LESON NO.
1
NIVAL, TG A.
BSTM 2-1
22-00149
OCTOBER 25, 2023
1. How do you understand the text? What is it all about?
- The claim that Limasawa was the site of the first Catholic Mass in the country
has long been questioned by some Filipino historians. In Butuan, historian
Sonia Zaide described Masao (also Mazaua) as the place of the first mass of
Christians. The diary of Antonio Pigafetta, the chronicler of Magellan's
voyage, is the basis of Zaide 's assertion. In 1995, Agusan del Norte-Butuan
City Congresswoman Ching Plaza filed a bill in Congress questioning the
Limasawa hypothesis and claiming the "site of the first mass" it's
Butuan. To research the issue and recommend a historical finding, the
Philippine Congress referred the matter to the National Historical Institute.
Then Dr. Samuel K. Tan, chair of the NHI, reaffirmed Limasawa as the
location of the first mass.
2. What is your stand about the site of the First Mass?
- There are strong reasons for Masawa in Butuan and not for Limasawa in
Samar-Leyte as the location of the first Mass celebrated in our land. The
eyewitness accounts of the people of that time are incontrovertible: Antonio
Pigafetta, the official chronicler of the voyage of Magellan; Gines de Mafra,
one of the original crew of the original crew of Magellan who managed to
return to Spain and wrote on what he found in Masawa, and other supporting
testimonies. As a people evangelized by the Spanish colonizers in the early
1500s, I hope and pray that this question will be granted true justice and
ultimately conclusively settled and laid to rest in the annals of our history. In
the first place, it might not be a major deal, a game-changer, but it needs to
be granted justice all the same.
3. Cite evidences which would suggest that the First Mass happened in Masau
(Butuan) and Limasawa (Southern Leyte)?
- The National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) panel adopted
the recommendation to end the dispute over the first-mass problem and
unanimously decided that the facts and arguments raised by the pro-Butuan
advocates are not adequate and compelling enough to warrant the NHI
(National Historical Institute) to repeal or reverse the decision on the case. It
is further supported by the evidence that it was only after 22 years, in 1543,
led by the next Spanish expedition. The first recorded Catholic Mass in the
Philippines took place on Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521. Father Pedro de
Valderrama conducted it along the shores of what was referred to as
"Mazaua" in Antonio Pigafetta's papers. There are strong reasons
for Masawa in Butuan and not for Limasawa in Samar-Leyte as the location of
the first Mass celebrated in our land. The eyewitness accounts of the people
of that time are incontrovertible: Antonio Pigafetta, the official chronicler of the
voyage of Magellan; Gines de Mafra, one of the original crew of Magellan
who managed to return to Spain and wrote on what he found in Masawa; and
other supporting testimonies. However, scholarly skepticism that Odoric has
ever been to the Philippines. The National Historical Institute, headed by its
chair, Ambeth Ocampo, eventually recognized the historical records of
Limasawa in Southern Leyte as the site of the first Mass on 31 March 1521.
Earlier reports have been verified by a panel of experts that the Easter
Sunday Mass celebrated by Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his
Spanish contingent on 31 March 1521 took place in Limasawa city, Southern
Leyte, where a shrine stands to commemorate the event. It discovered proof
and arguments that the Mass was held in Butuanokok as "not adequate
and compelling enough". "In a statement released on
Wednesday, the panel unanimously decided that the facts and arguments
raised by the pro-Butuan advocates are not sufficient and compelling enough
to warrant the NHI (National Historical Institute) to repeal or reverse the
decision on the case," NHCP chair Rene Escalante said.
LESON NO. 2
NIVAL, TG A.
BSTM 2-1
22-00149
OCTOBER 25, 2023
1. Write a critical essay on the possible biases of both versions regarding Cavite
mutiny.
- As told and as heard, every story has at least two angles to consider. Each
angle or side of the story has its own contentions, merits, or claims. Biases
and prejudices may be noticeable but they are undeniably inevitable as they
form part of the limitations of the one telling the story. To limit distortion,
exaggeration or perversion of facts, the need to expose oneself to differing
versions of any event is a necessary step in historical analysis in forming up
with an informed historical consciousness. One historical issue worth visiting
Philippine history is the Cavite Mutiny of 1872. The increasing interest given
to historical events has triggered the call to unearth historical data,
documents which are of great value mainly because of their proximity to the
time and place the event happened, and the credibility of the one telling the
account. has been enticing people in the academe to change the way
learning history from simple gathering or accumulating of basic historical facts
which commonly answered the questions on “who”, “when” and “where” and
learning its historical details responding exclusively to the “how” questions to
historical analysis which enables any learner or historian-to-be to answer the
primordial question of the “why”.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 has two extant versions coming from two opposing
camps namely: Spanish version and Filipino version.
The Spanish version of Cavite Mutiny of 1872 is narrated by Jose Montero y
Vidal. His account anchored on the thesis that the fateful event of the 2oth of
January 1872 happens due to the concerted effort of disgruntled native
soldiers and laborers of Cavite arsenal who willfully revolted to overthrow the
Spanish rule, and thus, guilty of rebellion and sedition. By such acts, the
execution of prominent critics of the Spaniards and friars by the Spanish
officials are justified, and the sentence of life imprisonment and deportation of
some natives critical of their incongruous rule is unquestionably legit if not
morally blurred. The account of Jose Montero y Vidal was even made credibly
possible by no less than Rafael de Izquierdo, the governor-general of the time
when the revolt of 1872 happened.
The Filipino version is told by Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera. For him, the so-
called Cavite Mutiny is a mere incident of mutiny orchestrated by native
soldiers and laborers who reacted to the harsh policy of the new governor-
general, Rafael de Izquierdo, who whimsically terminated the old-time
privileges such as exempting them from paying annual tribute and from
rendering forced labor or polo. As accounted, it is made clear that the mutiny
is blown-up by the Spanish officials and friars into a revolt as a way for
Filipinos to gain independence from Spanish monarch.
2. In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical
tools in interpreting historical events through primary sources? Justify your
answer.
- You should never interpret any source, primary or otherwise, without using
critical tools. However, you must be careful that you use the right tools.
The most basic critical tool is careful observation of the source, rather than
accepting an established interpretation or summary of the source. I have
often been astonished by the propagation of a common misinterpretation
based on text which does not even exist in the source.
The next tool is examining the provenance of the source. Where did it come
from? When does it first appear? What are its credentials and antecedents?
Is it independent, or is it entirely dependent on other sources which we have?
What was the author’s proximity to the events described?
The third tool is placement in context. A text may appear to mean almost the
opposite if it is displaced by 100 years.
The fourth tool is interpretation of authorial intention. From here on, we have
to be reminded that these are critical tools, and we need to be ready to treat
our own findings with greater scepticism than the text itself.
The fifth tool is comparison with other sources. It is important not to privilege
one source over another without good reason. ‘Known’ facts may only be
considered as such because they have been ‘known’ for longer.
Used correctly, it is always advantageous to use these critical tools. The
disadvantage is that they are easy to misuse. You can easily get carried away
allowing cognitive bias to creep in, and privileging your speculation over the
text.
LESON NO. 3
NIVAL, TG A.
BSTM 2-1
22-00149
OCTOBER 25, 2023
1. Based on evidences and argumentations presented in different primary sources,
what do you think of the most valid and precise assertion, those who are saying
that the First Cry of the Katipunan happened in Pugad Lawin or those says that it
happened in Balintawak? Support your answer with evidences.
- As for me, I think that Pio Valenzuela's account is the most reliable account
and witness. The official date and place of the first cry were largely based on
the account of Dr. Pio Valenzuela. And the fact that he was present at the
event as an official of the Katipunan and a friend of Andres Bonifacio.
