RPH R£VI£V£R.pdf

M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 LESSON 1 HISTORY: INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL SOURCES A. DEFINITION HISTORY History refers to the study and interpretation by a historian on the data and other sources of the past human activity, people, societi...

M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 LESSON 1 HISTORY: INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL SOURCES A. DEFINITION HISTORY History refers to the study and interpretation by a historian on the data and other sources of the past human activity, people, societies and civilizations leading to the present day. Three important concepts - First history as we all know is based on past events. - Second, it is interpreted by someone, usually by historians. They gather, discard and interpret the sources that they encounter. - And finally, the most important history relies on data and documents which historians call historical sources. B. History’s Subject Matter The word history came from the Greek word Historia which means inquiry. Clearly the word Historia does not mean past events. It denotes asking question or investigation of the past done by person trained to do so or by persons who are interested in human past C. History & Historians Historian is an expert or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region or social phenomenon. - According to Gottschalk, historians are many times removed from the events under investigation. He added that only a part of what was observed in the past was remembered by those who observed it, only a part of what was remembered was recorded; only a part of what was recorded has survived, only a part of what was survive has come to the historian attention - Some authors define history as a study of historical perspective. In reconstructing the past, a historian can be subjective; after all he is human, fallible and capable of error. People’s memories are filled with bias, self righteousness, pride, vanity, spinning, obstruction and outright lies. M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 LESSON 2 HISTORICAL CRITICISMS A. DEFINITION Historical Criticism is a branch of criticism that investigates the origin of text or source in order to understand the word behind the text. Historical Criticism seeks greater understanding of the texts by analyzing the historical and social contexts in which they developed. Goal of Historical Criticism Primary Historical Criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original historical context and its literal sense. Secondary Historical Criticism establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. Two Types of Criticism External Criticism investigates the documents form. Internal Criticism investigates the content of the documents. B. Additional Goal of Historical Criticism Traditionally, this has been to try to understand the text’s meaning in its original context and to answer questions about the text, such as: Who wrote it? When was it written? What else what happening at the time of its writing? How did it come to be in the form we have it today M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 What did it mean to the people Who first read or heard it? C. External Criticism This type of criticism looks for the obvious sign of forgery or misrepresentation. This type of criticism tests the authenticity of the sources. It is interested in the writing styles of the eyewitness and his ignorance of the facts. The historian also analyzes the original manuscript; its integrity, localization and the date it was written. To ascertain if a particular data is fabricated, forged, fake, corrupted or a hoax, that source must undergo the test of Authenticity. F. TEST OF CREDIBILITY The first step is the identification of the author. In this steps historian also examine the mental processes of the witness, if he is capable of telling the truth, or if he is mentally challenged. Historians often use rubrics to assess the credibility of an author by examining their personal attitudes and whether they are genuinely telling or bragging about events. The second step in testing the credibility of the eyewitness is to determine the approximate date.Rizal's poem "Sa aking mga kabata" at eight years old showcases the lack of primary education in the Philippines at the time of writing. Historians trust sources closer to events they describe, assessing eyewitness competence and author's background, such as education, health, age, or social status. The third step in testing the credibility of the source is its ability to tell the truth. Historians examine how near an eyewitness to the event.Historians rely on sources closest to their events, evaluating eyewitness competence and author's background, including education, health, age, or social status. The fourth step is the willingness to tell the truth. If the eyewitness is coerced, forced or somebody threatens him to tell something then his account is not valid. If the eyewitness wants to hide something for personal reason The last step is to look for corroboration. This particular step rest upon the independent testimony of two or more reliable sources. The words independent testimony must be emphasised. For instance, if the soldier who fought the battle, a general who oversaw the battle and a doctor who treated those wounded who fought the battle, all recorded the same fact or all agree about an event, historians consider that event proven. D. Test of Authenticity M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 The FIRST STEP to test a source is to determine the date of the document to see whether it is anachronistic. Anachronism refers to something that was not present at a specific time, such as a person, thing, or idea placed at the wrong time. Example can be found in Rizal’s allegedly first poem “Sa Aking Mga Kabata” where we could find the word “kalayaan”. Rizal first encountered the term "El Amor Patrio" through Marcelo H. Del Pilar's translation of his 1882 essay, while the poem was supposedly written by him in 1869. “ Sa Aking Mga Kabata” 1869 where we could find the word “kalayaan”. He first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. Del Pilar’s translation of Rizal’s essay “ El Amor Patrio” 1882. The SECOND STEP is to determine the author’s handwriting, signature or seal. Handwriting of an author can be compared to other writings, revealing signs of forgery like patch writing, hesitation, pauses, tremor, poor line quality, and erasures. The THIRD STEP in determining the authenticity of the source is by looking for the anachronistic style. This test examines idiomatic expressions or orthography in documents, which are conventionally understood figurative meanings by native speakers. LESSON 2 CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED Primary Sources A. Background of the Author/Creator First the researcher must provide a brief biographical sketch of the author or creator of the primary source. The author's biography will prioritize factors such as family background, educational attainment, and religion. B. Background of the Document/Primary Source Basic background of the source like the type of primary source, how many parts or chapter, how long is the document shall be given attention. The primary source can be found in various locations such as libraries, archives, museums, historical societies, or private collections. To verify source authenticity, verify document origin and intended audience. Address recipient for letters, diary author for diaries. M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 The next step involves identifying the source's purpose, understanding its historical context, conducting background research, examining significant historical events, and determining its intended audience. C. Content Analysis of the Important Historical Information Found in the Document To ensure accuracy, verify the research conducted on the internet and the primary source provided by your instructor. To analyze a primary source, check for bias, which refers to unbalanced or prejudiced information, and can be strongly positive or strongly negative. Analyze the historical perspective of a creator by checking their background, including nationality, social status, political persuasion, cultural background, religion, or education. The final task involves examining the historical context of the document, which refers to the understanding that sources were created at distinct times. D. Contribution and Relevance of the Document in Understanding the Grand Narrative of Philippine History This activity examines the cause and consequences of primary sources, such as Ferdinand Magellan's arrival and his conversion to Catholicism. It also examines the turning point or dramatic moment of change caused by the event or primary source. E. Relevance of the documents to the present time. Historical significance refers to the importance people place on events or ideas from the past, and as it is a decision-making process, different people may have different opinions on the significance of these events. The First Mass Site in the Philippines CEBU CITY, Philippines —— With the quincentennial celebration approaching, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) hopes the debates on the true location of the first Mass will finally be resolved. Fr. Marvin Mejia, secretary-general of the CBCP, said the matter was still being looked into by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) and the Association of Church Historians in the Philippines. The first Mass and the first baptism are the two major historical ecclesiastical events that are given focus in the quincentennial celebrations sanctioned by the CBCP and the Archdiocese of Cebu. M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 Cebu is identified as the site of the first baptism with Rajah Humabon, Queen Juana and hundreds of their community members being the first converts, according to the accounts of Antonio Pigafetta, the chronicler of the Magellan-Elcano expedition. The first baptism was on April 14, 1521. According to Pigafetta, the first Mass was celebrated on March 31, 1521, an Easter Sunday. Pigafetta referred to the venue as “Mazaua. Declaration of PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE Translation by Sulpicio Guevara In the town of Cavite-Viejo, Province of Cavite, this 12th day of June 1898: BEFORE ME, Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, War Counsellor and Special Delegate designated to proclaim and solemnize this Declaration of Independence by the Dictatorial Government of the Philippines, pursuant to, and by virtue of, a Decree issued by the Engregious Dictator Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy, The undersigned assemblage of military chiefs and others of the army who could not attend, as well as the representatives of the various towns, Taking into account the fact that the people of this country are already tired of bearing the ominous joke of Spanish domination, Because of arbitrary arrests and abuses of the Civil Guards who cause deaths in connivance with and even under the express orders of their superior officers who at times would order the shooting of those placed under arrest under the pretext that they attempted to escape in violation of known Rules and Regulations, which abuses were left unpunished, and because of unjust deportations of illustrious Filipinos, especially those decreed by General Blanco at the instigation of the Archbishop and friars interested in keeping them in ignorance for egoistic and selfish ends, which deportations were carried out through processes more execrable than those of the Inquisition which every civilized nation repudiates as a trial without hearing. Had resolved to start a revolution in August 1896 in order to regain the independence and sovereignty of which the people had been deprived by Spain through Governor Miguel Lopez de Legazpi who, continuing the course followed by his predecessor Ferdinand Magellan who landed on the shores of Cebu and occupied said Island by means of a Pact of Friendship with Chief Tupas, although he was killed in the battle that took place in said shores to which battle he was provoked by Chief Kalipulako ** of Mactan who suspected his evil designs, landed on the Island of Bohol by entering also into a Blood Compact with its Chief Sikatuna, with the purpose of later taking by force the Island of Cebu, and because his successor Tupas did not allow him to occupy it, he went to Manila, the capital, winning likewise the friendship of its Chiefs Soliman and Lakandula, later taking possession of the city and the whole Archipelago in the name of Spain by virtue of an order of King Philip II, and with these historical precedents and because in international law the prescription established by law to legalize the vicious acquisition of private property is not recognized, the legitimacy of such revolution can not be put in doubt which was calmed but not complete stifled by the pacification proposed by Don Pedro A. Paterno with Don Emilio Aguinaldo as President of the Republic established in Biak-na-Bato and accepted by Governor-General Don Fernando Primo De Rivera under terms, both written and oral, among them being a general amnesty for all deported and convicted persons; that by reason of the non-fulfillment of some of the terms, after the destruction of the plaza of Cavite, Don Emilio Aguinaldo returned in order to initiate a new revolution and no sooner had he given M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 the order to rise on the 31st of last month when several towns anticipating the revolution, rose in revolt on the 28th , such that a Spanish contingent of 178 men, between Imus Cavite-Viejo, under the command of major of the Marine Infantry capitulated , the revolutionary movement spreading like wild fire to other towns of Cavite and the other provinces of Bataan, Pampanga, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, and Morong, some of them with seaports and such was the success of the victory of our arms, truly marvelous and without equal in the history of colonial revolutions that in the first mentioned province only the Detachments in Naic and Indang remained to surrender; in the second all Detachments had been wiped out; in the third the resistance of the Spanish forces was localized in the town of San Fernando where the greater part of them are concentrated, the remainder in Macabebe, Sexmoan, and Guagua; in the fourth, in the town of Lipa; in the fifth, in the capital and in Calumpit; and in last two remaining provinces, only in there respective capitals, and the city of Manila will soon be besieged by our forces as well as the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, Pangasinan, La Union, Zambales, and some others in the Visayas where the revolution at the time of the pacification and others even before, so that the independence of our country and the revindication of our sovereignty is assured. And having as witness to the rectitude of our intentions the Supreme Judge of the Universe, and under the protection of our Powerful and Humanitarian Nation, The United States of America, we do hereby proclaim and declare solemnly in the name by authority of the people of these Philippine Islands, That they are and have the right to be free and independent; that they have ceased to have allegiance to the Crown of Spain; that all political ties between them are should be completely severed and annulled; and that, like other free and independent States, they enjoy the full power to make War and Peace, conclude commercial treaties, enter into alliances, regulate commerce, and do all other acts and things which and Independent State Has right to do, And imbued with firm confidence in Divine Providence, we hereby mutually bind ourselves to support this Declaration with our lives, our fortunes, and with our sacred possession, our Honor. We recognize, approve, and ratify, with all the orders emanating from the same, the Dictatorship established by Don Emilio Aguinaldo whom we reverse as the Supreme Head of this Nation, which today begins to have a life of its own, in the conviction that he has been the instrument chosen by God, inspite of his humble origin, to effectuate the redemption of this unfortunate country as foretold by Dr. Don Jose Rizal in his magnificent verses which he composed in his prison cell prior to his execution, liberating it from the Yoke of Spanish domination, And in punishment for the impunity with which the Government sanctioned the commission of abuses by its officials, and for the unjust execution of Rizal and others who were sacrified in order to please the insatiable friars in their hydropical thirst for vengeance against and extermination of all those who oppose their Machiavellian ends, trampling upon the Penal Code of these Islands, and of those suspected persons arrested by the Chiefs of Detachments at the instigation of the friars, without any form nor semblance of trial and without any spiritual aid of our sacred Religion; and likewise, and for the same ends, eminent Filipino priest, Doctor Don Jose Burgos, Don Mariano Gomez, and Don Jacinto Zamora were hanged whose innocent blood was shed due to the intrigues of these so-called Religious corporations which made the authorities to believe that the military uprising at the fort of San Felipe in Cavite on the night of January 21, 1872 was instigated by those Filipino martyrs, thereby impeding the execution of the decree- sentence issued by the Council of State in the appeal in the administrative case interposed by the secular clergy against the Royal Orders that directed that the parishes under them within the jurisdiction of this Bishopric be turned over to the Recollects in exchange for those controlled by them in M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 Mindanao which were to be transferred to the Jesuits, thus revoking them completely and ordering the return of those parishes, all of which proceedings are on file with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to which they are sent last month of the year of the issuance of the proper Royal Degree which, in turn, caused the grow of the tree of the liberty in our dear land that grow more and more through the iniquitous measures of oppressions, until the last drop of our chalice of suffering having been drained, the first spark of revolution broke out in Caloocan, spread out to Santa Mesa and continued its course to the adjoining regions of the province were the unequalled heroism of its inhabitants fought a one sided battle against superior forces of General Blanco and General Polavieja for a period of 3 months, without proper arms nor ammunitions, except bolos, pointed bamboos, and arrows. Moreover, we confer upon our famous Dictator Don Emilio Aguinaldo all the powers necessary to enable him to discharge the duties of Government, including the prerogatives of granting pardon and amnesty, And lastly, it was results unanimously that this Nation, already free and independent as of this day, must used the same flag which up to now is being used, whose designed and colored are found described in the attached drawing, the white triangle signifying the distinctive emblem of the famous Society of the "Katipunan" which by means of its blood compact inspired the masses to rise in revolution; the tree stars, signifying the three principal Islands of these Archipelago - Luzon, Mindanao, and Panay where the revolutionary movement started; the sun representing the gigantic step made by the son of the country along the path of Progress and Civilization; the eight rays, signifying the eight provinces - Manila, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bataan, Laguna, and Batangas - which declares themselves in a state of war as soon as the first revolt was initiated; and the colors of Blue, Red, and White, commemorating the flag of the United States of America, as a manifestation of our profound gratitude towards this Great Nation for its disinterested protection which it lent us and continues lending us. And holding up this flag of ours, I present it to the gentlemen here assembled: (List of signers eliminated. See http://www.msc.edu.ph/centennial/declaration.html for list.) Who solemnly swear to recognize and defend it unto the last drop of their blood. In witness thereof, I certify that this Act of Declaration of Independence was signed by me and by all those here assembled including the only stranger who attended those proceedings, a citizen of the U.S.A., Mr. L.M. Johnson, a Colonel of Artillery. Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista War Counsellor and Special Delegate-Designate SA HARAP KO, Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, Tagapayo sa Digmaan at Espesyal na Delegado na itinalagang ipahayag at ipagdasal itong Deklarasyon ng Kalayaan ng Diktadoryang Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, alinsunod sa, at sa bisa ng, isang Dekretong inilabas ng Egregious Dictator Don Emilio Aguinaldo Y. Famy, Ang naka-sign na pagtitipon ng mga pinuno ng militar at iba pang hukbo na hindi nakadalo, gayundin ang mga kinatawan ng ibat ibang bayan, Isinasaalang-alang ang katotohanan na ang mga tao sa bansang ito ay pagod na sa pagdadala ng nakakatakot na biro ng dominasyon ng Espanyol, Dahil sa mga di-makatwirang pag-aresto at pang-aabuso sa mga Guwardiya Sibil na nagdudulot ng mga pagkamatay kasabwat at maging sa ilalim ng hayagang utos ng kanilang nakatataas na mga opisyal na kung minsan ay nag-uutos na barilin ang mga inilagay sa ilalim ng pagkukunwari na tinangka nilang tumakas bilang paglabag sa kilalang Mga Panuntunan at Regulasyon, na ang mga pang-aabuso ay hindi pinarusahan, at dahil sa hindi makatarungang pagpapatapon ng mga kilalang Pilipino, lalo na ang mga ipinag-utos ni Heneral Blanco sa udyok ng M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 Arsobispo at mga prayle na interesadong panatilihin ang mga ito sa kamangmangan para sa makasarili at makasariling layunin, kung saan ang mga pagpapatapon ay isinagawa. sa pamamagitan ng mga prosesong higit na masusupil kaysa sa Inquisition na itinatakwil ng bawat sibilisadong bansa bilang isang paglilitis nang walang pagdinig. The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay 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 Gomes, 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. 1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective 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. 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. 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. M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 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 ofIntramuros. 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. A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident 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 M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 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 sedire 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. Unraveling the 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 M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 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 weenjoy our freeedom, 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.” Summary of "The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny" by Chris Antonette Piedad- Pugay The 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the execution of the three martyr priests (GOMBURZA) were pivotal events in Philippine history that contributed to the rise of nationalism leading up to independence. The mutiny, largely driven by Filipino dissatisfaction with the abolition of privileges for workers at the Cavite arsenal, is interpreted differently by Spanish and Filipino historians. From the Spanish perspective, represented by historian Jose Montero y Vidal and Governor- General Rafael Izquierdo, the mutiny was framed as a conspiratorial revolt aimed at overthrowing the colonial government, fueled by propaganda and the influence of the native clergy. They characterized the event as a planned uprising that escalated from a local celebration into violence against Spanish officials. In contrast, Filipino historian Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera viewed the mutiny as a reaction to oppressive policies rather than a conspiracy. He emphasized that the Spanish government exploited the event to further their agenda and discredit the Filipino clergy, leading to harsh repercussions, including the execution of GOMBURZA and imprisonment of other patriots. Despite differing narratives, key facts emerge: widespread discontent among Filipinos, the oppressive policies of the Spanish government, and a failure to investigate the actual events surrounding the mutiny. The execution of GOMBURZA galvanized Filipino sentiment against colonial rule and ultimately laid the groundwork for the Philippine Revolution of 1896. In conclusion, the author underscores the importance of remembering these historical events and the sacrifices made for freedom, urging Filipinos to maintain awareness of their past as they enjoy their independence today. DEFINITION OF TERMS ⬗ MUTINY Revolt among a group of people to oppose, change, or overthrow an organization to which they were previously obedient. ⬗ SECULARIZATION A movement of the Filipino Catholic priests to replace the Spanish friars with native secular priests. ⬗ FRAILOCRACIA Term used to define the rulings of the friars during the 19th century. ⬗ ROYAL AUDIENCIA Corresponds to the Supreme Court of the present time. ⬗ GAROTTE An execution through strangulation (choking). ⬗ Arsenal Place where weapons and military equipment are stored or made. M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 THE CAVITE MUTINY: SUMMARY ⬗ The Cavite mutiny (El Motín de Cavite) of 1872 was an uprising of the Filipino military personnel of Fort San Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite, on 20 January 1872. Around 200 locally recruited colonial troops and laborers rose up in the belief that it would elevate to a national uprising. The mutiny was unsuccessful, and government soldiers executed many of the participants which began to crack down on a growing Philippine nationalist movement. THE SPANISH VERSION: A PLANNED CONSPIRACY ⬗ Governor General Rafael Gerónimo Cayetano Izquierdo y Gutiérrez was a Spanish Military Officer, politician, and statesman who served as the Governor General of the Philippines from April 4, 1871 to January 8, 1873 and was famous for his “iron fist” type of government was one of the proponents of the Spanish version of the mutiny in Cavite. ⬗ José Montero y Vidal was Spanish writer, historian, geographer, and politician who interpreted that the Mutiny was an attempt to remove and overthrow the Spanish Colonizers in the Philippines. ⬗ 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, residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. ⬗ They suggested that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to kill 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 January 20, 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto. Unfortunately, the participants to the feast celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays. ⬗ Those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200 men headed by Sergeant Fernando La Madrid launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal in Fort San Felipe. ⬗ When the news reached Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily siezed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant La Madrid were killed in the skirmish. THE CAUSE ⬗ Both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal (non-payment of tributes and exemption from force labor) were the main reason of the “revolution”. ⬗ Another major cause is the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies of Spain to overthrow the government ⬗ Other causes include dirty propagandas propagated by the press, and democratic, liberal, and republican books and pamphlets reaching the country. THE EFFECT M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 ⬗ Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos and lambasted the indios as gullible and possessed an innate inclination for stealing. ⬗ He dissolved the native regiments of the artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares. ⬗ 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 Fr. Burgos and Zamora. ⬗ The GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and on February 17, 1872, in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among the Filipinos, the GOMBURZA were executed. ⬗ Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Royal Audiencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Mariana Islands. THE FILIPINO VERSION: A RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE ⬗ Trinidad Hermenegildo José María Juan Francisco Pardo de Tavera y Gorricho was a Filipino physician, historian and politician of Spanish and Portuguese descent who was known for his writings about different aspects of Philippine culture and wrote the Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. ⬗ Edmund Plauchut was a French journalist, writer, and traveler who complimented Pardo de Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort but his account dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed. ⬗ On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant La Madrid 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. PARDO DE TAVERA’S POINT OF VIEW ⬗ The incident was a mere mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of Cavite arsenal who turned out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. ⬗ Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies (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 he believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political club) is the main reason of the uprising. ⬗ It is also important to note the during this time: The Central Government in Madrid announced the deprivation of the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of educational institutions. In 1870 Segismundo Moret, the Minister of Colonies, issued a decree that promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run by the friars into a school M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 called Instituto Filipino (Philippine Institute). The Filipino clergy members actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow Filipinos priests to take hold of the parishes in the country. ⬗ The friars took advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy throughout the archipelago with the objective of destroying Spanish sovereignty. ⬗ Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the uprising as a powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also including the residents of Cavite and Manila, and the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. ⬗ 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. THE UNRAVELING TRUTHS Considering the 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 the 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 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 Filipinos 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 are deemed as injustices. ⬗ 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 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 event, the Philippine Independence. MISCELLANEA ⬗ One main reason why the GomBurZa was accussed of spearheding the Cavite Mutiny and was charged of treason and sedition was because of the of their involvement in the movement called secularization headed by Fr. Pedro Pelaez. The friars wanted their power and influence back and one way to do it is to M ELCHRIS JOSH ORTEGA BSNAME 1102 discredit the native clergy and accuse them of leading the mutiny for the Central Government to mistrust the clergy. Thus, Padre Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora were captured, put under a trial, found guilty, and was sentenced of garrote. ⬗ Mariano Gómez was the head priest of Bacoor, Cavite on 2 June 1824. He taught for the agriculture and cottage industries aside from taking care of spiritual necessities. He is also one of those who fought for the rights of his fellow native priests against Spanish abuses and was also active in the publication of the newspaper La Verdad (The Truth). ⬗ José Apolonio Burgos was a pastor in the district of Intramuros whose debates over the rights of native priests had extended to include questions of race and nationalism which eventually cause him to be implicated in a mutiny in Cavite. ⬗ Jacinto Zamora handled parishes in Marikina, Pasig, and Batangas. He was also assigned to manage the Manila Cathedral on 3 December 1864. He had a habit of playing cards after saying Mass which led him to be accused of leading a mutiny. Once, he received an invitation stating that his friend had "Powder and Munitions"; in a gambler's language, "Powder and Munitions" meant that the player had much money to gamble with. This invitation fell into the hands of the Spaniards and worse, it was on the night of the Cavite mutiny. This invitation was used by the Spaniards as evidence against Zamora. The court accused them of inciting the revolt, even if the evidence was not adequate.