Philippine History Spaces for Conflict and Controversies.pptx

Philippine History Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

1. Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

2. Learning Objectives : To interpret historical events using primary sources. To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from a historical text. To identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools in interpreting historical events through primary sources. To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary sources.

3. The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas . Before it was revealed as a hoax, it was a source of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker was installed in the town of Batan , Aklan in 1956, with the following text: " CODE OF KALANTIAW . Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw , third Chief of Panay, born in Aklan, established his government in the peninsula of Batang , Aklan Sakup . Considered the First Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433 a penal code now known as Code of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza , Spain, obtained the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney ." It was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Scott , then a doctoral candidate at the University of Santo Tomas , defended his research on pre-Hispanic sources in Philippine history. He attributed the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de la Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the code itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon . Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scott's findings, but there are still some who would like to believe that the code is a legitimate document.

4. "Sa Aking Mga Kabata " is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he was eight years old and is probably one of Rizal's most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that this poem, with the now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita / mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda " was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal's authorship of the poem seems all unassailable. There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco , who claimed to have received it in 1884 from Rizal's close friend, Saturnino Raselis . Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings, and more importantly, he never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis . Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the poem to Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word " kalayaan ." But it was documented in Rizal's letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilar's translation of Rizal's essay " El Amor Patrio ," where it was spelled as " kalayahan ." While Rizal's native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish, starting from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing himself in his native tongue. The poem's spelling is also suspect the use of letters "k" and "w " to replace " c " and " u ," respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written during his time, it should use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.

5. Multiperspectivity With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we must note is multiperspectivity . This can be defined as a way of looking at historical events, personalities, developments, cultures, and societies from different perspectives. This means that there is a multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contains preconceptions, The historian decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without considering other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just, many of the ways a historian may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity as an approach in history, we must understand that historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus of dissent.

6. Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating source materials that reflect different views of an event in history, because singular historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate, Different sources that counter each other may create space for more investigation and research, while providing more evidence for those truths that these sources agree on. Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths-an official document may note different aspects of the past than, say, a memoir of an ordinary person on the same event. Different historical agents create different historical truths, and while this may be a burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the historical scholarship. Taking these in close regard in the reading of historical interpretations. It provides for the audience a more complex, but also a more complete and richer understanding of the past.  

7. Case Study 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines?   The popularity of knowing where the “firsts” happened in history has been an easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines, but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading historical events. Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this has been the case for three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which commemorates the expedition’s arrival and celebration of Mass on 8 April 1521. The Butuan claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event. Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century, together with the increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines, a more nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which brought to light more considerations in going against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino scholars. It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians refer to in identifying the site of the first Mass. One Is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of Magellan’s ship, Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The other, and the more complete, was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al mondo (First Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first. Masa

8. Case Study 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?   The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very important milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time, directly influencing the decisive events of the Philippine Revolution toward the end of the century. While the significance is unquestioned, what made this year controversial are the different sides to the story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case study, we zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.

9. Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872 Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and Montero. First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. he te in ch of ad ed to ng ic rt, ks Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of the Cavite Mutiny Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide , Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 274-280. This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish residents and by the friars... the Central Government in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and management of the university... it was due to these facts and promises that the Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on the other hand, feared that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the past. ad s, h-ed m ...Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only aspiration of the people was to secure the material and education advancement of the country... OC me to on in he of P According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from

10. the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos, which the General saw as a smokescreen to creating a political club. Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and direction and management of educational institutions. The friars needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity. However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos. Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut , complemented Tavera's account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut's Account of the Cavite Mutiny Source: Edmund Plauchut , "The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom -Bur-Za," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide , Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 251-268. General La Torre... created a junta composed of high officials... including some friars and six Spanish officials.... At the same time there was created by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate the same problems submitted to the Manila committee. When the two finished work, it was found that they came to the same conclusions. Here is the summary of the reforms they considered necessary to introduce: 1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection. 2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations. 3. Reduction of export fees

11. 4 . Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom of worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag. 5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented, 6. Changes in primary and secondary education. 7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines, rendering unnecessary the sending home of short-term civil officials every time there is a change of ministry. 8. Study of direct-tax system. 9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly. ...The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo... put a sudden end to all dreams of reforms... the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were probably expected as a result of the bitter disputes between the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a strong desire on the part of the other to repress cruelly. In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in Manila a Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in March of 1871... to repress the growth of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the opening of the school... the day previous to the scheduled inauguration... The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction and pay taxes every year. But those who were employed at the maestranza of the artillery, in the engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted from this obligation from time immemorial... Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the Governor withdrew from such old employees their retirement privileges and declassified them into the ranks of those who worked on public roads. The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their dominance, which had started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos. They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government. Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 resulted in the martyrdom artyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898.

12. Jose Rizal is celebrated as a revolutionary hero for his writings aimed at ending colonialism and fostering Filipino identity, particularly in his influential novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo . His works criticize the friars, who were seen as agents of injustice, rather than the Catholic faith itself. Consequently, any document suggesting he retracted his criticisms of the Church could significantly tarnish his revolutionary image. Such a document, known as “The Retraction,” allegedly signed by Rizal shortly before his execution, affirms his Catholic faith and retracts his previous writings against the Church. There are four versions of this retraction, with the first published on the day of his execution, and the original text discovered decades later in 1935. The authenticity of the retraction remains a topic of debate among scholars.   

13. The Balaguer Testimony Raises doubts about the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction document, as it relies solely on the account of Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. In his testimony, Balaguer describes Rizal as having woken multiple times, confessed four times, attended Mass, received communion, and prayed the rosary—behaviors that seemed uncharacteristic for him. Despite the unusual nature of these actions, Balaguer’s account is the only primary source claiming that Rizal wrote a retraction, which has been used to support the document’s authenticity. The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia , discovered in 2016 by Professor Rene R. Escalante, offers a different perspective on the events surrounding Rizal’s last hours. A report by Federico Moreno, based on the statements of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia , describes Rizal refusing to sign a prepared retraction document offered by Jesuit priests. The report then suggests that Rizal later wrote and signed a document on his own, which was then witnessed by prison officials. This account, unlike Balaguer’s, doesn’t mention the presence of Fr. Balaguer, casting his role as a primary source into question.

14. The Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal   The eyewitness account of the last hours of Jose Rizal, reported by the Cuerpo de Vigilancia , details his final moments in prison. On the morning of his execution, Rizal was accompanied by his counsel and a Jesuit priest and was served a light breakfast. He requested a prayer book and engaged in discussions about religious matters with the Jesuit priests. They presented him with a prepared retraction document, which Rizal initially refused to sign. After a meal, he asked to write and later submitted a document he had composed. This document was signed by Rizal in the presence of prison officials. The account also notes that Rizal married his lover shortly before his execution. While this testimony supports the existence of the retraction document, it does not mention Fr. Balaguer, suggesting that his role as a primary source may be less significant. Despite ongoing controversy regarding the retraction, many scholars believe it does not diminish Rizal’s legacy, which inspired continued revolutionary efforts leading to Philippine independence in 1898. 

15. Rizal’s Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable in fact, the precursor of the Katipunan as an organization is the La Liga Filipina, an organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as me of its members .  Rizal’s connection to the Katipunan is significant, as its precursor, La Liga Filipina, was founded by him, with Andres Bonifacio among its members. However, La Liga Filipina was short-lived due to Rizal’s exile to Dapitan, leading former members to establish the Katipunan shortly afterward on July 7, 1892. Although Rizal was not formally part of the Katipunan, its members held his work in high regard, with many leaders being former members of La Liga Filipina. In 1896, the Katipuneros sent Pio Valenzuela to consult Rizal about their plans for revolution. Valenzuela’s account of their meeting is disputed by scholars, but he reported that Rizal opposed immediate revolutionary action, considering it suicidal given the Spaniards’ military advantage. Rizal advised the Katipunan to first gain support from wealthy Filipinos and suggested recruiting Antonio Luna to lead the military efforts . 

16. The "Cry of Rebellion" marks the beginning of the Philippine Revolution against Spanish colonial rule. However, there's ongoing debate about where and when it actually happened. Different accounts and dates have been reported, including: Balintawak, August 26, 1896 (according to Guillermo Masangkay ) Pugad Lawin , August 23, 1896 (according to Pio Valenzuela) Kangkong, Balintawak, August 1896 (according to Teodoro Kalaw ) Bahay Toro, August 24, 1896 (according to Santiago Alvarez) Historians disagree on which account is accurate. Some suggest that the Cry of Rebellion may have occurred in multiple locations and dates, as revolutionaries moved to avoid Spanish detection. The significance of the Cry of Rebellion lies in its role as a pivotal moment in Philippine history, marking the start of the revolution against Spanish colonial rule.

17. THANK YOU  !