1.

1 Introduction to lesson 3

History is about interpreting the past; it is a “spin” on the historical facts. As the
scholar E.H. Carr noted, history has been called a “hard core of facts”
surrounded by a “pulp of disputable interpretation.” Without interpretation—“the
pulpy part of the fruit”—there is no meaning, only disconnected facts. Even if an
historian is not explicit about his or her viewpoint, an interpretation is always lurking
somewhere in what he or she writes. Through interpretation, historians say what they
believe the past means. They attempt to explain why and how things happened as they
did and why particular elements in the past are important. To Carr, interpretation was
the key to writing history. But according to his metaphor, the “fruit” cannot exist
without the core—the facts. Any subject can become the source of argument and
dispute. As one of our students speculated regarding one historical controversy—
the atomic bombings of Japan—and Internet search would produce lots of different
opinions about this event. But historical interpretation is more than opinion. It must
be informed by a knowledge of the facts—procured from sources such as
government documents, personal letters, diaries, and oral histories, to name a
few—and an understanding of how they fit together to create a coherent story of the
past. This factually based story or interpretation is always subject to challenge.
In almost all cases, sooner or later, an interpretation is questions, found inadequate,
refined, or sometimes completely overthrown by a new, more convincing explanation.
At times, as in the case with the history of the origins of the cold war, one
interpretation dominates and may go unchallenged for many years. In other cases,
such as the scholarship on the end of the cost war, different and sharply conflicting
interpretations emerge at the same time. And in some instances, such as the history of
the civil rights movement, historians are not in sharp conflict over their interpretation
of events; they share an overarching interpretation but focus on telling different pieces
of a larger story. The collection of different interpretations produced over time—
historiography-may best be understood as a long-running discussion among historians
about the meaning of past events.

1.2 SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

Evidence for Masao, Butuan Claim

- Archaeological Discoveries: Balanghai boats discovered near Masao River in

Butuan City in 1976 are believed to have been used for trade and transportation,
including possibly for worship services. These boats serve as tangible evidence of
ancient maritime activity in the area, suggesting its significance as a historical site.

Cultural Heritage Recognition: The Balanghai Shrine in Butuan City has been
endorsed by the Philippine government to UNESCO as a "World Historical and
Cultural Heritage Site." This recognition underscores the importance of Butuan's
historical and cultural contributions, potentially including its role as the site of the
first mass.

Geographic Proximity: The distance from Masao (Butuan) to Cebu is reported to be

35 leagues or 140 miles, which is consistent with the journey described in historical
records. This proximity suggests that Masao could have been a feasible location for
the first mass, given its relative closeness to Cebu, where Magellan's expedition
proceeded after the alleged mass.

Evidence for Limasawa, Leyte claim

- Francisco Albo's Log Book: Albo, a pilot on Magellan's ship Trinidad and a survivor
of the expedition, documented their journey in a logbook. In his account, he describes
sailing southwards along the coast of a large island (identified as Leyte) and then
turning southwest to a small island called "Mazava or Mazaua." The description
aligns with the geography of Limasawa, Southern Leyte.

Pigafetta's Route and Map: Antonio Pigafetta, another member of the expedition,
described their route and provided maps that indicate the location of Mazaua. These
accounts suggest that the expedition sailed towards Mazaua after leaving Homonhon
Island. The geography described by Pigafetta matches that of Limasawa, supporting
its identification as the site of the first mass.

Legazpi's Expedition: In 1565, Legazpi's expedition aimed to visit Mazaua, which

they identified as an island near Leyte and Panaon. This expedition's findings support
the belief that Mazaua was distinct from Butuan and located near Leyte, reinforcing
the claim that Limasawa was the site of the first mass.

Narrative Accounts: Pigafetta's narrative provides detailed descriptions of events

surrounding the first mass, including interactions with local rulers and the planting of
a cross on a mountain-top. These descriptions align with the geography and events
associated with Limasawa, providing further evidence for its identification as the site
of the first mass.

Resolution (if there’s any)

Both Butuan and Limasawa present evidence supporting their claims as the site of the
first mass in the Philippines. However, based on historical accounts, geographic
evidence, and archaeological findings, the argument for Limasawa, Leyte appears to
be stronger. The accounts of Pigafetta, Albo, and subsequent expeditions support the
identification of Limasawa as the location where the first mass was celebrated.

1.5 FIRST CRY PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION

THE FIRST CRY HAPPENED IN PUGAD LAWIN DR. PIO VALENZUELA

 the only eyewitness who accounted that the cry happened in Pugad Lawin.
 “The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto , Procopio
Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario and myself was in Balinwatak.
The first five arriving there on August 19, and I on August 20, 1896.”
 The first place where some 500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22,
1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samsom at Kangkong . Aside from the
people mentioned above, among those who were there were Briccio Pantas,
 Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here ,
views were only exchanged and no resolution was debated or adopted.

TEODORO AGONCILIO “REVOLT OF THE MASSES (1956)”

 -AGONCILIO used his considerable influence and campaigned to changed the
date and venue of the first cry to Pugad Lawin, August 23, 1896.
 In 1963, president Macapagal ordered that the cry of Balintawak shall be called
cry of Pugad Lawin and it should be celebrated on August 23 instead of Ausgust
26.

THE FIRST CRY HAPPENED IN BALINTAWAK THE FIRST CRY HAPPENED

IN BALINTAWAK

Some accounts show that the first cry happened in Caloocan Quezon City, Bahay ng
Toro and Pugad Lawin.

 According to Dr. Milagros Guerrero, Ramon, Villegas and Emmanuel

Encarnation stated that all these mentioned places are part of Balintawak but
Quezon City is still not an existing place during the Spanish Regime.

Events according to Masangkay:

1. August 26th 1896 a meeting held in balintawak at the house of Apolonio Samson.
Among those who attended were Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, and Aguedo Del
Rosario.

2. 9:00 am August 26th the meeting was opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and
Emilio Jacinto acting as Secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was
to take place.

3. Andres Bonifacio argues with the other leaders about starting the revolt too early
and leaves.

4. Upon leaving the meeting Andres Bonifacio gave a fiery speech and people shouted
“Revolt” Guillermo Masangkay is an eyewitness of the historic event.

5. After the speech, they all tore their cedulas(tax certificate)

6. After the pledge and tearing of cedulas, Andres Bonifacio returns to the session hall
and informs the leader of what took place outside.

7. Despite their differences, they all voted for revolution and outside the people
shouted “Long live the Philippine Republic!”

8. At 5:00 pm while gathering at Balintawak were celebrating, guards up in the trees

gave a warning that the Spaniards were coming. Andres Bonifacio then led them to
prepare the attack by the civil guards.
OPINION

Based on the facts presented, it appears that there is conflicting historical evidence
regarding the exact location of the first cry of the Philippine Revolution.

On one hand, Dr. Pio Valenzuela, an eyewitness, accounts for the first cry happening
in Pugad Lawin. This account was later supported by Teodoro Agoncillo, who
campaigned for changing the date and venue to Pugad Lawin.

On the other hand, there is evidence suggesting that the event may have occurred in
Balintawak. Dr. Milagros Guerrero, Ramon Villegas, and Emmanuel Encarnation
argue that Balintawak includes the areas of Caloocan, Quezon City, Bahay ng Toro,
and Pugad Lawin. Additionally, Guillermo Masangkay, another eyewitness, provided
a detailed account of events that took place in Balintawak, including a meeting at the
house of Apolonio Samson where the uprising was discussed and later initiated.

Considering the conflicting accounts and interpretations, it's challenging to

definitively determine whether the first cry happened in Balintawak or Pugad Lawin.
Both locations have significant historical significance in the context of the Philippine
Revolution. It's possible that further historical research and analysis may shed more
light on this issue, but for now, it remains a matter of interpretation and debate.

What is your take away after you finished activity for module 3? (10 points)