RPH REVIEWER PDF

Lesson Introduction While we may define history as "what happened in the past," the reality is, it is more of a dialogue among historians. And one historian's contribution to this dialogue is an interpretation of the past based on sources and evidence consulted. The interpretation is not just a mat...

Lesson Introduction While we may define history as "what happened in the past," the reality is, it is more of a dialogue among historians. And one historian's contribution to this dialogue is an interpretation of the past based on sources and evidence consulted. The interpretation is not just a matter of when, where, or who, but also about why and how, variables that cannot just be lifted straight from the source. When historians write history, they do not offer theories-they offer interpretations. Often, these interpretations are only as good as the evidence they utilize. These interpretations are affected by a host of factors. In this lesson, we explore three: oversimplification, inadequate evidence, and tentativeness. Oversimplification occurs when an interpretation does not offer enough detail to provide a fuller picture of what happened in the past, which could lead to an incomplete and inaccurate version of the historical account. On the other hand, when the historical interpretation is based on inadequate evidence, we perpetuate a reading of the past that may have been wrong in the first place. Finally, historical interpretations are affected by the tentativeness of history. Every new research uncovers new sources that could be used as a basis for the rewriting of history, and evidence that challenges earlier accounts could be discovered hundreds of years later. It is this quality of the historical account that makes the study of history a dynamic endeavor and proves that the study of history is not about remembering answers. Instead, it requires following and evaluating arguments and arriving at useful conclusions that are complex, adequately sourced, and tentative, if need be. Let us explore how these problems are illustrated in the following three cases. The Battle of Mactan We are all aware of the story of Lapulapu, as one of the first things we learn in Philippine history is the story of how the chieftain of Mactan defeated a small force of Europeans who were led by Ferdinand Magellan. It tells us the undeniable fact that pre-Hispanic Philippines fought off the invaders. Unfortunately, this is the abridged, "shortcut" version of the battle. But what truly happened in the Battle of Mactan? A closer look at Pigafetta's First Voyage Around the World reveals that the version of the Battle of Mactan that we know is far different than what eyewitness accounts say about the events of that fateful day. Magellan reached a part of the Philippine islands, which he named Islas de San Lazaro and claimed it in the name of Spain. In the process, he got involved in the conflicts of competing chieftains in the area. While he was able to secure the commitment of Cebu's Rajah Humabon, one particular chief eluded him: Mactan's Lapulapu. While the primary source about the mysterious chieftain is scarce, Gaspar Correa, a sixteenth century Portuguese historian who obtained information from survivors of the Magellan expedition, described Lapulapu. According to his sources, the hero of Mactan is very old-he may even be 70 years or older as the term used was "veljo/viejo." It is certain then that Lapulapu could not have killed Magellan himself, and it would be more apt to say that it was the forces under his command that killed the European navigator. The immediate cause of the battle was Zula, another chief from Mactan, who claimed that he was unable to send the bulk of his tribute to Magellan because of Lapulapu. Zula asked the Europeans to help fight Lapulapu, and Magellan immediately decided to personally lead this small force, despite the protests of his men. Pigafetta's Account of the Battle of Mactan We set out from Zubu (Cebu) at midnight, we were sixty men armed with corslets and helmets; there were with us the Christian king, the prince, and some of the chief men, and many others divided among twenty or thirty balangai. We arrived at Matan (Mactan) three hours before daylight. The captain before attacking wish to attempt gentle means, and sent on shore the Moorish merchant to tell those Islanders who were of the party of Cilapulapu (Lapu-Lapu), that if they would recognize the Christian king (Rajah Humabon) as their sovereign, and obey the King of Spain, and pay us the tribute which had been asked, the captain would become their friend, otherwise we should prove how our lances wounded. The Islanders were not terrified, they replied that if we had lances, so also had they, although only of reeds, and wood hardened with fire. They asked however that we should not attack them by night, but wait for daylight, because they were expecting reinforcements, and would be in greater number. This they said with cunning, to excite us to attack them by night, supposing that we were ready; but they wish this because they had dug ditches between their houses and the beach, and they hope that we should fall into them. In this account by Pigafetta, we see the attempt of Magellan to give Lapulapu's forces a chance to yield before the fighting even happened, through a local Muslim merchant as an interpreter. The battle parties traded barbs regarding their weapons. The "islanders" were intending to trap Magellan's forces by enticing them to attack while it was still dark, but the Europeans saw through their intentions. We however waited for daylight; we then leaped into the water up to our thighs, for on account of the shallow water in the rocks the boats could not come close to the beach, and we had to cross two good crossbow shots through the water before reaching it. We were forty-nine in number, the other eleven remained in charge of the boats. When we reached land we found the islanders fifteen hundred in number, drawn up in three squadrons; they came down upon us with terrible shouts, two squadrons attacking us on the flanks, and the third in front. The captain then divided his men into barnids. Our musketeers and crossbow men fired for half an hour from a distance, but did nothing, since the bullets and arrows, though they passed through their shields made of thin wood, and perhaps wounded their arms, yet did not stop them. The captain shouted not to fire, but he was not listened to. The islanders seeing that the shots of our guns did them little or no harm would not retire, but shouted more loudly, and springing from one side to the other to avoid our shots, they at the same time drew nearer to us, throwing arrows, javelins, spears hardened in fire, stonés, and even mud, so that we could hardly defend ourselves. Some of them cast lances pointed with iron at the captain-general. The account provided by Pigafetta in this paragraph detailed essential information about the battle. They were wading through thigh-deep water wearing their heavy metal armors and weapons. This situation may have affected their agility. The glaring imbalance between the two sides was also apparent: Magellan led his troop of 49 men to face 1,500 of Lapulapu's forces. The weapons and fighting style of the Mactan warriors were also described. He then, in order to disperse this multitude and to terrify them, sent some of our men to set fire to the houses, but this rendered them more ferocious. Some of them ran to the fire, which consumed twenty or thirty houses, and there killed two of our men. The rest came down upon us with greater fury; they perceived that our bodies were defended, but that the legs were exposed, and they aimed at them principally. The captain had his right leg pierced by a poisoned arrow, on which account he gave orders to retreat by degrees; but almost all our men took to precipitate flight, so that there remained hardly six or eight of us with him. We were oppressed by the lances and stones which the enemy hurled at us, and we could make no more resistance. The bombards which we had in the boats were of no assistance to us, for the shoal water kept them too far from the beach. We went thither, retreating little by little, and still fighting, and we had already, got to the distance of a crossbow shot from the shore, having the water up to our knees, the islanders following in picking up again the spears which they had already cast, and they threw the same spear five or six times; as they knew the captain they almed specially at him, and twice they knocked the helmet off his head. He, with a few of us, like a good knight, remained at his post without choosing to retreat further. Thus we fought for more than an hour, until an Indian (islander) succeeded in thrusting a cane lance into the captain's face. He then, being irritated, pierced the Indian's breast with his lance, and left it in his body, and trying to draw his sword he was unable to draw it more than half way, on account of a javelin wound which he had received in the right arm. The enemies seeing this all rushed against him, and one of them with a great sword, like a great scimitar gave him a great blow on the left leg, which brought the captain down on his face, then the Indians threw themselves upon him, and ran him through with lances and scimitars, and all the other arms which they had, so that they deprived of life our mirror, light, comfort, and true guide. Whilst the Indians were thus overpowering him, several times he turned around toward us to see if we were all in safety, as though his obstinate fight had no other object than to give an opportunity for the retreat of his men. We who fought to extremity, and who were covered with wounds, seeing that he was dead, proceeded to the boats which were on the point of going away. This fatal battle was fought on the 27th of April of 1521, on a Saturday; a day in which the captain had chosen himself, because he had a special devotion to it. There perished with him eight of our men, and four of the Indians, who had become Christians; we had also many wounded, amongst whom I must reckon myself. The enemy lost only fifteen men. We can only imagine how the polsoned arrow hit him-it may be just luck for the warriors, or they may have realized that the legs were better targets because the Europeans were wearing armor that covered the upper body. Nonetheless, it was an essential point because Magellan was defeated, and they started to retreat to the boats. While wading to the boats, Magellan was overcome by the Mactan warriors, who now used swords (scimitars) for the kill. This account of Magellan's death Informs us how different we have imagined this event. What we know as general knowledge about this battle is an oversimplified narrative that is easy to tell. While it was true that it was Lapulapu's forces who defeated Magellan's forces, once we base the story from an eyewitness account, the variables of the battle become clearer. But this account is only one account, and we cannot deny the fact that Pigafetta was overcome by emotion seeing their leader die. He might have even been exaggerating some aspects of the battle. For example, would it not have terrified Magellan's forces, numbering at a measly 49, to see the more than a thousand Mactan warriors while they waded toward the shore? It would have been logical and easy to comprehend how grossly outnumbered the Europeans were. Despite their more advanced weapons and armors, it would have been obvious what was going to happen. How did he know that the arrow that hit Magellan was poisoned, when the Europeans never recovered Magellan's body? However, one thing is for sure: Lapulapu did not personally kill Magellan. Rizal's Retraction 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 vilified not the Catholic religion, but the friars, the primary agents of injustice in the Philippine society. It is understandable, therefore, that any plece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he has written against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines could deal substantial damage to his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such a 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 has written against the Church. Rizal's Retraction (Translation of the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia) C.M. on 18 May 1935 I declare myself a Catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me. Manila 29 of December of 1896 Jose Rizal There are several 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 Fr. Vicente Balaguer. However, the "original" text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four decades of disappearance. Doubts on the retraction document abound, primarily because only one eyewitness account of the writing of the document exists-that of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. He claimed he "was the one who assisted Rizal most of that sad day's hours" and even "argued with him and demolished his arguments." According to his testimony, Rizal woke up several times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which seem 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. Another eyewitness account surfaced in the last decade. Among the 1,000 reports found in the Cuerpo de Vigilancia collection published in 2011, around 30 are about Rizal, and eight of these reports can shed light on the retraction controversy. One is a surveillance report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Federico Moreno. The report detalls the statement of Moreno to the Cuerpo de Vigilancia. Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santiago to report on the events during the (illegible) day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following: At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel, Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest [Jose] Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Adjutant of the Garrison, Señor [Eloy] Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a prayer book which was brought to him shortly by Father [Estanislao] March. Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that these two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote for a long time by himself. At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor [Juan] del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the accused had written. It seems this was the retraction. From 3 to 5:30 in the afternoon, Rizal read his prayer book several times, prayed kneeling before the altar and in the company of Fathers Vilaclara and March, read the Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity repeatedly as well as the Prayers for the Departing Soul. At 6 in the afternoon the following persons arrived and entered the chapel; Teodora Alonzo, mother of Rizal, and his sisters, Lucia, Maria, Olimpia, Josefa, Trinidad and Dolores. Embracing them, the accused bade them farewell with great strength of character and without shedding a tear. The mother of Rizal left the chapel weeping and carrying two bundles of several utensils belonging to her son who had used them while in prison. A little after 8 in the evening, at the urgings of Señor Andrade, the accused was served a plate of tinola, his last meal on earth. The Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure and Fathers March and Vilaclara visited him at 9 in the evening. He rested until 4 in the morning and again resumed praying before the altar. At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison accompanied by his sister Pilar, both dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded with tears. Rizal heard mass and confessed to Father March. Afterwards he heard another mass where he received communion. At 7:30, a European artilleryman handcuffed him and he left for the place of execution accompanied by various Jesuits, his counsel and the Assistant of the Plaza. Father March gave him a holy picture of the Virgin that Rizal kissed repeatedly. When the accused left, I noticed he was very pale but I am very certain that all the time he was imprisoned he demonstrated great strength of character and composure. God grant Your Excellency. Manila 30 December 1896. This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence. However, nowhere in the report was Fr. Balaguer mentioned. This discrepancy is a blow to the priest's claim of being a credible source. 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. Lesson Summary Historical interpretation is at the heart of historical analysis, and historians interpret the past based on primary sources as evidence. Some historical interpretations suffer from oversimplification, inadequate evidence, and tentativeness. The Battle of Mactan was oversimplified; based on the evidence, Lapulapu was not the young warrior we imagine him to be, and he did not personally kill Magellan. The battle was won because of the Mactan's warriors, whose strategy and sheer number easily defeated the Europeans. A closer analysis of primary accounts of the first Catholic Mass show that it did not happen in Masao, Butuan, but instead in Limasawa, Leyte. Rizal may have retracted his statements against the Catholic faith. Still, scholars agree that this does not tarnish Rizal's heroism today.