1. How do you understand the word "Mutiny"?

2. How does Governor Gen. Izquierdo describe Cavite Mutiny compared from
the version of Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera?

3. What does the account of Jose Montero y Vidal tell us? To which version does
this account related to? Explain.

4. Among the three versions of Cavite Mutiny, which one is most credible? Why?

5. Compare the three versions according to their definition of mutiny, its causes
and effects.

ANSWERS:

1. Mutiny is defined as a rebellion against authority, most often by members of a

group or organization, such as a military unit, a ship's crew, or a workforce. It
frequently entails a reluctance to obey commands or a coordinated effort to destabilize
the incumbent leadership.

2. The Cavite Mutiny (Governor Gen. Izquierdo Version), which happened in 1872,
may have underscored the threat to Spanish colonial rule, highlighting the need for
rapid and brutal vengeance against the supposed revolutionaries. Dr. Trinidad H.
Pardo de Tavera’s Version, on the other hand, may have framed the mutiny as a
manifestation of Filipino grievances against Spanish colonial rule, emphasizing the
inequities and disparities that sparked the insurrection. His account may have
overemphasized the social and political context of the event.

3. Jose Montero y Vidal was a Spanish historian who published extensively about
Philippine history. His description of the Cavite Mutiny would most likely reflect the
Spanish colonial authorities' point of view, emphasizing the threat to their rule and the
importance of keeping order and control.

His version would most likely be more in line with Governor General Izquierdo's
point of view, emphasizing the difficulties that the Spanish authorities have in
retaining their power and control over the Philippines. It may ignore the fundamental
causes of the mutiny and instead emphasize the need for suppression and punitive
actions to guarantee the colonial regime's stability.

4. Among the three versions of the Cavite Mutiny, in my own perspective, the most
credible is the version of Dr. Trinidad Pardo de Tavero because in his version he
somehow wrote it as if he wants us to fully imagine how it's really like to be there
during that time of the Cavite Mutiny. He also did a great job in providing us a
Filipino version of the Cavite Mutiny that helps us gain knowledge about the
happenings that is on our side, not the colonizers side or version. In his account of the
Cavite Mutiny, we get to realized how hard and amazing our Filipino ancestors have
been through. So for me, his version which is a filipino version of the Cavite Mutiny
is the most credible because I do believe that a Filipino wouldn't lie about things that
happened in his or her country that brought honor and pride in history.

5. The Cavite Mutiny was most likely depicted in Governor General Izquierdo's
narrative as a flagrant act of defiance against the Spanish colonial rulers, highlighting
the need for immediate and brutal reprisal to restore power and order. He might have
interpreted the rebellion as a direct threat to Spanish power and an attempt to
undermine the colonial administration.

Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera's account most likely portrayed the mutiny as a
manifestation of the Filipino people's resentment against Spanish colonial rule. His
account may have emphasized the socioeconomic and political inequities that sparked
the revolt, depicting it as a response to systemic injustice and exploitation.

As a Spanish historian, Jose Montero y Vidal's perspective may have underlined the
difficulties that the Spanish rulers experienced in retaining their power in the
Philippines. His account may have focused on the risks to Spanish colonial control
posed by the mutiny, thus downplaying the underlying social and economic
conditions that lead to the insurrection.

Cause and effect

1. Governor General Izquierdo most likely blamed the Cavite Mutiny on a perceived
lack of discipline among Filipino troops as well as their disloyalty to Spanish colonial
authorities. He could have emphasized the role of external agitators or insurgents
seeking to undermine Spanish rule in the region.

In terms of consequences, Izquierdo's account most likely emphasized the need for
quick and decisive action to put down the rebellion and restore Spanish authority. He
may have advocated for harsh measures to quell future dissent and send a strong
deterrent message to those considering challenging Spanish colonial rule. As a result,
harsh punitive measures, increased surveillance and control, and a strengthening of
Spanish dominance in the Philippines may have occurred.

2. According to Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, the Cavite Mutiny was primarily
motivated by widespread discontent among the Filipino people as a result of the
Spanish colonial administration's oppressive and exploitative policies. He most likely
emphasized socioeconomic injustices such as forced labor, discriminatory practices,
and limited opportunities for Filipinos, which fueled resentment and opposition to the
ruling authorities.

In terms of consequences, Pardo de Tavera may have emphasized the Cavite Mutiny's
role as a catalyst for the growing Filipino nationalist movement. The event most likely
raised awareness among Filipinos of the need for organized resistance to colonial
oppression, contributing to the formation of the Propaganda Movement, which sought
political reforms and greater autonomy for the Philippines within the framework of
Spanish colonial rule.

3. The causes of the Cavite Mutiny, according to Jose Montero y Vidal, were likely
attributed to simmering discontent among the Filipino populace due to oppressive
Spanish colonial rule and socioeconomic inequalities prevalent at the time. He could
have emphasized Filipinos' lack of political representation and the discriminatory
policies that exacerbated their grievances.

In terms of consequences, Montero y Vidal's account would most likely emphasize

the immediate and severe consequences of the mutiny. This could include a tougher
Spanish crackdown on perceived dissent, stricter measures to suppress future
uprisings, and the imposition of harsher colonial policies aimed at maintaining control
and quelling an