NAME: NISSA B.

TEMBLOR
SECTION: EDSCI-1
SUBJECT: HIST 11 – Readings in the Philippine History
TEACHER: MARIELLE THERY JUMAWAN

CHAPTER 3
ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES: CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTING
VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

LESSON 1: The Site of the First Mass

EXERCISES 3.1 Discuss/explain the following questions below.

1. How do you understand the text? What it all about?

The text depicts one among many conflicts and controversies about
Philippine History. In this topic, "the site of the first mass" reveals the
confusion of where truly was the location of the First Mass that happened in
the Philippines. It offers different sources of people's different perspectives
that is why it is needed to learn and rediscover the credibility of each account
from the past to recognize which exactly was it.

2. Based on the primary sources given above, what is your stand about the site
of the first mass?
The sources notify that the First Mass happened at Limasawa. The two
primary sources from Francisco Albo's log and Antonio Pigafetta's account
which were both members of Magellan's expedition and an eyewitness of the
event have shown and illustrated the voyage with its calculations of distance
to every place including the venue of the controversy about the First Mass
which stand totally point to Limasawa.

3. Site evidences which would suggest that the first mass happened in Masau
(Butuan) and Limasawa (Southern Leyte).
 The first mass was officiated on March 31, 1521, by Father Pedro
de Valderama who was a friar that came together with Magellan
during their navigation. It was conducted along the shores of what
was referred to in the journals of Antonio Pigafetta as "Mazaua".

 Based on Francisco Albo's statement, "(5.) Sailing southwards

along the coast of that large island of Seilani (or Leyte), they turned
 southwest to a small island called "Mazava". That island is also at a
latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North. (6.) …There the Spaniards
planted across upon a mountain top, and from there they were shown
three islands to the west and Southwest, where they were told there
was much gold."... In this statement, even though there were no
exact place mentioned but the description would directly fit the
location of Limasawa Island in the Southern tip of Leyte.

 Also in Pigafetta's account, he stated that "(10.) That Island “lies in

a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the Arctic Pole and in a
longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of
demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from the Acquada, and is called
Mazaua”. Here the conflict arise as Albo's mentioned "Mazava",
while in Pigafetta's he stated "Mazaua". However, it should be
noted that the details presented remains to fit the Limasawa
Island.

 In the account of Pigafetta And the Seven Days in Mazaua, he also

said that "(4.)Sunday, March 31 – “Early in the morning, the last of
March and Easter day,” Magellan sent the priest ashore with some
men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning Magellan landed
with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross was
venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the
noon-day meal, but in the afternoon, they returned ashore to plant the
cross on the summit of the highest hill. In attendance both at the mass
and the planting of the cross the king of Mazaua and the king of
Butuan." In this statement aroused the confusion about the true
location of where was it truly happened, if at Limasawa or Masao
because of the involvement or mentioning of the king from
Mazaua and Butuan.

 Finally, in Miguel A. Bernad work which was, Butuan or Limasawa?

The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A reexamination of
Evidence (1981) gives the argument that in the Pigafetta’s account,
a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned which was the river
and it is too important to be missed. Also, it should be noted that
only after Magellan's death when Pigafetta mentioned a trip in a
river that happened in Butuan.

4. How credible is this account in explaining the site of the first mass?
This account was credible in explaining the site of the first mass in the
Philippines since the information was connected and relevant. Both Francisco
Albo's and Antonio Pigafetta's testimonies were aligned with each other
 particularly the latter journalist since it was well documented and properly
detailed. Each of their stands showed validity as an eyewitness of the event.

5. How do the evidences presented in the text help you understand the
controversy on the first Catholic mass in the Philippines?
For these reasons, I speculated and acknowledged that the First Mass
in the Philippines certainly happened at Limasawa since the context provided
different data that were actually associated with each other. This is important
to set no confusion regarding the record of events in our country's history.

ACTIVITY 3.1 Write a position paper about your viewpoint as to where the first
mass happened. Present relative information and evidences in your writing
that will strengthen your stand.

Through understanding the significance of Philippine history we have

acknowledged its greatly worth of victorious and flourishing events that molded each
one of us to be strongly independent and motivated. However, not everyone has
known this magic. In either way, some go looking for it to discover, and most just
believed what has been said orally and nothing more. But in this case, my
inquisitiveness was fueled by the conflict and controversy considering this First Mass
in the Philippines. Which before, I have learned to occur at Limasawa not until the
Masao involvement in Butuan was mentioned that took me in a state of confusion.
In this case, we have known that there were only two credible primary sources
that we could rely on proving this event. The first one can be found in Pigafetta’s
accounts on pages 23-32 of his book entitled, First Voyage Around the World. He
was a primary source since he participated and was an eye witness of the
navigation. The second source is from Francisco Albo's log, who was then a pilot in
the Trinidad ship and one of the 18 survivors who returned after they
circumnavigated the world. Both accounts are pointing to Limasawa of Southern
Leyte while Pigafetta was giving a more detailed description of the setting of the
event. So, I see no reason to doubt these shreds of evidence. Eventually, the
National Historical Institute of the Philippines(NHIP) has specified that the event
happened in Limasawa. Which resulted in turning down and rejecting the pro-Butuan
supporters since according to NHCP chair Rene Escalante, there were no adequate
and plausible proof to justify the contradiction of the decision on the case.
If the crucial point of this First Mass is about the essence of Christianity, I do
not think people should still push through their arguments about the location of the
said event. What I mean is, as long as this has been celebrated and given
importance then the history of the First Mass in the Philippines would always be
effective and remembered. But Butuan on the other hand causes more disagreement
and raucous to the historian and history itself than Limasawa. The possibility is
because they are almost in a hopeless state that is why they are trying to hold on to
the little chance of having claimed the truth. However, the lack of enough evidence
and historical records to support their statements was surely saying otherwise. In my
opinion, I firmly believe that the key point and the most important thing we must
consider about this topic is only the manner of how was it done, who participated in
it, how it affects and changed our perspective and beliefs. Since there has been an
issue and conflict about this topic that may cause a problem in the future, I think we
should start to set aside and be more mindful of the solemnity of this event instead
and just focus on the more sure thing which was the date of the First Mass.
To wrap up everything, the site of the First Mass was convinced to be in
Limasawa of Southern Leyte. Even if there were proofs allegedly leading to Masao of
Butuan but it cannot meet a certain truth needed to justify the claims as of now or will
never be. Assessing from that, the true meaning of learning this history is to be able
to stand on our beliefs. That is to continue to remember the importance of this event
and the value it offers us with regards to our Christianity. Likewise, analyzing each
side and relying on what is the truth will provide validity.

LESSON 2: The Cavite Mutiny

EXERCISES 3.2 Explain/discuss the following questions below

1. How do you understand the word “mutiny”?

In my understanding, a mutiny is an act of people or soldiers revolting
against the authorities and clearly shows that they disagree with the laws and
orders made by them. In this case, the mutiny that happened was done by the
Indios or Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.

2. How does Gov. Rafael Izquierdo describe Cavite Mutiny compared to the
version of Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera?
As stated by Governor Rafael Izquierdo, the Cavite Mutiny aroused in
aiming to overpower the Spanish government. He also added that it was the
deeds of the native educated leaders, mestizos, and native lawyers to show
that they dispute with the injustice and mistreatment of the government just
like paying unfairly to the Cavite laborers, paying tribute, and the making of
forced labor. On the contrary, Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo De Tavera's statement
was leading us to the thought that it was only a simple mutiny to highlight the
laborers of the Cavite arsenal and the native Filipino soldiers' grievance with
the abolition of their privileges that directed them to rebel.

3. What does the account of Jose Montero y Vidal tell us? To which version
does the account related to? Explain.
 Based on Jose Montero y Vidal's account, the Cavite Mutiny was
anticipated by natives to get rid of the Spanish government in the Philippines
for the reason of unjust giving of salaries and removal of privileges enjoyed by
the laborers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from tribute and forced
labor. In other words, Montero's and Gov. Rafael Izquierdo's claim has
attested with one another. Which point was that the mutiny is an attempt to
remove and overthrow the Spanish colonizers in the Philippines.

4. Among the three version of Cavite Mutiny, which one do you think is the most
credible? Why?
In my point of view, Tavera's or the Filipino version and Izquierdo's
together with Montero's or the Spanish version were both presenting the
reason for mutiny was because of the unfair decision of the Governor-General
Izquierdo in drawing back their privileges. However, the Spanish version of
Izquierdo and Montero added some information making it more to be in their
favor that stirred up further fuel against the Filipino and Spanish. Assessing
from that sense, the truth left is from Tavera's account which also shows
credibility as there were already documents related to the Filipino's struggle
for work and justly payments. As well as the other account from a French
writer Edmund Plauchut that has complemented Tavera's account of the
motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

5. Compare the three versions according to their definition of Mutiny, its causes
and effects.
 According to Jose Montero y Vidal, the primary cause of the Cavite
mutiny was to overthrow the Spanish government and of course, this
was due to the abolition of the privileges. Also, he stated that the
Filipinos were supported by the native clergy which he wants to point
out Padre Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora. This was the reason why after
the Cavite mutiny, these three priests were executed. In the account of
Montero, we could notice that Padre Zamora was accused to be
involved in the Cavite mutiny. Which said to be the one who started the
meetings and organized the revolution to happen.

 Based on Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo's statement, he also

added the involvement of the native clergy as they wanted
secularization of parishes due to their animosity to the friars the reason
why they supported the rebels, and the native lawyers to be the mind of
the Cavite mutiny. Moreover, he claims that the main purpose of this
was because their privileges enjoyed were removed. The effect of this
was the involvement of the GOMBURZA and later on, they were
executed.
  While on Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera's account, he claims that it
was a simple act of mutiny done by the laborers of Cavite as a form of
protest against the improper leadership of the Spanish for being
dissatisfied with Gov. Izquierdo in their place. The point caused was
just they wanted to oppose Izquierdo's leadership. Also because the
Governor prohibited them to establish the school of arts and trades for
the Filipinos. The Spaniards and friars made use of the Cavite mutiny
to secure their dominance in our country because of what happened in
Central Madrid where there was a prohibition of the friars to interfere
with the affairs of the civil government and in the educational system.
Which in that note, can also happen in the Philippines so they ensure
their superiority with the Cavite Mutiny of 1872.

LESSON 3: Cry of Pugadlawin, Valentina or Bahay Toro?

EXERCISE 3.3 Give a concise explanation/discussion on the following
questions below.

1. What was the issue on the first cry depicts about the Filipinos?
The issue on the first cry depicts the humble beginning, sacrifices of
our heroes, and the unity despite the hardship in claiming our nation's
sovereignty from the Spanish colonizers in which symbolized by ripping their
cedulas in proving their support. Even though the exact details are still hard to
determine and remain unsettled but the fact that its essence will never be
forgotten and will continue to be worthy of importance, is what I believe this
issue most likely to depict and must be understood by everyone of us.

2. How does the account of Santiago Alvarez differ from all other versions?
Ang Katipunan at Paghihimagsik written in 1927 by Santiago Alvarez
totally differs from all other versions because he learned these documents
from one of the first leader and fighter of Katipunan Ramon Bernardo found in
Panacan. For that reason, his documents was completely different from all the
arising competitive reports and as he was not an eyewitness . However, the
information he received certainly relates to the meeting on August 24 meeting
about the Cry.

3. Which account do you believe? Why?

Assessing from the information given, I believe Guillermo Masangkay's
version was more reliable since he was one of the Katipunan's primary
members. This means that he was an eyewitness and a first-hand source of
 this event. His documents have given us his observation and depict how this
occurrence has come to originate by literally witnessing it.

4. How reliable is the version of Guillermo Masangkay regarding the issue?

Apart from being Andres Bonifacio's friend, his version is reliable in a
way of showing shreds of evidence that will stand to his statement.
Furthermore, he was said to be an eyewitness of this historic event and the
date was accepted during the preliminary years.

5. What makes Pio Valenzuela’s Cry of Pugad Lawin a controversy?

As stated, Pio Valenzuela has given so many versions and made
various statements that are not always compatible with each other. His claims
for this information were inconsistent, insufficient, and have no definite
document to support them. Additionally, he has only one eyewitness which
was himself. As you read and analyze his account, it will direct to different
aspects and controversy later on.

ACTIVITY 3.2 Mapping Out

Various accounts give differing dates and places of the “Cry”. Using the chart
below, map-out the conflicting claims by providing the dates and places given by the
claimants including their bases, arguments or proofs for their claim.

Claimants Date Place Basis

Lt. Oligario Diaz August Balintawak According to him, a
25, 1896 Spanish officer of the
guardian civil, the “Cry”
transpired in Balintawak on
the year 1896 of August
25th.
Teodoro Kalaw Last week Kangkong, In the book of the
of August Balintawak Historian Teodoro Kalaw,
1896 The Filipino Revolution of
1925, he claimed that the
event occurred during the
final week of August year
1896 at Kangkong,
Balintawak.
Santiago Alvarez August Sampalukan, In Santiago's
24, 1896 barrio of memoirs which is entitled
Bahay Toro, Ang Katipunan at
Paghihimagsik written in
now known
1927, he stated that on
as Quezon records entrusted to him by
 City the Katipunan’s first leaders
and fighters. Internal
evidence indicates that
Alvarez’s statement of the
meeting on August 24 is
based on information he
attained from Ramon
Bernardo, a Katipunan
leader from Pandacan who
was a partaker in the "Cry".
Pio Valenzuela August Pugad Lawin Pio Valenzuela was
23, 1896 the right hand of Andres
Bonifacio. But as stated, he
has given so many versions
and made various
statements that are not
always compatible with
each other. Later on, in his
memoirs (1964, 1978), he
affirmed that the event
happened in 1896 on
August 23 at the house of
Juan Ramos son of
Melchora Aquino that was
located at Sitio Gulod,
Banlat, Kalookan City in the
precise spot of Pugad
Lawin. He corrected his
initial statement that the
meeting only began on 22
of August and not in
Apolonio Samson’s house
in Balintawak.
Guillermo August Kangkong, Masangkay was one
Masangkay 26, 1896 Balintawak of the original members of
the Katipunan and
eyewitness of this revolt.
According to his 1929 and
1957 testimony, the “Cry”
happened on August 26,
1896, in Apolonio Samson’s
house in Caloocan, where
then the Cabeza of that
barrio. Whereat nine o'clock
Andres Bonifacio called for
 a meeting together with
Emilio Jacinto acting as the
secretary.
Gregoria de Jesus August Caloocan Based on the
25, 1896 autobiography of Gregoria
De Jesus, the Lakambini of
the Katipunan, wife of
Andres Bonifacio and she
herself became a
participant of the event, as
well as the keeper of the
secret documents of the
Katipunan. Her remarked
was that the “Cry” arose at
Pasong Tamo of Caloocan
in Balintawak
Gregorio Zaide August Balintawak Historian Gregorio
26, 1896 Zaide identified the “Cry” to
have happened in
Balintawak on 26 day of
th

August, 1896.
Teodoro Agoncillo August Pugad Lawin When writing about
23, 1896 the "Cry" which was the
Revolt of the masses in
1956, Agoncillo admitted
that he had “relied mostly”
on Valenzuela’s testimony
as he was an eyewitness of
the historic event. He
followed Valenzuela’s
“Memoirs” in saying the
pasya was taken at Juan
Ramos’s place in Pugad
Lawin. But on the other
hand, says that Ramos'
mother lived in Pasong
Tamo, and that the two
places were considerably
distanced apart. Agoncillo
repeats this story in an
article he wrote in 1960.
Milagros Guererro, August Tandang As stated in,
Emmanuel 24, 1896 Sora's barn Balintawak: The Cry for a
Encarnacion, and house in National Revolution by
these three scholars
and Ramon Villegas Gulod, now
Guerereo, Encarnation and
barangay Villegas (2003), they
 Banlat, acknowledged that the
Quezon City centennial of the Cry of
Balintawak should be
celebrated on 24 August
1896 at the site of the barn
and house of Tandang Sora
in Gulod, now barangay
Banlat, Quezon City and not
the Cry of Pugad Lawin in
August 23. As this is an
imposition and inaccurate
interpretation, contrary to
indisputable and numerous
historical facts.
NHI August Seminary The NHI believed
23, 1896 Road in that it was correct in looking
barangay for the house of Juan
Bahay Toro Ramos and not of. Which in
1940 the Pugad Lawin
residence was Tandang
Sora’s and not Juan Ramos
house and the specific site
of Pugad Lawin was Gulod
in Banlat.

Assessment of the claims:

As we have understood, there are numerous accounts presented about

the first cries in the Philippines by the historians and some by eyewitness
authors. Several scholars discerned that the First Cry happened on the 23 rd of
August, others insisted the first Cry have happened on 24, 25, 26, and the last
week of August of 1896. They have retained existing reports of this in
Balintawak, Pugad Lawin, Tandang Sora, Caloocan, and so on. The
perception that the first cries have several writers is relatively confusing, and it
is difficult to determine which of those writers should we believe because even
the remarks of the eyewitnesses have not existed side-by-side to coincide with
each claim. According to the first cries witnesses, their different variants,
locations, and date’s intervals, and the setting of the First Cry are still
imprecise and unresolved.