two tents on shore for the sick, and had a sow killed for them. Monday, the 18th of March, after dinner, we saw a boat come towards us with nine men in it: upon which the captain-general ordered that no one should move or speak without his permission. When these people had come into this island towards us, immediately the principal one amongst them went towards the captain-general with demonstrations of being very joyous at our arrival. Five of the most showy of them remained with us, the others who remained with the boat went to call some men who were fishing, and afterwards all of them came together. The captain seeing that these people were reasonable, ordered food and drink to be given them, and he gave them some red caps, looking glasses, combs, bells, ivory, and other things. When these people saw the politeness of the captain, they presented some fish, and a vessel of palm wine, which they call in their language Uraca figs more than a foot long, and others smaller and of a better savour, and two cochos. At that time they had nothing to give him, and they made signs to us with their hands that in four days they would bring us Umai, which is rice, cocos, and many other victuals. To explain the kind of fruits above-named it must be known that the one which they call cochi, is the fruit which the palm trees bear. And as we have bread, wine, oil, and vinegar, proceeding from different kinds, so these people have those things proceeding from these palm trees only. It must be said that wine proceeds from the said palm trees in the following manner. They make a hole at the summit of the tree as far as its heart, which is named palmito, from which a liquor comes out in drops down the tree, like white must, which is sweet, but with somewhat of bitter. They have canes as thick as the leg, in which they draw off this liquor, and they fasten them to the tree from the evening till next morning, and from the morning to the evening, because this liquor comes little by little. This palm produces a fruit named cocho, which is as large as the head, or thereabouts: its first husk is green, and two fingers in thickness, in it they find certain threads, with which they make the cords for fastening their boats. Under this husk there is another very hard, and thicker than that of a walnut. They burn this second rind, and make with it a powder which is useful to them. Under this rind there is a white marrow of a finger\'s thickness, which they eat fresh with meat and fish, as we do bread, and it has the taste of an almond, and if anyone dried it he might make bread of it. From the middle of this marrow there comes out a clear sweet water, and very cordial, which, when it has rested a little, and settled, congeals and becomes like an apple. When they wish to make oil they take this fruit, the coco, and let it get rotten, and they corrupt this marrow in the water, then they boil it, and it becomes oil in the manner of butter. When they want to make vinegar, they let the water in the cocoa-nut get bad, and they put it in the sun, when it turns to vinegar like white wine. From this fruit milk also can be made, as we experienced, for we scraped this marrow and then put it with its water, and passed it through a cloth, and thus it was milk like that of goats. This kind of palm tree is like the date-palm, but not so rugged. Two of these trees can maintain a family of ten persons: but they do not draw wine as above-mentioned always from one tree, but draw from one for eight days, and from the other as long. For if they did not, otherwise the trees would dry up. In this manner they last a hundred years. These people became very familiar and friendly with us, and explained many things to us in their language, and told us the names of some islands which we saw with our eyes before us. \*The island where they dwelt is called Zuluam, and it is not large. As they were sufficiently agreeable and conversible we had great pleasure with them. The captain seeing that they were of this good condition, to do them greater honour conducted them to the ship, and showed them all his goods, that is to say, cloves, cinnamon, pepper, ginger, nutmeg, mace,gold and all that was in the ship. He also had some shots fired with his artillery, at which they were so much afraid that they wished to jump from the ship into the sea. They made signs that the things which the captain had shown them grew there where we were going. When they wished to leave us they took leave of the captain and of us with very good manners and gracefulness, promising us to come back to see us. The island we were at was named Humunu; nevertheless because we found there two springs of very fresh water we named it the Watering Place of good signs, and because we found here the first signs of gold. There is much white coral to be found here, and large trees which bear fruit smaller than an almond, and which are like pines. There were also many palm trees both good and bad. In this place there were many circumjacent islands, on which account we named them the archipelago of St. Lazarus, because we stayed there on the day and feast of St. Lazarus. This region and archipelago is in ten degrees north latitude, and a hundred and sixty-one degrees longitude from the line of demarcation. Friday, the 22nd of March, the above-mentioned people, who had promised us to return, came about midday, with two boats laden with the said fruit cochi, sweet oranges, a vessel of palm wine, and a cock, to give us to understand that they had poultry in their country, so that we bought all that they brought. The lord of these people was old, and had his face painted, and had gold rings suspended to his ears, which they name Schione, and the others had many bracelets and rings of gold on their arms, with a wrapper of linen round their head. We remained at this place eight days: the captain went there every day to see his sick men, whom he had placed on this island to refresh them: and he gave them himself every day the water of this said fruit the cocho, which comforted them much. Near this isle is another where there are a kind of people who wear holes in their ears so large that they can pass their arms through them; these people are Caphre, that is to say, Gentiles, and they go naked, except that round their middles they wear cloth made of the bark of trees. But there are some of the more remarkable of them who wear cotton stuff, and at the end of it there is some work of silk done with a needle. These people are tawny, fat, and painted, and they anoint themselves with the oil of coco nuts and sesame, to preserve them from the sun and the wind. Their hair is very black and long, reaching to the waist, and they carry small daggers and knives, ornamented with gold, and many other things, such as darts,harpoons, and nets to fish, like\...\...\...,and their boats are like ours. The Monday of Passion week, the 25th of March, and feast of our Lady, in the afternoon, and being ready to depart from this place, I went to the side of our ship to fish, and putting my feet on a spar to go down to the store room, my feet slipped, because it had rained, and I fell into the sea without any one seeing me, and being near drowning by luck I found at my left hand the sheet of the large sail which was in the sea, I caught hold of it and began to cry out till they came to help and pick me up with the boat. I was assisted not by my merits, but by the mercy and grace of the fountain of pity. That same day we took the course between west and southwest, and passed amidst four small islands, that is to say, Cenalo, Huinanghar, Ibusson, and Abarien. Thursday, the 28th of March, having seen the night before fire upon an island, at the morning we came to anchor at this island; where we saw a small boat which they call Boloto, with eight men inside, which approached the ship of the captain-general. Then a slave of the captain\'s, who was from Sumatra, otherwise named Traprobana, spoke from afar to these people, who understood his talk, and came near to the side of the ship, but they withdrew immediately, and would not enter the ship from fear of us. So the captain seeing that they would not trust to us showed them a red cap, and other things, which he had tied and placed on a little plank,and the people in the boat took them immediately and joyously, and then returned to advise their king. Two hours afterwards, or thereabouts, we saw come two long boats, which they call Ballanghai, full of men. In the largest of them was their king sitting under an awning of mats; when they were near the ship of the captain-general, the said slave spoke to the king, who understood him well, because in these countries the kings know more languages than the common people. Then the king ordered some of his people to go to the captain\'s ship, whilst he would not move from his boat, which was near enough to us. This was done, and when his people returned to the boat, he went away at once. The captain gave good entertainment to the men who came to his ship, and gave them all sorts of things, on which account the king wished to give the captain a rather large bar of solid gold, and a chest full of ginger. However, the captain thanked him very much but would not accept the present. After that, when it was late, we went with the ships near to the houses and abode of the king. The next day which was Good Friday, the captain sent on shore the before-mentioned slave, who was our interpreter, to the king to beg him to give him for money some provisions for his ships, sending him word that he had not come to his country as an enemy, but as a friend. The king on hearing this came with seven or eight men in a boat, and entered the ship, and embraced the captain, and gave him three china dishes covered with leaves full of rice, and two *dorades*, which are rather large fish, and of the sort above-mentioned, and he gave him several other things. The captain gave this king a robe of red and yellow cloth, made in the Turkish fashion, and a very fine red cap, and to his people he gave to some of them knives, and to others mirrors. After that refreshments were served up to them. The captain told the king, through the said interpreter, that he wished to be with him, *cassi*  *cassi*, that is to say, brothers. To which the king answered that he desired to be the same towards him. After that the captain showed him cloths of different colours, linen, coral, and much other merchandise, and all the artillery, of which he had some pieces fired before him, at which the king was much astonished; after that the captain had one of his soldiers armed with white armour, and placed him in the midst of three comrades, who struck him with swords and daggers. The king thought this very strange, and the captain told him, through the interpreter, that a man thus in white armour was worth a hundred of his men; he answered that it was true; he was further informed that there were in each ship two hundred like that man. After that the captain showed him a great number of swords, cuirasses, and helmets, and made two of the men play with their swords before the king; he then showed him the sea chart and the ship compass, and informed him how he had found the strait to come there, and of the time which he had spent in coming; also of the time he had been without seeing any land, at which the king was astonished. At the end the captain asked if he would be pleased that two of his people should go with him to the places where they lived, to see some of the things of his country. This the king granted, and I went with another. When I had landed, the king raised his hands to the sky, and turned to us two, and we did the same as he did; after that he took me by the hand, and one of his principal people took my companion, and led us under a place covered with canes, where there was a ballanghai, that is to say, a boat, eighty feet long or thereabouts, resembling a fusta. We sat with the king upon its poop, always conversing with him by signs, and his people stood up around us, with their swords, spears, and bucklers. Then the king ordered to be brought a dish of pig\'s flesh and wine. Their fashion of drinking is in this wise, they first raise their hands to heaven, then take the drinking vessel in their right hand, and extend the left hand closed towards the people. This the king did, and presented to me his fist, so that I thought that he wanted to strike me; I did the same thing towards him; so with this ceremony, and other signs of friendship, we banqueted, and afterwards supped with him. I ate flesh on Good Friday, not being able to do otherwise, and before the hour of supper, I gave several things to the king, which I had brought. There I wrote down several things as they name them in their language, and when the king and the others saw me write, and I told them their manner of speech, they were all astonished. When the hour for supper had come, they brought two large china dishes, of which one was full of rice, and the other of pig\'s flesh, with its broth and sauce. We supped with the same signs and ceremonies, and then went to the king\'s palace, which was made and built like a hay grange, covered with fig and palm leaves. It was built on great timbers high above the ground, and it was necessary to go up steps and ladders to it. Then the king made us sit on a cane mat, with our legs doubled as was the custom; after half an hour there was brought a dish of fish roast in pieces, and ginger fresh gathered that moment, and some wine. The eldest son of the king, who was the prince, came where we were, and the king told him to sit down near us, which he did; then two dishes were brought, one of fish, with its sauce, and the other of rice, and this was done for us to eat with the prince. My companion enjoyed the food and drink so much that he got drunk. They use for candles or torches the gum of a tree which is named Animé, wrapped up in leaves of palms or fig trees. The king made a sign that he wished to go to rest, and left with us the prince, with whom we slept on a cane mat, with some cushions and pillows of leaves. Next morning the king came and took me by the hand, and so we went to the place where we had supped, to breakfast, but the boat came to fetch us. The king, before we went away, was very gay, and kissed our hands, and we kissed his. There came with us a brother of his, the king of another island, accompanied by three men. The captain-general detained him to dine with us, and we gave him several things. In the island belonging to the king who came to the ship there are mines of gold, which they find in pieces as big as a walnut or an egg, by seeking in the ground. All the vessels which he makes use of are made of it, and also some parts of his house, which was well fitted up according to the custom of the country, and he was the handsomest man that we saw among these nations. He had very black hair coming down to his shoulders, with a silk cloth on his head, and two large gold rings hanging from his ears, he had a cloth of cotton worked with silk, which covered him from the waist to the knees, at his side he wore a dagger, with a long handle which was all of gold, its sheath was of carved wood. Besides he carried upon him scents of storax and benzoin. He was tawny and painted all over. The island of this king is named Zuluan and Calagan, and when these two kings wish to visit one another they come to hunt in this island where we were. Of these kings the painted king is called Raia Calambu, and the other Raia Siani. On Sunday, the last day of March, and feast of Easter, the captain sent the chaplain ashore early to say mass, and the interpreter went with him to tell the king that they were not coming on shore to dine with him, but only to hear the mass. The king hearing that sent two dead pigs. When it was time for saying mass the captain went ashore with fifty men, not with their arms, but only with their swords, and dressed as well as each one was able to dress, and before the boats reached the shore our ships fired six cannon shots as a sign of peace. At our landing the two kings were there, and received our captain in a friendly manner, and placed him between them, and then we went to the place prepared for saying mass, which was not far from the shore. Before the mass began the captain threw a quantity of musk rose water on those two kings, and when the offertory of the mass came, the two kings went to kiss the cross like us, but they offered nothing, and at the elevation of the body of our Lord they were kneeling like us, and adored our Lord with joined hands. The ships fired all their artillery at the elevation of the body of our Lord. After mass had been said each one did the duty of a Christian, receiving our Lord. After that the captain had some sword-play by his people, which gave great pleasure to the kings. Then he had a cross brought, with the nails and crown, to which the kings made reverence, and the captain had them told that these things which he showed them were the sign of the emperor his lord and master, from whom he had charge and commandment to place it in all places where he might go or pass by. He told them that he wished to place it in their country for their profit, because if there came afterwards any ships from Spain to those islands, on seeing this cross, they would know that we had been there, and therefore they would not cause them any displeasure to their persons nor their goods; and if they took any of their people, on showing them this sign, they would at once let them go. Besides this, the captain told them that it was necessary that this cross should be placed on the summit of the highest mountain in their country, so that seeing it every day they might adore it, and that if they did thus, neither thunder, lightning, nor the tempest could do them hurt. The kings thanked the captain, and said they would do it willingly. Then he asked whether they were Moors or Gentiles, and in what they believed. They answered that they did not perform any other adoration, but only joined their hands, looking up to heaven, and that they called their God, Aba. Hearing this, the captain was very joyful, on seeing that, the first king raised his hands to the sky and said that he wished it were possible for him to be able to show the affection which he felt towards him. The interpreter asked him for what reason there was so little to eat in that place, to which the king replied that he did not reside in that place except when he came to hunt and to see his brother, but that he lived in another island where he had all his family. Then the captain asked him if he had any enemies who made war upon him, and that if he had any he would go and defeat them with his men and ships, to put them under his obedience. The king thanked him, and answered that there were two islands the inhabitants of which were his enemies; however, that for the present it was not the time to attack them. The captain therefore said to him that if God permitted him to return another time to this country, he would bring so many men that he would put them by force under his obedience. Then he bade the interpreter tell them that he was going away to dine, and after that he would return to place the cross on the summit of the mountain. The two kings said they were content, and on that they embraced the captain, and he separated from them. After dinner we all returned in our dress coats, and we went together with the two kings to the middle of the highest mountain we could find, and there the cross was planted. After that the two kings and the captain rested themselves; and, while conversing, I asked where the best port for obtaining victuals was. They replied that there were three, that is to say, Ceylon, Zzubu, and Calaghan, but that Zzubu was the largest and of the most traffic. Then the kings offered to give him pilots to go to those ports, for which he thanked them, and deliberated to go there, for his ill-fortune would have it so. After the cross had been planted on that mountain, each one said the Paternoster and Ave Maria, and adored it, and the kings did the like. Then we went down below to where their boats were. There the kings had brought some of the fruit called cocos and other things to make a collation and to refresh us. The captain, being desirous to depart the next day in the morning, asked the king for the pilots to conduct us to the above-mentioned ports, promising him to treat them like themselves, and that he would leave one of his own men as a hostage. The first king said that he would go himself and conduct him to this port, and be his pilots but that he should wait two days, until he had had his rice gathered in and done other things which he had to do, begging him to lend him some of his men so as to get done sooner. This the captain agreed to. This kind of people are gentle, and go naked, and are painted. They wear a piece of cloth made from a tree, like a linen cloth, round their body to cover their natural parts: they are great drinkers. The women are dressed in tree cloth from their waists downwards; their hair is black, and reaches down to the ground; they wear certain gold rings in their ears. These people chew most of their time a fruit which they call areca, which is something of the shape of a pear; they cut it in four quarters, and after they have chewed it for a long time they spit it out, from which afterwards they have their mouths very red. They find themselves the better from the use of this fruit because it refreshes them much, for this country is very hot, so that they could not live without it. In this island there is a great quantity of dogs, cats, pigs, fowls, and goats, rice, ginger, cocos, figs, oranges, lemons, millet, wax, and gold mines. This island is in nine degrees and two-thirds north latitude, and one hundred and sixty-two longitude from the line of demarcation: it is twenty-five leagues distant from the other island where we found the two fountains of fresh water. This island is named Mazzava. () B. **Cavite Mutiny** The event took place on January 20, 1872 that led to the execution of the three martyr friars -- Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora. When Governor General Izquierdo refused to give the benefits, of the workers of Cavite Arsenal, the exemption from payment of tributes and indulging in forced labor, two hundred Filipinos employed in the arsenal staged a revolt against the Spanish government. It was also due to this uprising that the three secular priests known as Gomburza were persecuted because of the charge of treason and sedition by the Spanish military tribunal. However, there are two faces of the Cavite Mutiny that Filipinos need to know since it is through this event as scholars believed that Filipinos started to awaken their sense of nationalism. **THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY** by Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay National Historical Commission of the Philippines September 5, 2012  The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the Filipinos.  In this particular day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities all over the world gathers to celebrate the Philippines' Independence Day.  1898 came to be a very significant year for all of us--- it is as equally important as 1896---the year when the Philippine Revolution broke out owing to the Filipinos' desire to be free from the abuses of the Spanish colonial regime.  But we should be reminded that another year is as historic as the two---1872. Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was the martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA).  However, not all of us knew that there were different accounts in reference to the said event.  All Filipinos must know the different sides of the story---since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history---the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos. **a. The mutiny: through the lens of the Spaniards** 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 innate propensity for stealing. The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy.  They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars.  The alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros. 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. **b.** **The Filipino's response to injustice: From the views of the Filipinos** Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.  In his point of view, the incident was a mere mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges.  Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo's cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political club. On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight.  The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn't happen.  The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite.  After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued. Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.  It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of educational institutions.  This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire desire to maintain power in the Philippines.  Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute.  The decree proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy's zest for secularization. The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged "revolution" reported by Izquierdo and the friars. Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote.  This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896.  The French writer Edmund Plauchut's account complimented Tavera's account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort.  The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed. **c. The unravelled truth**  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. The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence.  12 June 1898 may be a glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before we came across to victory, our forefathers suffered enough.  As we enjoy our freedom, may we be more historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of us.  And just like what Elias said in Noli Me Tangere, may we "not forget those who fell during the night." (https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/) **c. The Retraction Controversy of Rizal** Rizal's retraction is still an issue amongst Filipino scholars and Catholics since according to some authors, there was no clear evidence to prove the claims. The first text of the alleged retraction was published on the very day of his execution in Diario de Manila; El Imparcial on the day after the execution; and Barcelona, Spain. An alleged 'original' copy was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia. However, nobody had proven that the handwriting was that of Rizal. According to Santos (2011), the issue on whether Rizal actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups---the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)---agree with each other. +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Analysis Rizal\'s | | | | Retraction** | | | +=======================+=======================+=======================+ | | | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | | | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | At least four texts | | | | of Rizal's retraction | | | | have surfaced. The | | | | fourth text appeared | | | | in El Imparcial on | | | | the day after Rizal's | | | | execution; it is the | | | | short formula of the | | | | retraction. \ | | | | \ | | | | The first text was | | | | published in La Voz | | | | Española and Diaro de | | | | Manila on the very | | | | day of Rizal's | | | | execution, Dec. 30, | | | | 1896. The second text | | | | appeared in | | | | Barcelona, Spain, on | | | | February 14, 1897, in | | | | the fortnightly | | | | magazine in La | | | | Juventud; it came | | | | from an anonymous | | | | writer who revealed | | | | himself fourteen | | | | years later as Fr. | | | | Balaguer. The | | | | \"original\" text was | | | | discovered in the | | | | archdiocesan archives | | | | on May 18, 1935, | | | | after it disappeared | | | | for thirty-nine years | | | | from the afternoon of | | | | the day when Rizal | | | | was shot.\ | | | | \ | | | | We know not that | | | | reproductions of the | | | | lost original had | | | | been made by a | | | | copyist who could | | | | imitate Rizal's | | | | handwriting. This | | | | fact is revealed by | | | | Fr. Balaguer himself | | | | who, in his letter to | | | | his former superior | | | | Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, | | | | said that he had | | | | received \"an exact | | | | copy of the | | | | retraction written | | | | and signed by Rizal. | | | | The handwriting of | | | | this copy I don't | | | | know nor do I | | | | remember whose it is. | | | |..\" He proceeded: | | | | \"I even suspect that | | | | it might have been | | | | written by Rizal | | | | himself. I am sending | | | | it to you that you | | | | may... verify | | | | whether it might be | | | | of Rizal himself.. | | | |..\" Fr. Pi was not | | | | able to verify it in | | | | his sworn statement.\ | | | | \ | | | | This \"exact\" copy | | | | had been received by | | | | Fr. Balaguer in the | | | | evening immediately | | | | preceding Rizal's | | | | execution, Rizal y su | | | | Obra, and was | | | | followed by Sr. W. | | | | Retana in his | | | | biography of Rizal, | | | | Vida y Escritos del | | | | Jose Rizal with the | | | | addition of the names | | | | of the witnesses | | | | taken from the texts | | | | of the retraction in | | | | the Manila | | | | newspapers. Fr. Pi's | | | | copy of Rizal's | | | | retraction has the | | | | same text as that of | | | | Fr. Balaguer's | | | | \"exact\" copy but | | | | follows the | | | | paragraphing of the | | | | texts of Rizal's | | | | retraction in the | | | | Manila newspapers.\ | | | | \ | | | | Regarding the | | | | \"original\" text, no | | | | one claimed to have | | | | seen it, except the | | | | publishers of La Voz | | | | Espanola. That | | | | newspaper reported: | | | | \"Still more; we have | | | | seen and read his | | | | (Rizal's) own | | | | hand-written | | | | retraction which he | | | | sent to our dear and | | | | venerable | | | | Archbishop...\" On | | | | the other hand, | | | | Manila pharmacist F. | | | | Stahl wrote in a | | | | letter: \"besides, | | | | nobody has seen this | | | | written declaration, | | | | in spite of the fact | | | | that quite a number | | | | of people would want | | | | to see it. \"For | | | | example, not only | | | | Rizal's family but | | | | also the | | | | correspondents in | | | | Manila of the | | | | newspapers in Madrid, | | | | Don Manuel Alhama of | | | | El Imparcial and Sr. | | | | Santiago Mataix of El | | | | Heraldo, were not | | | | able to see the | | | | hand-written | | | | retraction.\ | | | | \ | | | | Neither Fr. Pi nor | | | | His Grace the | | | | Archbishop | | | | ascertained whether | | | | Rizal himself was the | | | | one who wrote and | | | | signed the | | | | retraction. | | | | (Ascertaining the | | | | document was | | | | necessary because it | | | | was possible for one | | | | who could imitate | | | | Rizal's handwriting | | | | aforesaid holograph; | | | | and keeping a copy of | | | | the same for our | | | | archives, I myself | | | | delivered it | | | | personally that the | | | | same morning to His | | | | Grace Archbishop... | | | | His Grace testified: | | | | At once the | | | | undersigned entrusted | | | | this holograph to | | | | Rev. Thomas Gonzales | | | | Feijoo, secretary of | | | | the Chancery.\" After | | | | that, the documents | | | | could not be seen by | | | | those who wanted to | | | | examine it and was | | | | finally considered | | | | lost after efforts to | | | | look for it proved | | | | futile.\ | | | | \ | | | | On May 18, 1935, the | | | | lost \"original\" | | | | document of Rizal's | | | | retraction was | | | | discovered by the | | | | archdiocesan | | | | archivist Fr. Manuel | | | | Garcia, C.M. The | | | | discovery, instead of | | | | ending doubts about | | | | Rizal's retraction, | | | | has in fact | | | | encouraged it because | | | | the newly discovered | | | | text retraction | | | | differs significantly | | | | from the text found | | | | in the Jesuits' and | | | | the Archbishop's | | | | copies. And, the fact | | | | that the texts of the | | | | retraction which | | | | appeared in the | | | | Manila newspapers | | | | could be shown to be | | | | the exact copies of | | | | the \"original\" but | | | | only imitations of | | | | it. This means that | | | | the friars who | | | | controlled the press | | | | in Manila (for | | | | example, La Voz | | | | Española) had the | | | | \"original\" while | | | | the Jesuits had only | | | | the imitations. | | | | | | | | **The Difference of | | | | the texts** | | | | | | | | - First, instead of | | | | the words \"mi | | | | cualidad\" (with | | | | \"u\") which | | | | appear in the | | | | original and the | | | | newspaper texts, | | | | the Jesuits' | | | | copies have \"mi | | | | calidad\" | | | | (without \"u\"). | | | | | | | | - Second, the | | | | Jesuits' copies | | | | of the retraction | | | | omit the word | | | | \"Catolica\" | | | | after the first | | | | \"Iglesias\" | | | | which are found | | | | in the original | | | | and the newspaper | | | | texts. | | | | | | | | - Third, the | | | | Jesuits' copies | | | | of the retraction | | | | add before the | | | | third | | | | \"Iglesias\" the | | | | word \"misma\" | | | | which is not | | | | found in the | | | | original and the | | | | newspaper texts | | | | of the | | | | retraction. | | | | | | | | - Fourth, with | | | | regards to | | | | paragraphing | | | | which immediately | | | | strikes the eye | | | | of the critical | | | | reader, Fr. | | | | Balaguer's text | | | | does not begin | | | | the second | | | | paragraph until | | | | the fifth | | | | sentences while | | | | the original and | | | | the newspaper | | | | copies start the | | | | second paragraph | | | | immediately with | | | | the second | | | | sentences. | | | | | | | | - Fifth, whereas | | | | the texts of the | | | | retraction in the | | | | original and in | | | | the manila | | | | newspapers have | | | | only four commas, | | | | the text of Fr. | | | | Balaguer's copy | | | | has eleven | | | | commas. | | | | | | | | - Sixth, the most | | | | important of all, | | | | Fr. Balaguer's | | | | copy did not have | | | | the names of the | | | | witnesses from | | | | the texts of the | | | | newspapers in | | | | Manila. | | | | | | | | In his notarized | | | | testimony twenty | | | | years later, Fr. | | | | Balaguer finally | | | | named the witnesses. | | | | He said \"This.. | | | |.retraction was | | | | signed together with | | | | Dr. Rizal by Señor | | | | Fresno, Chief of the | | | | Picket, and Señor | | | | Moure, Adjutant of | | | | the Plaza.\" However, | | | | the proceeding | | | | quotation only proves | | | | itself to be an | | | | addition to the | | | | original. Moreover, | | | | in his letter to Fr. | | | | Pi in 1910, Fr. | | | | Balaguer said that he | | | | had the \"exact\" | | | | copy of the | | | | retraction, which was | | | | signed by Rizal, but | | | | he made no mention of | | | | the witnesses. In his | | | | accounts too, no | | | | witnesses signed the | | | | retraction.\ | | | | \ | | | | How did Fr. Balaguer | | | | obtain his copy of | | | | Rizal's retraction? | | | | Fr. Balaguer never | | | | alluded to having | | | | himself made a copy | | | | of the retraction | | | | although he claimed | | | | that the Archbishop | | | | prepared a long | | | | formula of the | | | | retraction and Fr. Pi | | | | a short formula. In | | | | Fr. Balaguer's | | | | earliest account, it | | | | is not yet clear | | | | whether Fr. Balaguer | | | | was using the long | | | | formula of nor no | | | | formula in dictating | | | | to Rizal what to | | | | write. According to | | | | Fr. Pi, in his own | | | | account of Rizal's | | | | conversion in 1909, | | | | Fr. Balaguer dictated | | | | from Fr. Pi's short | | | | formula previously | | | | approved by the | | | | Archbishop. In his | | | | letter to Fr. Pi in | | | | 1910, Fr. Balaguer | | | | admitted that he | | | | dictated to Rizal the | | | | short formula | | | | prepared by Fr. Pi; | | | | however; he | | | | contradicts himself | | | | when he revealed that | | | | the \"exact\" copy | | | | came from the | | | | Archbishop. The only | | | | copy, which Fr. | | | | Balaguer wrote, is | | | | the one that appeared | | | | on his earliest | | | | account of Rizal's | | | | retraction.\ | | | | \ | | | | Where did Fr. | | | | Balaguer's \"exact\" | | | | copy come from? We do | | | | not need long | | | | arguments to answer | | | | this question, | | | | because Fr. Balaguer | | | | himself has | | | | unwittingly answered | | | | this question. He | | | | said in his letter to | | | | Fr. Pi in 1910:\ | | | | \ | | | | \"...I preserved in | | | | my keeping and am | | | | sending to you the | | | | original texts of the | | | | two formulas of | | | | retraction, which | | | | they (You) gave me; | | | | that from you and | | | | that of the | | | | Archbishop, and the | | | | first with the | | | | changes which they | | | | (that is, you) made; | | | | and the other the | | | | exact copy of the | | | | retraction written | | | | and signed by Rizal. | | | | The handwriting of | | | | this copy I don't | | | | know nor do I | | | | remember whose it is, | | | | and I even suspect | | | | that it might have | | | | been written by Rizal | | | | himself.\"\ | | | | \ | | | | In his own word | | | | quoted above, Fr. | | | | Balaguer said that he | | | | received two original | | | | texts of the | | | | retraction. The | | | | first, which came | | | | from Fr. Pi, | | | | contained \"the | | | | changes which You | | | | (Fr. Pi) made\"; the | | | | other, which is | | | | \"that of the | | | | Archbishop\" was | | | | \"the exact copy of | | | | the retraction | | | | written and signed by | | | | Rizal\" (underscoring | | | | supplied). Fr. | | | | Balaguer said that | | | | the \"exact copy\" | | | | was \"written and | | | | signed by Rizal\" but | | | | he did not say | | | | \"written and signed | | | | by Rizal and | | | | himself\" (the | | | | absence of the | | | | reflexive pronoun | | | | \"himself\" could | | | | mean that another | | | | person-the | | | | copyist-did not). He | | | | only \"suspected\" | | | | that \"Rizal | | | | himself\" much as Fr. | | | | Balaguer did \"not | | | | know nor \... | | | | remember\" whose | | | | handwriting it was.\ | | | | \ | | | | Thus, according to | | | | Fr. Balaguer, the | | | | \"exact copy\" came | | | | from the Archbishop! | | | | He called it | | | | \"exact\" because, | | | | not having seen the | | | | original himself, he | | | | was made to believe | | | | that it was the one | | | | that faithfully | | | | reproduced the | | | | original in | | | | comparison to that of | | | | Fr. Pi in which | | | | \"changes\" (that is, | | | | where deviated from | | | | the \"exact\" copy) | | | | had been made. | | | | Actually, the | | | | difference between | | | | that of the | | | | Archbishop (the | | | | \"exact\" copy) and | | | | that of Fr. Pi (with | | | | \"changes\") is that | | | | the latter was | | | | \"shorter\" because | | | | it omitted certain | | | | phrases found in the | | | | former so that, as | | | | Fr. Pi had fervently | | | | hoped, Rizal would | | | | sign it.\ | | | | \ | | | | According to Fr. Pi, | | | | Rizal rejected the | | | | long formula so that | | | | Fr. Balaguer had to | | | | dictate from the | | | | short formula of Fr. | | | | Pi. Allegedly, Rizal | | | | wrote down what was | | | | dictated to him but | | | | he insisted on adding | | | | the phrases \"in | | | | which I was born and | | | | educated\" and | | | | \"\[Masonry\]\" as | | | | the enemy that is of | | | | the Church\" -- the | | | | first of which Rizal | | | | would have regarded | | | | as unnecessary and | | | | the second as | | | | downright contrary to | | | | his spirit. However, | | | | what actually would | | | | have happened, if we | | | | are to believe the | | | | fictitious account, | | | | was that Rizal's | | | | addition of the | | | | phrases was the | | | | retoration of the | | | | phrases found in the | | | | original which had | | | | been omitted in Fr. | | | | Pi's short formula.\ | | | | \ | | | | The \"exact\" copy | | | | was shown to the | | | | military men guarding | | | | in Fort Santiago to | | | | convince them that | | | | Rizal had retracted. | | | | Someone read it aloud | | | | in the hearing of | | | | Capt. Dominguez, who | | | | claimed in his | | | | \"Notes' that Rizal | | | | read aloud his | | | | retraction. However, | | | | his copy of the | | | | retraction proved him | | | | wrong because its | | | | text (with \"u\") and | | | | omits the word | | | | \"Catolica\" as in | | | | Fr. Balaguer's copy | | | | but which are not the | | | | case in the original. | | | | Capt. Dominguez never | | | | claimed to have seen | | | | the retraction: he | | | | only \"heard\".\ | | | | \ | | | | The truth is that, | | | | almost two years | | | | before his execution, | | | | Rizal had written a | | | | retraction in | | | | Dapitan. Very early | | | | in 1895, Josephine | | | | Bracken came to | | | | Dapitan with her | | | | adopted father who | | | | wanted to be cured of | | | | his blindness by Dr. | | | | Rizal; their guide | | | | was Manuela Orlac, | | | | who was agent and a | | | | mistress of a friar. | | | | Rizal fell in love | | | | with Josephine and | | | | wanted to marry her | | | | canonically but he | | | | was required to sign | | | | a profession of faith | | | | and to write | | | | retraction, which had | | | | to be approved by the | | | | Bishop of Cebu. | | | | \"Spanish law had | | | | established civil | | | | marriage in the | | | | Philippines,\" Prof. | | | | Craig wrote, but the | | | | local government had | | | | not provided any way | | | | for people to avail | | | | themselves of the | | | | right\...\" | | | | | | | | In order to marry | | | | Josephine, Rizal | | | | wrote with the help | | | | of a priest a form of | | | | retraction to be | | | | approved by the | | | | Bishop of Cebu. This | | | | incident was revealed | | | | by Fr. Antonio Obach | | | | to his friend Prof. | | | | Austin Craig who | | | | wrote down in 1912 | | | | what the priest had | | | | told him; \"The | | | | document (the | | | | retraction), inclosed | | | | with the priest's | | | | letter, was ready for | | | | the mail when Rizal | | | | came hurrying I to | | | | reclaim it.\" Rizal | | | | realized (perhaps, | | | | rather late) that he | | | | had written and given | | | | to a priest what the | | | | friars had been | | | | trying by all means | | | | to get from him. | | | | | | | | Neither the | | | | Archbishop nor Fr. Pi | | | | saw the original | | | | document of | | | | retraction. What they | | | | saw was a copy done | | | | by one who could | | | | imitate Rizal's | | | | handwriting while the | | | | original (almost | | | | eaten by termites) | | | | was kept by some | | | | friars. Both the | | | | Archbishop and Fr. Pi | | | | acted innocently | | | | because they did not | | | | distinguish between | | | | the genuine and the | | | | imitation of Rizal's | | | | handwriting. | | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | | | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ **Assignment:** Read the article entitled, Balintawak: The cry for a nationwide revolution written by Milagros C. Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion and Ramon N. Villegas Other Historical Issues 1. Death of Andres Bonifacio Bonifacio's death: An eyewitness account By: [[Ambeth R. Ocampo]](https://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/ambeth-r-ocampo) - [[\@inquirerdotnet]](https://www.twitter.com/@inquirerdotnet) [[Philippine Daily Inquirer]](https://opinion.inquirer.net/source/philippine-daily-inquirer) / 05:16 AM February 15, 2019 Lazaro Makapagal, no relation to Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, would be a forgotten footnote in Philippine history, except that he led the pack that executed Andres Bonifacio, on orders of the Council of War that imposed the death sentence on the brothers Andres and Procopio Bonifacio. The brothers were found guilty of treason against the newly formed Revolutionary Government that had replaced the Katipunan. So much has been written about the execution of Bonifacio; some say he was shot, others say he was hacked to death. On the other hand, in the emotional and contentious matter of Emilio Aguinaldo's hand in the death of his rival Bonifacio, one believes what one wants to believe despite Makapagal's two public statements---first to the Philippines Free Press in 1928; second in a detailed letter to historian Jose P. Santos dated June 27, 1929. Biased or inaccurate, Makapagal may be in making these declarations three decades after the fact, but he remains the only eyewitness to Bonifacio's last moments. Other sources, like Generals Santiago Alvarez and Artemio Ricarte, are not eyewitnesses. Their information was lifted from Makapagal, with Ricarte identifying, wrongly, that the executioners were Colonels Agapito Bonson and Jose Ignacio Paua. A certain Guillermo Masangkay, who concocted and propagated the hacked-to-death story, claimed firsthand information about the May 10, 1897, death of Bonifacio. In a 1967 news article, Masangkay was billed as: "He witnessed Andres Bonifacio's court martial and murder." However, archival records consulted by the late historian Isagani Medina state that Masangkay had been imprisoned in Bilibid from Sept. 26, 1896, to at least May 29, 1897. Makapagal's controversial handwritten document, previously available to historians in pictures or photocopies, has finally surfaced and will be on the block next weekend, together with Emilio Aguinaldo's handwritten account of the death of Bonifacio dated March 22, 1948---his 79th birthday! Is it a coincidence that these documents, highlighted by auction house hype as "extremely important and exceedingly rare," have come to light on the 150th anniversary of Aguinaldo's birth? Auction house PR Lisa Guerrero Nakpil waxes poetic in an article on the coming auction, describing the historical documents as revelations of "pure hearts." She insinuates "shocking secrets," though they are not so, because all the documents have been previously reproduced in various books. I am relieved that she has stopped using "explosive" to describe these documents because, in my opinion, that adjective is best deployed to portray a bad case of diarrhea. Using Makapagal's two accounts of the execution when I drove to Maragondon two decades ago, I had some difficulty finding the place where the group stopped to rest: "It had a small mountain, somewhat round, near the bamboos \[Cawayanan\]; the other riverbank, facing north, we could see the town of Maragondon with the sunrise on our right, behind us was Mount Buntis." While seated at the foot of the small round mountain, near the water and the bamboo, Andres said: "Since we are nearing Mt. Tala \[our destination\], why don't you open the envelope so we will know where you will leave us." The document was read, and at the words "shoot the brothers," Procopio jumped and exclaimed, "Naku kuyang!" "Andres fell to his knees and was to embrace me, shouting 'Kapatid, patawarin mo ako,'" wrote Makapagal. Makapagal moved back, his eyes on Procopio who was the stronger of the two, fearful he might get the upper hand. Scared the brothers would resist or escape and hide in the forest, Makapagal ordered his men to prepare for the execution, with a mix of pity for the brothers and fear of what would happen if he did not accomplish the grim task entrusted to him. At this point, the brothers fell silent. He first led Procopio to the edge of the forest, far from Andres' sight, and shot him there. When he returned, Andres fell to his knees again and wailed: "Kapatid, patawarin mo ako!" He replied, "Wala akong magagawa." Andres bolted into the forest and was caught at the end of a small river, where they shot him. The soldiers didn't have shovels to dig a proper grave but did the best they could with bayonets. The Bonifacio brothers' bodies have never been found. One wonders what price will be paid for this heartrending bit of Philippine history. () 2. Death of Antonio Luna  **Who really ordered Luna's murder?** ===================================== By: [Ambeth R. Ocampo](https://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/ambeth-r-ocampo) - [\@inquirerdotnet](https://www.twitter.com/@inquirerdotnet) ========================================================================================================================================= [Philippine Daily Inquirer](https://opinion.inquirer.net/source/philippine-daily-inquirer) / 12:06 AM June 05, 2015 =================================================================================================================== On the afternoon of June 5, 1899, Gen. Antonio Luna arrived in the kumbento of Cabanatuan for a meeting with Emilio Aguinaldo. Tired from traveling over 100 kilometers from his base in Bayambang, he was understandably upset to be told that the President had left earlier in the day. Luna was met by Felipe Buencamino, with whom he had previous disagreements. Then there was Capt. Pedro Janolino, as well as the Kawit presidential bodyguards reinstated by Aguinaldo after he had them disarmed. The rest, as the cliché goes, is history. Luna, together with his aide Col. Paco Roman, was killed. Luna suffered over 30 wounds from bolos, bayonets and bullets. A lesser man would have died instantly from half of his wounds, but the general was able to stagger out of the building, cursing his murderers, before falling lifeless on the church patio. When it was all over, Aguinaldo's mother, who watched the slaughter from a church window, said: "*Nagalaw pa ba iyan* (Is he still alive)?" Afterwards, Luna and his aide were given a proper military burial. But the questions persist to this day: Who really ordered the murder of Luna? Was Luna really summoned to a meeting with Aguinaldo? If so, why wasn't Aguinaldo there? And why were Aguinaldo's Kawit bodyguards left behind, when their job was to secure the President at all times? Textbook in history has been oversimplified to blame Aguinaldo when the story is more complicated. We know about the assassination, but not the other events that led to Luna's bloody end. From The Evening News, an American paper published in Washington, we read this report a week later: Pedro Paterno is cited as a source for the news report and others that appeared in US papers. Paterno was biased against Luna, and it is obvious that those most threatened by Luna protected themselves by playing on Aguinaldo's fear and insecurity. They got rid of Apolinario Mabini by intrigue, Luna had to be disposed of by murder. A more nuanced reading of the challenges that faced the short-lived First Philippine Republic leads us to the complex background of the Luna assassination. History provides perspective to the intrigue swirling over all the presidential aspirants for next year's election. History remains relevant because in it we come to understand human nature and appreciate why we are the way we are. (https://opinion.inquirer.net/85501/who-really-ordered-lunas-murder)