GE-RIPH Readings in Philippine History Lesson 3 PDF

Previous Next Directory Home GE-RIPH Readings in Philippine History LESSON 3 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History...

Previous Next Directory Home GE-RIPH Readings in Philippine History LESSON 3 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History 1  Previous Next Directory Home INITIAL ACTIVITY: What Do You Know?! Instruction: Study the given picture below, then answer the following questions: 1. What is your initial interpretation of the picture? 2. Search for “Saudi Arabia’s Nose Kiss”, what have your learned? Is it similar with your initial interpretation? 3. What is your realization after doing this activity?  Previous Next Directory Home The initial activity for this lesson gave you a simple hint of how to interpret things based on your own perspective. Perspective is the way how you see or view things which is basically anchored to what you have already knew. Historical interpretations are judgments of historians on how the past should be seen, hence the history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgments (Candelaria and Alphora, 2018). There is more to just reading history like the task of studying historical accounts. Much of our history is written because there are accounts of eyewitnesses or participants (recall the differences) of specific events. And this is where the problem comes in: which account should we believe? 3  Previous Next Directory Home As the saying goes, “there is one past, but many histories.” Thus, controversies on and conflicting views of events in Philippine history exist. In addition to this problematic aspect is the concept of mutiperspectivity. This concept is defined as a way of looking at historical events, personalities, developments, cultures, and societies from different perspectives. This simply means that there is a multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally valid and equally partial at the same time. This undeniable reality also gave rise to the notion that history is something that is not set in stone. That history is a construct— it is open for interpretation. But let us be warned of this because one’s interpretation could change the way we view our selves as a nation with a country and identity. 4  Previous Next Directory Home Hence, it is fundamentally important to subject to evaluation, not only the primary sources, but as well as the historical interpretation that has been made out of the same, to ensure reliability in making sense of the past. Finally, while history is full of complexities, exploring multiperspectivity can provide us, most especially the young ones like you, a more complete and richer understanding of the past. And hopefully, this rich understanding in history, in our history, will serve as a strong reminder for us in protecting and advancing the interest of our country—the Philippines. Now, to give you a deeper sense of much that have been mentioned above, let us discuss the different controversies in our own history. 5  Previous Next Directory Home CONTROVERSY 1: The Cavite Mutiny CONTEXT Do you know that the year 1872 is said to be a historic year of two events in Philippine history? The first one is the Cavite Mutiny. The second one is the Martyrdom of the three priest or more popularly known as the GOMBURZA. This year is as significant as the 1896 and 1898 in the history of our country and while its significance remained unquestioned, it did generate controversy that continues even to this day brought about by the differing accounts that primary sources exhibited. 6  Previous Next Directory Home Every Filipino must know the different sides of the story because this event was a major catalyst that kick-started nationalism sentiments within us. This nationalistic sentiment had led to the bloody revolution by Filipinos which perpetuated until the arrival of the new colonizer in the early part of 19th century. 7  Previous Next Directory Home Presentation of Primary Sources: Unknown to many, there are four (4) primary sources that have surfaced to this day: Two of these were of Spanish officials namely, Jose Montero y Vidal and Governor General Rafael Izquierdo; one was a Filipino scholar in the name of Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera; and lastly, a French writer under the name of Edmund Plauchut. The disagreement of information mentioned by these primary sources demands a discerning mind and a vigorous effort in order to find a reconciling truth about the major events in the year 1872 because truth is freedom and freedom is the foundation of a sincere love for our nation. 8  Previous Next Directory Home Now, to make your own position regarding what was the true reason behind the mutiny and if the GOMBURZA were the real masterminds of the said mutiny, you are to read and examine the following primary sources, the copy of these sources will be provided to you by your instructor. a) Jose Montero y Vidal’s Account b) Governor General Rafael Izquierdo’s Account c) Pardo de Tavera’s Account d) Edmund Plauchut’s Account 9  Previous Next Directory Home STUDY GUIDE After reading the primary sources provided, try to answer these questions to guide you in writing your position paper. 1. Based on the sources provided, what do you think is the reason why the munity in Cavite happened? 2. Are the three Filipino priests -GOMBURZA- the mastermind of the Cavite Mutiny? Defend your answer. 1  Previous Next Directory Home CONTROVERSY 2: The 1896 Cry of Rebellion CONTEXT During the late part of 18th century, most of the colonies of Spain became desperate for their freedom. Journalists during this time would use the phrase “el grito de rebellion” which translates to “the cry of rebellion” to describe the beginning of these momentous events (rebellions) that were rampantly happening across Spanish colonies. 1  Previous Next Directory Home For instance, in Mexico there was the “Cry of Dolores” (September 16, 1810); in Brazil “Cry of Yparaga” (September 7, 1822); and in Cuba “Cry of Matanza” (February 24, 1895). Similarly, in August 1896, we, Filipinos, also declared our own rebellion—our “cry” against the said colonizers. This institutionalization of such phrase for the Philippines was pioneered by a Spanish historian named Manuel Sastron in his 1897 book, “La Insurreccion en Filipinas”. Since then, many Filipino historians among which was Teodoro Agoncillo who used the term “cry” to refer to that momentous event of Katipunan tearing their sedulas accompanied by a scream. Today, recent generations like you may have been informed of this rebellion in Philippine history primarily because it was taught during the basic education years. However, this information, this consciousness, can be liken to a tip of an iceberg so to speak. There is so much to look into about the said event and the way to do it is not easy. Nonetheless, the endeavor to comprehend this part of our history signifies our commitment towards understanding of who we truly are as people and what we are capable of if faced with similar circumstances like this. 1  Previous Next Directory Home Presentation of Primary Sources: There are a number of primary sources that are used for quite some time already which provide a meaningful narrative as answers to some of the most relevant questions such as “why” the rebellion happened and “how” it happened. This number may increase in the future as our quest for truth deepens and international cooperation strengthens which could lead to more archival discovery of primary sources. In this lesson, however, you are asked to revolve your examination to the following primary sources: Dr Pio Valenzuela, Gregoria de Jesus, Guardia Civil, Guillermo Masangkay and Santiago Alvarez. 1  Previous Next Directory Home Now, to make your own position regarding when and where did the cry happened, you are to read and examine the following primary sources, the copy of these sources will be provided to you by your instructor. a. Dr Pio Valenzuela b. Gregoria de Jesus c. Guardia Civil d. Guillermo Masangkay e. Santiago Alvarez 1  Previous Next Directory Home STUDY After reading GUIDEsources the primary provided, try to answer these questions to guide you in writing your position paper. 1. Where and when did the Cry of Revolution happened? Defend your answer. 2. What is the significance of the “Cry” to our history? 1  Previous Next Directory Home CONTROVERSY CONTEXT 3: Did Rizal Retract? We usually identify Jose Rizal as a hero of the revolution because of his writings that center on ending colonialism and liberating the Filipino minds because he believed that these are the initial steps toward the creation of a Filipino nation. The writings were largely scrutinizing the friars whom he referred to as the major cause of injustices and sufferings of Filipinos. 1  Previous Next Directory Home It is therefore understandable to have a serious investigation into any piece of writing that tries to contradict what he has written. The retraction of Rizal is a document claimed to have existed. It is said to be the proof that Jose Rizal took back everything he said against the church and died as a Catholic. If this document is proven to be true, the colorful admirations we have for Rizal would likely change and such change could make huge influence to the way we understood ourselves as Filipinos. 1  Previous Next Directory Home At Presentation of Primary present, there are allegedly Sources: at least four (4) sources of the said Retraction document of Rizal that have surfaced. These are the following: a. December 30, 1896- The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diario de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution; b. December 31, 1896- The second text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution. It is the short formula of the retraction; c. February 14, 1897- The third text appeared in Barcelona, Spain in the fortnightly magazine La Juventud. It came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years as Father Balaguer. d. May 18, 1935- The alleged “original” text was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in the archdiocesan archives after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the day of Rizal’s execution. But what was shown to the public was mere reproduction. 1  Previous Next Directory Home Although the alleged Retraction Document appeared in the above publications, due to the problem associated with accessibility of primary sources, the following sources are provided instead: a. Unfading Glory: Jesús Ma. Cavanna y Manso, C.M. b. The Great Debate: Ricardo P. Garcia c. Rizal Beyond the Grave: Ricardo R. Pascual These readings will be provided to you by your instructor in the form of e-copy. 1  Previous Next Directory Home STUDY GUIDE After reading the primary sources provided, try to answer these questions to guide you in writing your position paper. 1. Did Jose Rizal wrote a retraction before he was executed? Defend your answer? 2. What is the impact of the retraction, if found true, to our history? 2  Previous Next Directory Home Now, after reading the three (3) different controversies in our history, your task as mentioned was to write a position paper (in favor or against of) about these controversies. To guide you in writing the said paper, below is the rubric for evaluation. Note: The format of the paper is dependent to what will your teacher gives you. 2  Previous Next Directory Home 2  Previous Next Directory Home THANK YOU. 23