Introduction to History:

Definition, Issues, Sources, and Methodology

To understand the meaning of history as an academic discipline and to be familiar with the
underlying philosophy and methodology of the discipline.
To apply the knowledge in historical methodology and philosophy in assessing and analyzing
existing historical narratives.
To examine and assess critically the value of historical evidences and sources.
To appreciate the importance of history in the social and national life of the Philippines.
This chapter introduces history as a discipline and as a narrative. It presents the definition of the
history, which transcends the common definition of history as the study of the past. This chapter
also discusses several issues in history that consequently opens up for the theoretical aspects of
the discipline. The distinction between primary and secondary sources is also discussed in relation
to the historical subject matter being studied and the historical methodology employed by the
historian. Ultimately, this chapter also tackles the task of the historian as the arbiter of facts and
evidences in making his interpretation and forming historical narrative.
Definition and Subject Matter
History has always been known as the study of the past. Students of general education often
dread the subject for its notoriety in requiring them to memorize dates, places, names, and events
from distant eras. This low appreciation of the discipline may be rooted from the shallow
understanding of history's relevance to their lives and to their respective contexts. While the
popular definition of history as the study of the past is not wrong, it does not give justice to the
complexity of the subject and its importance to human civilization.
History was derived from the Greek word historia which means "knowledge acquired through
inquiry or investigation." History as a discipline existed for around 2,400 years and is as old as
mathematics and philosophy. This term was then adapted to classical Latin where it acquired a
new definition. Historia became known as the account of the past of a person or of a group of
people through written documents and historical evidences. That meaning stuck until the early
parts of the twentieth century. History became an important academic discipline. It became the
historian's duty to write about the lives of important individuals like monarchs, heroes, saints, and
nobilities. History was also focused on writing about wars, revolutions, and other important
breakthroughs. It is thus important to ask: What counts as history? Traditional historians lived with
the mantra of "no document, no history." It means that unless a written document can prove a
certain historical event, then it cannot be considered as a historical fact.
But as any other academic disciplines, history progressed and opened up to the possibility of valid
historical sources, which were not limited to written documents, like government records,
chroniclers' accounts, or personal letters. Giving premium to written documents essentially
invalidates the history of other civilizations that do not keep written records. Some were keener on
passing their history by word of mouth. the events of war or colonization. Restricting historical
evidence as exclusively written is also discrimination against other social classes who were not
recorded in paper. Nobilities, monarchs, the elite, and even the middle class would have their birth,
education, marriage, and death as matters of government and historical record. But what of
peasant families or indigenous groups who others got their historical documents burned or
destroyed in were not given much thought about being registered to government records? Does
the absence of written documents about them mean that they were people of no history or past?
Did they even exist?
This loophole was recognized by historians who started using other kinds of historical sources,
which may not be in written form but were just as valid. A few of these examples are oral traditions
in forms of epics and songs, artifacts, architecture, and memory. History thus became more
inclusive and started collaborating with other disciplines as its auxiliary disciplines. With the aid of
archaeologists, historians can use artifacts from a bygone era to study ancient civilizations that
were formerly ignored in history because of lack of documents. Linguists can also be helpful in
tracing historical evolutions, past connections among different groups, and flow of cultural
influence by studying language and the changes that it has undergone. Even scientists like
biologists and biochemists can help with the study of the past through analyzing genetic and DNA
patterns of human societies.
Questions and Issues in History
Indeed, history as a discipline has already turned into a complex and dynamic inquiry. This
dynamism inevitably produced various perspectives on the discipline regarding different questions
like: What is history? Why study history? And history for whom? These questions can be answered
by historiography. In simple terms, historiography is the history of history. History and
historiography should not be confused with each other. The former's object of study is the past, the
events that happened in the past, and the causes of such events. The latter's object of study, on
the other hand, is history itself (i.e., How was a certain historical text written? Who wrote it? What
was the context of its publication? What particular historical method was employed? What were
the sources used?). Thus, historiography lets the students have a better understanding of history.
They do not only get to learn historical facts, but they are also provided with the understanding of
the facts' and the historian's contexts. The methods employed by the historian and the theory and
perspective, which guided him, will also be analyzed. Historiography is important for someone who
studies history because it teaches the student to be critical in the lessons of history presented to
him.
History has played various roles in the past. States use history to unite a nation. It can be used as
a tool to legitimize regimes and forge a sense of collective identity through collective memory.
Lessons from the past can be used to make sense of the present. Learning of past mistakes can
help people to not repeat them. Being reminded of a great past can inspire people to keep their
good practices to move forward.
Positivism is the school of thought that emerged between the eighteenth and nineteenth century.
This thought requires empirical and observable evidence before one can claim that a particular
knowledge is true. Positivism also entails an objective means of arriving at a conclusion. In the
discipline of history, the mantra "no document, no history" stems from this very same truth, where
historians were required to show written primary documents in order to write a particular historical
narrative. Positivist historians are also expected to be objective and impartial not just in their
arguments but also on their conduct of historical research.
As a narrative, any history that has been taught and written is always intended for a certain group
of audience. When the ilustrados, like Jose Rizal, Isabelo de los Reyes, and Pedro Paterno wrote
history, they intended it for the Spaniards so that they would realize that Filipinos are people of
their own intellect and culture. When American historians depicted the Filipino people as
uncivilized in their publications, they intended that narrative for their fellow Americans to justify
their colonization of the islands. They wanted the colonization to appear not as a means of
undermining the Philippines' sovereignty, but as a civilizing mission to fulfill what they called as the
"white man's burden." The same is true for nations which prescribe official versions of their history
like North Korea, the Nazi Germany during the war period, and Thailand. The same was attempted
by Marcos in the Philippines during the 1970s.
Postcolonialism is a school of thought that emerged in the early twentieth century when formerly
colonized nations grappled with the idea of creating their identities and understanding their
societies against the shadows of their colonial past.
Postcolonial history looks at two things in writing history: first is to tell the history of their nation that
will highlight their identity free from that of colonial discourse and knowledge, and second is to
criticize the methods, effects, and idea of colonialism. Postcolonial history is therefore a reaction
and an alternative to the colonial history that colonial powers created and taught to their subjects.
One of the problems confronted by history is the accusation that the history is always written by
victors. This connotes that the narrative of the past is always written from the bias of the powerful
and the more dominant player. For instance, the history of the Second World War in the
Philippines always depicts the United States as the hero and the Imperial Japanese Army as the
oppressors. Filipinos who collaborated with the Japanese were lumped in the category of traitors
or collaborators. However, a more thorough historical investigation will reveal a more nuanced
account of the history of that period instead of a simplified narrative as a story of hero versus
villain.
History and the Historian.
If history is written with agenda or is heavily influenced by the historian, is it possible to come up
with an absolute historical truth? Is history an objective discipline? If it is not, is it still worthwhile to
study history? These questions have haunted historians for many generations. Indeed, an exact
and accurate account of the past is impossible for the very simple reason that we cannot go back
to the past. We cannot access the past directly as our subject matter. Historians only get to access
representation of the past through historical sources and evidences.
Therefore, it is the historian's job not just to seek historical evidences and facts but also to interpret
these facts. "Facts cannot speak for themselves." It is the job of the historian to give meaning to
these facts and organize them into a timeline, establish causes, and write history. Meanwhile, the
historian is not a blank paper who mechanically interprets and analyzes present historical fact. He
is a person of his own who is influenced by his own context, environment, ideology, education, and
influences, among others. In that sense, his interpretation of the historical fact is affected by his
context and circumstances. His subjectivity will inevitably influence the process of his historical
research: the methodology that he will use, the facts that he shall select and deem relevant, his
interpretation, and even the form of his writings. Thus, in one way or another, history is always
subjective. If that is so, can history still be considered as an academic and scientific inquiry?
Historical research requires rigor. Despite the fact that historians cannot ascertain absolute
objectivity, the study of history remains scientific because of the rigor of research and methodology
that historians employ. Historical methodology comprises certain techniques and rules that
historians follow in order to properly utilize sources and historical evidences in writing history.
Certain rules apply in cases of conflicting accounts in different sources, and on how to properly
treat eyewitness accounts and oral sources as valid historical evidence. In doing so, historical
claims done by historians and the arguments that they forward in their historical writings, while
may be influenced by the historian's inclinations, can still be validated by using reliable evidences
and employing correct and meticulous historical methodology.
The Annales School of History is a school of history born in France that challenged the canons of
history. This school of thought did away with the common historical subjects that were almost
always related to the conduct of states and monarchs. Annales scholars like Lucien Febvre, Marc
Bloch, Fernand Braudel, and Jacques Le Goff studied other subjects in a historical manner. They
were concerned with social history and studied longer historical periods. For example, Annales
scholars studied the history of peasantry, the history of medicine, or even the history of
environment. The history from below was pioneered by the same scholars. They advocated that
the people and classes who were not reflected in the history of the society in the grand manner be
provided with space in the records of mankind. In doing this, Annales thinkers married history with
other disciplines like geography, anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics.
For example, if a historian chooses to use an oral account as his data in studying the ethnic
history of the Ifugaos in the Cordilleras during the American Occupation, he needs to validate the
claims of his informant through comparing and corroborating it with written sources. Therefore,
while bias is inevitable, the historian can balance this out by relying to evidences that back up his
claim. In this sense, the historian need not let his bias blind his judgment and such bias is only
acceptable if he maintains his rigor as a researcher.
Historical Sources
With the past as history's subject matter, the historian's most important research tools are
historical sources. In general, historical sources can be classified between primary and secondary
sources. The classification of sources between these two categories depends on the historical
subject being studied. Primary sources are those sources produced at the same time as the event,
period, or subject being studied. For example, if a historian wishes to study the Commonwealth
Constitution Convention of 1935, his primary sources can include the minutes of the convention,
newspaper clippings, Philippine Commission reports of the U.S. Commissioners, records of the
convention, the draft of the Constitution, and even photographs of the event. Eyewitness accounts
of convention delegates and their memoirs can also be used as primary sources. The same goes
with other subjects of historical study. Archival documents, artifacts, memorabilia, letters, census,
and government records, among others are the most common examples of primary sources.
On the other hand, secondary sources are those sources, which were produced by an author who
used primary sources to produce the material. In other words, secondary sources are historical
sources, which studied a certain historical subject. For example, on the subject of the Philippine
Revolution of 1896, students can read Teodoro Agoncillo's Revolt of the Masses: The Story of
Bonifacio and the Katipunan published originally in 1956. The Philippine Revolution happened in
the last years of the nineteenth century while Agoncillo published his work in 1956, which makes
the Revolt of the Masses a secondary source. More than this, in writing the book, Agoncillo used
primary sources with his research like documents of the Katipunan, interview with the veterans of
the Revolution, and correspondence between and among Katipuneros.
However, a student should not be confused about what counts as a primary or a secondary
source. As mentioned above, the classification of sources between primary and secondary
depends not on the period when the source was produced or the type of the source but on the
subject of the historical research. For example, a textbook is usually classified as a secondary
source, a tertiary source even. However, this classification is usual but not automatic. If a historian
chooses to write the history of education in the 1980s, he can utilize textbooks used in that period
as a primary source. If a historian wishes to study the historiography of the Filipino-American War
for example, he can use works of different authors on the topic as his primary source as well.
Both primary and secondary sources are useful in writing and learning history. However, historians
and students of history need to thoroughly scrutinize these historical sources to avoid deception
and to come up with the historical truth. The historian should be able to conduct an external and
internal criticism of the source, especially primary sources which can age in centuries. External
criticism is the practice of verifying the authenticity of evidence by examining its physical
characteristics; consistency with the historical characteristic of the time when it was produced; and
the materials used for the evidence. Examples of the things that will be examined when
conducting external criticism of a document include the quality of the paper, the type of the ink,
and the language and words used in the material, among others.

Internal criticism, on the other hand, is the examination of the truthfulness of the evidence. It looks
at the content of the source and examines the circumstance of its production. Internal criticism
looks at the truthfulness and factuality of the evidence by looking at the author of the source, its
context, the agenda behind its creation, the knowledge which informed it, and its intended
purpose, among others. For example, Japanese reports and declarations during the period of the
war should not be taken as a historical fact hastily. Internal criticism entails that the historian
acknowledge and analyze how such reports can be manipulated to be used as war propaganda.
Validating historical sources is important because the use of unverified, falsified, and untruthful
historical sources can lead to equally false conclusions. Without thorough criticisms of historical
evidences, historical deceptions and lies will be highly probable.
One of the most scandalous cases of deception in Philippine history is the hoax Code of
Kalantiaw. The code was a set of rules contained in an epic, Maragtas, which was allegedly written
by a certain D'atu Kalantiaw. The document was sold to the National Library and was regarded as
an important precolonial document until 1968, when American historian William Henry Scott
debunked the authenticity of the code due to anachronism and lack of evidence to prove that the
code existed in the precolonial Philippine society. Ferdinand Marcos also claimed that he was a
decorated World War II soldier who led a guerilla unit called Ang Maharlika. This was widely
believed by students of history and Marcos had war medals to show. This claim, however, was
disproven when historians counterchecked Marcos's claims with the war records of the United
States. These cases prove how deceptions can propagate without rigorous historical research.
The task of the historian is to look at the available historical sources and select the most relevant
and meaningful for history and for the subject matter that he is studying. History, like other
academic discipline, has come a long way but still has a lot of remaining tasks to do. It does not
claim to render absolute and exact judgment because as long as questions are continuously
asked, and as long as time unfolds, the study of history can never be complete. The task of the
historian is to organize the past that is being created so that it can offer lessons for nations,
societies, and civilization. It is the historian's job to seek for the meaning of recovering the past to
let the people see the continuing relevance of provenance, memory, remembering, and historical
understanding for both the present and the future.
Philippine historiography underwent several changes since the precolonial period until the present.
Ancient Filipinos narrated their history through communal songs and epics that they passed orally
from a generation to another. When the Spaniards came, their chroniclers started recording their
observations through written accounts. The perspective of historical writing and inquiry also
shifted. The Spanish colonizers narrated the history of their colony in a bipartite view. They saw
the age before colonization as a dark period in the history of the islands, until they brought light
through Western thought and Christianity. Early nationalists refuted this perspective and argued
the tripartite view. They saw the precolonial society as a luminous age that ended with darkness
when the colonizers captured their freedom. They believed that the light would come again once
the colonizers were evicted from the Philippines. Filipino historian Zeus Salazar introduced the
new guiding philosophy for writing and teaching history: pantayong pananaw (for us-from us
perspective). This perspective highlights the importance of facilitating an internal conversation and
discourse among Filipinos about our own history, using the language that is understood by
everyone.
Content and Contextual Analysis of Selected Primary Sources in Philippine History
To familiarize oneself with the primary documents in different historical periods of the Philippines.
To learn history through primary sources.
To properly interpret primary sources through examining the content and context of the document.
To understand the context behind each selected document.
In the preceding chapter, we have discussed the importance of familiarizing oneself about the
different kinds of historical sources. The historian's primary tool of understanding and interpreting
the past is the historical sources. Historical sources ascertain historical facts. Such facts are then
analyzed and interpreted by the historian to weave historical narrative. Specifically, historians who
study certain historical subjects and events need to make use of various primary sources in order
to weave the narrative. Primary sources, as discussed in the preceding chapter, consist of
documents, memoir, accounts, and other materials that were produced at the period of the event
or subject being studied.
Using primary sources in historical research entails two kinds of criticism. The first one is the
external criticism, and the second one is the internal criticism. External criticism examines the
authenticity of the document or the evidence being used. This is important in ensuring that the
primary source is not fabricated. On the other hand, internal criticism examines the truthfulness of
the content of the evidence. However, this criticism requires not just the act establishing
truthfulness and/or accuracy but also the examination of the primary sources in terms of the
context of its production. For example, a historian would have to situate the document in the
period of its production, or in the background of its authors. In other words, it should be recognized
that facts are neither existing in a vacuum nor produced from a blank slate. These are products of
the time and of the people.
In this chapter, we are going to look at a number of primary sources from different historical
periods and evaluate these documents' content in terms of historical value, and examine the
context of their production. The primary sources that we are going to examine are Antonio
Pigafetta's First Voyage Around the World, Emilio Jacinto's "Kartilya ng Katipunan," the 1898
Declaration of Philippine Independence, Political Cartoon's Alfred McCoy's Philippine Cartoons:
Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941), and Corazon Aquino's speech before the
U.S. Congress. These primary sources range from chronicles, official documents, speeches, and
cartoons to visual arts. Needless to say, different types of sources necessitate different kinds of
analysis and contain different levels of importance. We are going to explore that in this chapter.
A Brief Summary of the First Voyage Around the World by Magellan by Antonio Pigafetta
This book was taken from the chronicles of contemporary voyagers and navigators of the sixteenth
century. One of them was Italian nobleman Antonio Pigafetta, who accompanied Ferdinand
Magellan in his fateful circumnavigation of the world. Pigafetta's work instantly became a classic
that prominent literary men in the West like William Shakespeare, Michel de Montaigne, and
Giambattista Vico referred to the book in their interpretation of the New World. Pigafetta's
travelogue is one of the most important primary sources in the study of the precolonial Philippines.
His account was also a major referent to the events leading to Magellan's arrival in the Philippines,
his encounter with local leaders, his death in the hands of Lapu-Lapu’s forces in the Battle of
Mactan, and in the departure of what was left of Magellan's fleet from the islands.
Examining the document reveals several insights not just in the character of the Philippines during
the precolonial period, but also on how the fresh eyes of the Europeans regard a deeply unfamiliar
terrain, environment, people, and culture. Locating Pigafetta's account in the context of its writing
warrants a familiarity on the dominant frame of mind in the age of exploration, which pervaded
Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth century.
Students of history need to realize that primary sources used in the subsequent written histories
depart from certain perspectives. Thus, Pigafetta's account was also written from the perspective
of Pigafetta himself and was a product of the context of its production. The First Voyage Around
the World by Magellan was published after Pigafetta returned to Italy.
For this chapter, we will focus on the chronicles of Antonio Pigafetta as he wrote his firsthand
observation and general impression of the Far East including their experiences in the Visayas. In
Pigafetta's account, their fleet reached what he called the Ladrones Islands or the "Islands of the
Thieves." He recounted:
"These people have no arms, but use sticks, which have a fish bone at the end. They are poor, but
ingenious, and great thieves, and for the sake of that we called these three islands the Ladrones
Islands."
The Ladrones Islands is presently known as the Marianas Islands. These islands are located
south-southeast of Japan, west-southwest of Hawaii, north of New Guinea, and east of
Philippines. Ten days after they reached Ladrones Islands, Pigafetta reported that they reached
what Pigafetta called the isle of Zamal, now Samar but Magellan decided to land in another
uninhabited island for greater security where they could rest for a few days. Pigafetta recounted
that after two days, March 18, nine men came to them and showed joy and eagerness in seeing
them. Magellan realized that the men were reasonable and welcomed them with food, drinks, and
gifts. In turn, the natives gave them fish, palm wine (uraca), figs, and two cochos. The natives also
gave them rice (umai), cocos, and other food supplies. Pigafetta detailed in amazement and
fascination the palm tree which bore fruits called cocho, and wine. He also described what
seemed like a coconut. His description reads:
"This palm produces a fruit named cocho, which is as large as the head, or thereabouts: its first
husk is green, and two fingers in thickness, in its they find certain threads, with which they make
the cords for fastening their boats. Under this husk there is another very hard, and thicker than
that of a walnut. They burn this second rind, and make with it a powder which is useful to them.
Under this rind there is a white marrow of a finger's thickness, which they eat fresh with meat and
fish, as we do bread, and it has the taste of an almond, and if anyone dried it he might make bread
of it (p. 72)."
Pigafetta characterized the people as "very familiar and friendly" and willingly showed them
different islands and the names of these islands. The fleet went to Humunu Island (Homonhon)
and there they found what Pigafetta referred to as the "Watering Place of Good Signs." It is in this
place where Pigafetta wrote that they found the first signs of gold in the island. They named the
island with the nearby islands as the archipelago of St. Lazarus. They left the island, then on
March 25th, Pigafetta recounted that they saw two ballanghai (balangay), a long boat full of people
in Mazzava/ Mazaua. The leader, who Pigafetta referred to as the king of the ballanghai
(balangay), sent his men to the ship of Magellan. The Europeans entertained these men and gave
them gifts. When the king of the balangay offered to give Magellan a bar of gold and a chest of
ginger, Magellan declined. Magellan sent the interpreter to the king and asked for money for the
needs of his ships and expressed that he came into the islands as a friend and not as an enemy.
The king responded by giving Magellan the needed provisions of food in chinaware. Magellan
exchanged gifts of robes in Turkish fashion, red cap, and gave the people knives and mirrors. The
two then expressed their desire to become brothers. Magellan also boasted of his men in armor
who could not be struck with swords and daggers. The king was fascinated and remarked that
men in such armor could be worth one hundred of his men. Magellan further showed the king his
other weapons, helmets, and artilleries. Magellan also shared with the king his charts and maps
and shared how they found the islands.
After a few days, Magellan was introduced to the king's brother who was also a king of another
island. They went to this island and Pigafetta reported that they saw mines of gold. The gold was
abundant that parts of the ship and of the house of the second king were made of gold. Pigafetta
described this king as the most handsome of all the men that he saw in this place.
He was also adorned with silk and gold accessories like a golden dagger, which he carried with
him in a wooden polished sheath. This king was named Raia Calambu, king of Zuluan and
Calagan (Butuan and Caragua), and the first king was Raia Siagu. On March 31st, which
happened to be Easter Sunday, Magellan ordered the chaplain to preside a Mass by the shore.
The king heard of this plan and sent two dead pigs and attended the Mass with the other king.
Pigafetta reported that both kings participated in the mass. He wrote:
"...when the offertory of the mass came, the two kings, went to kiss the cross like us, but they
offered nothing, and at the elevation of the body of our Lord they were kneeling like us, and
adored our Lord with joined hands."
After the Mass, Magellan ordered that the cross be brought with nails and crown in place.
Magellan explained that the cross, the nail, and the crown were the signs of his emperor and that
he was ordered to plant it in the places that he would reach. Magellan further explained that the
cross would be beneficial for their people because once other Spaniards saw this cross, then they
would know that they had been in this land and would not cause them troubles, and any person
who might be held captives by them would be released. The king concurred and allowed for the
cross to be planted. This Mass would go down in history as the first Mass in the Philippines, and
the cross would be the famed Magellan's Cross still preserved at present day.
After seven days, Magellan and his men decided to move and look for islands where they could
acquire more supplies and provisions. They learned of the islands of Ceylon (Leyte), Bohol, and
Zzubu (Cebu) and intended to go there. Raia Calambu offered to pilot them in going to Cebu, the
largest and the richest of the islands. By April 7th of the same year, Magellan and his men reached
the port of Cebu. The king of Cebu, through Magellan's interpreter, demanded that they pay tribute
as it was customary, but Magellan refused. Magellan said that he was a captain of a king himself
and thus would not pay tribute to other kings. Magellan's interpreter explained to the king of Cebu
that Magellan's king was the emperor of a great empire and that it would do them better to make
friends with them than to forge enmity. The king of Cebu consulted his council. By the next day,
Magellan's men and the king of Cebu, together with other principal men of Cebu, met in an open
space. There, the king offered a bit of his blood and demanded that Magellan do the same.
Pigafetta recounts:
"Then the king said that he was content, and as a greater sign of affection he sent him a little of his
blood from his right arm, and wished he should do the like. Our people answered that he would do
it. Besides that, he said that all the captains who came to his country had been accustomed to
make a present to him, and he to them, and therefore they should ask their captain if he would
observe the custom. Our people answered that he would; but as the king wished to keep up the
custom, let him begin and make a present, and then the captain would do his duty."
The following day, Magellan spoke before the people of Cebu about peace and God. Pigafetta
reported that the people took pleasure in Magellan's speech. Magellan then asked the people who
would succeed the king after his reign and the people responded that the eldest child of the king,
who happened to be a daughter, would be the next in line. Pigafetta also related how the people
talked about, how at old age, parents were no longer taken into account and had to follow the
orders of their children as the new leaders of the land. Magellan responded to this by saying that
his faith entailed children to render honor and obedience to their parents. Magellan preached
about their faith further and people were reportedly convinced. Pigafetta wrote that their men were
overjoyed seeing that the people wished to become Christians through their free will and not
because they were forced or intimidated.
On the 14th of April, the people gathered with the king and other principal men of the islands.
Magellan spoke to the king and encouraged him to be a good Christian by burning all of the idols
and worship the cross instead. The king of Cebu was then baptized as a Christian. Pigafetta
wrote:
"To that the king and all his people answered that thy would obey the commands of the captain
and do all that he told them. The captain took the king by the hand, and they walked about on the
scaffolding, and when he was baptized, he said that he would name him Don Charles (Carlos), as
the emperor his sovereign was named; and he named the prince Don Fernand (Fernando), after
the brother of the emperor, and the King of Mazavva, Jehan: to the Moor he gave the name of
Christopher, and to the others each a name of his fancy."
After eight days, Pigafetta counted that all of the island's inhabitant were already baptized. He
admitted that they burned a village down for obeying neither the king nor Magellan. The Mass was
conducted by the shore every day. When the queen came to the Mass one day, Magellan gave her
an image of the Infant Jesus made by Pigafetta himself. The king of Cebu swore that he would
always be faithful to Magellan. When Magellan reiterated that all of the newly baptized Christians
need to burn their idols, but the natives gave excuses telling Magellan that they needed the idols
to heal a sick man who was a relative to the king. Magellan insisted that they should instead put
their faith in Jesus Christ. They went to the sick man and baptized him. After the baptismal,
Pigafetta recorded that the man was able to speak again. He called this a miracle.
On the 26th of April, Zula, a principal man from the island of Matan (Mactan) went to see Magellan
and asked him for a boat full of men so that he would be able to fight the chief named Silapulapu
(Lapulapu). Such chief, according to Zula, refused to obey the king and was also preventing him
from doing so. Magellan offered three boats instead and expressed his desire to go to Mactan
himself to fight the said chief. Magellan's forces arrived in Mactan in daylight. They numbered 49
in total and the islanders of Mactan were estimated to number 1,500. The battle began. Pigafetta
recounted:
"When we reached land, we found the islanders fifteen hundred in number, drawn up in three
squadrons; they came down upon us with terrible shouts, two squadrons attacking us on the
flanks, and the third in front. The captain then divided his men in two bands. Our musketeers and
crossbow-men fired for half an hour from a distance, but did nothing, since the bullets and arrows,
though they passed through their shields made of thin wood, and perhaps wounded their arms, yet
did not stop them. The captain shouted not to fire, but he was not listened to. The islanders seeing
that the shots of our guns did them little or no harm would not retire, but shouted more loudly, and
springing from one side to the other to avoid our shots, they at the same time drew nearer to us,
throwing arrows, javelins, spears hardened in fire, stones, and even mud, so that we could hardly
defend ourselves. Some of them cast lances pointed with iron at the captain-general."
Magellan died in that battle. The natives, perceiving that the bodies of the enemies were protected
with armors, aimed for their legs instead. Magellan was pierced with a poisoned arrow in his right
leg. A few of their men charged at the natives and tried to intimidate them by burning an entire
village but this only enraged the natives further. Magellan was specifically targeted because the
natives knew that he was the captain general. Magellan was hit with a lance in the face. Magellan
retaliated and pierced the same native with his lance in the breast and tried to draw his sword but
could not lift it because of his wounded arm. Seeing that the captain has already deteriorated,
more natives came to attack him. One native with a great sword delivered a blow in Magellan's left
leg, brought him face down and the natives ceaselessly attacked Magellan with lances, swords,
and even with their bare hands. Pigafetta recounted the last moments of Magellan:
"Whilst the Indians were thus overpowering him, several times he turned round towards us to see
if we were all in safety, as though his obstinate fight had no other object than to give an
opportunity for the retreat of his men."
Pigafetta also said that the king of Cebu who was baptized could have sent help but Magellan
instructed him not to join the battle and stay in the balangay so that he would see how they fought.
The king offered the people of Mactan gifts of any value and amount in exchange of Magellan's
body but the chief refused. They wanted to keep Magellan's body as a memento of their victory.
Magellan's men elected Duarte Barbosa as the new captain. Pigafetta also told how Magellan's
slave and interpreter named Henry betrayed them and told the king of Cebu that they intended to
leave as quickly as possible. Pigafetta alleged that the slave told the king that if he followed the
slave's advice, then the king could acquire the ships and the goods of Magellan's fleet. The two
conspired and betrayed what was left of Magellan's men. The king invited these men to a
gathering where he said he would present the jewels that he would send for the King of Spain.
Pigafetta was not able to join the twenty-four men who attended because he was nursing his battle
wounds. It was only a short time when they heard cries and lamentations. The natives had slain all
of the men except the interpreter and Juan Serrano who was already wounded. Serrano was
presented and shouted at the men in the ship asking them to pay ransom so he would be spared.
However, they refused and would not allow anyone to go to the shore. The fleet departed and
abandoned Serrano. They left Cebu and continued their journey around the world.
Analysis of Pigafetta's Chronicle
The chronicle of Pigafetta was one of the most cited documents by historians who wished to study
the precolonial Philippines. As one of the earliest written accounts, Pigafetta was seen as a
credible source for a period, which was prior unchronicled and undocumented. Moreover, being
the earliest detailed documentation, it was believed that Pigafetta's writings account for the
"purest" precolonial society. Indeed, Pigafetta's work is of great importance in the study and writing
of Philippine history. Nevertheless, there needs to have a more nuanced reading of the source
within a contextual backdrop. A student of history should recognize certain biases: accompanying
the author and his identity, loyalties, and the circumstances that he was in; and how it affected the
text that he produced. In the case of Pigafetta, the reader needs to understand that he was a
chronicler commissioned by the King of Spain to accompany and document a voyage intended to
expand the Spanish empire. He was also of noble descent who came from a rich family in Italy.
These attributes influenced his narrative, his selection of details to be included in the text, his
characterization of the people and of the species that he encountered, and his interpretation and
retelling of the events. Being a scholar of cartography and geography, Pigafetta was able to give
details on geography and climate of the places that their voyage had reached.
In reading Pigafetta's description of the people, one has to keep in mind that he was coming from
a sixteenth century European perspective. Hence, the reader might notice how Pigafetta, whether
implicitly or explicitly, regarded the indigenous belief systems and way of life as inferior to that of
Christianity and of the Europeans. He would always remark on the nakedness of the natives or
how he was fascinated by their exotic culture. Pigafetta also noticeably emphasized the natives'
amazement and illiteracy to the European artillery, merchandise, and other goods, in the same
way that Pigafetta repeatedly mentioned the abundance of spices like ginger, and of precious
metals like gold. His observations and assessments of the indigenous cultures employed the
European standards. Hence, when they saw the indigenous attires of the natives, Pigafetta saw
them as being naked because from the European standpoint, they were wearing fewer clothes
indeed. Pigafetta's perspective was too narrow to realize that such attire was only appropriate to
the tropical climate of the islands. The same was true for materials that the natives used for their
houses like palm and bamboo. These materials would let more air come through the house and
compensate for the hot climate in the islands.
It should be understood that such observations were rooted from the context of Pigafetta and of
his era. Europe, for example, was dominated by the Holy Roman Empire, whose loyalty and
purpose was the domination of the Catholic Church all over the world. Hence, other belief systems
different from that of Christianity were perceived to be blasphemous and barbaric, even demonic.
Aside from this, the sixteenth century European economy was mercantilist.
Such system measures the wealth of kingdoms based on their accumulation of bullions or
precious metals like gold and silver. It was not surprising therefore that Pigafetta would always
mention the abundance of gold in the islands as shown in his description of leaders wearing gold
rings and golden daggers, and of the rich gold mines. An empire like that of the Spain would
indeed search for new lands where they could acquire more gold and wealth to be on top of all the
European nations. The obsession with spices might be odd for Filipinos because of its
ordinariness in the Philippines, but understanding the context would reveal that spices were
scarce in Europe and hence were seen as prestige goods. In that era, Spain and Portugal coveted
the control of Spice Islands because it would have led to a certain increase in wealth, influence,
and power. These contexts should be used and understood in order to have a more qualified
reading of Pigafetta's account.
The KKK and the "Kartilya ng Katipunan"
The Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (KKK) or Katipunan is
arguably the most important organization formed in the Philippine history. While anti-colonial
movements, efforts, and organizations had already been established centuries prior to the
foundation of the Katipunan, it was only this organization that envisioned (1) a united Filipino
nation that would revolt against the Spaniards for (2) the total independence of the country from
Spain. Previous armed revolts had already occurred before the foundation of the Katipunan, but
none of them envisioned a unified Filipino nation revolting against the colonizers. For example,
Diego Silang was known as an Ilocano who took up his arms and led one of the longest running
revolts in the country. Silang, however, was mainly concerned about his locality and referred to
himself as El Rey de Ilocos (The King of Ilocos). The imagination of the nation was largely absent
in the aspirations of the local revolts before Katipunan. On the other hand, the propaganda
movements led by the ilustrados like Marcelo H. del Pilar, Graciano López Jaena, and Jose Rizal
did not envision a total separation of the Philippines from Spain, but only demanded equal rights,
representation, and protection from the abuses of the friars.
In the conduct of their struggle, Katipunan created a complex structure and a defined value system
that would guide the organization as a collective aspiring for a single goal. One of the most
important Katipunan documents was the Kartilya ng Katipunan. The original title of the document
was "Manga [sic] Aral Nang [sic] Katipunan ng mga A.N.B." or "Lessons of the Organization of the
Sons of Country." The document was written by Emilio Jacinto in the 1896. Jacinto was only 18
years old when he joined the movement. He was a law student at the Universidad de Santo
Tomas. Despite his youth, Bonifacio recognized the value and intellect of Jacinto that upon seeing
that Jacinto's Kartilya was much better than the Decalogue he wrote, he willingly favored that the
Kartilya be distributed to their fellow Katipuneros. Jacinto became the secretary of the organization
and took charge of the short-lived printing press of the Katipunan. On 15 April 1897, Bonifacio
appointed Jacinto as a commander of the Katipunan in Northern Luzon. Jacinto was 22 years old.
He died of Malaria at a young age of 24 in the town of Magdalena, Laguna.
The Kartilya can be treated as the Katipunan's code of conduct. It contains fourteen rules that
instruct the way a Katipunero should behave, and which specific values should he uphold.
Generally, the rules stated in the Kartilya can be classified into two. The first group contains the
rules that will make the member an upright individual and the second group contains the rules that
will guide the way he treats his fellow men.
Below is the translated version of the rules in Kartilya:
1. The life that is not consecrated to a lofty and reasonable purpose is a tree without a shade,
if not a poisonous weed.
2. To do good for personal gain and not for its own sake is not virtue.
3. It is rational to be charitable and love one's fellow creature, and to adjust one's conduct,
acts and words to what is in itself reasonable.
4. Whether our skin be black or white, we are all born equal: superiority in knowledge, wealth
and beauty are to be understood, but not superiority by nature.
5. The honorable man prefers honor to personal gain; the scoundrel, gain to honor.
6. To the honorable man, his word is sacred.
7. Do not waste thy time: wealth can be recovered but not time lost.
8. Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor before the law or in the field.
9. The prudent man is sparing in words and faithful in keeping secrets.
10. On the thorny path of life, man is the guide of woman and the children, and if the guide
leads to the precipice, those whom he guides will also go there.
11. Thou must not look upon woman as a mere plaything, but as a faithful companion who will
share with thee the penalties of life; her (physical) weakness will increase thy interest in her
and she will remind thee of the mother who bore thee and reared thee.
12. What thou dost not desire done unto thy wife, children, brothers and sisters, that do not
unto the wife, children, brothers and sisters of thy neighbor.
13. Man is not worth more because he is a king, because his nose is aquiline, and his color
white, not because he is a priest, a servant of God, nor because of the high prerogative that
he enjoys upon earth, but he is worth most who is a man of proven and real value, who
does good, keeps his words, is worthy and honest; he who does not oppress nor consent to
being oppressed, he who loves and cherishes his fatherland, though he be born in the
wilderness and know no tongue but his own.
14. When these rules of conduct shall be known to all, the longed- for sun of Liberty shall rise
brilliant over this most unhappy portion of the globe and its rays shall diffuse everlasting joy
among the confederated brethren of the same rays, the lives of those who have gone
before, the fatigues and the well-paid sufferings will remain. If he who desires to enter has
informed himself of all this and believes he will be able to perform what will be his duties, he
may fill out the application for admission.
As the primary governing document, which determines the rules of conduct in the Katipunan,
properly understanding the Kartilya will thus help in understanding the values, ideals, aspirations,
and even the ideology of the organization.
Analysis of the "Kartilya ng Katipunan"
Similar to what we have done to the accounts of Pigafetta, this primary source also needs to be
analyzed in terms of content and context. As a document written for a fraternity whose main
purpose is to overthrow a colonial regime, we can explain the content and provisions of the
Kartilya as a reaction and response to certain value systems that they found despicable in the
present state of things that they struggled against with. For example, the fourth and the thirteenth
rules in the Kartilya are an invocation of the inherent equality between and among men regardless
of race, occupation, or status. In the context of the Spanish colonial era where the indios were
treated as the inferior of the white Europeans, the Katipunan saw to it that the alternative order
that they wished to promulgate through their revolution necessarily destroyed this kind of unjust
hierarchy.
Moreover, one can analyze the values upheld in the document as consistent with the burgeoning
rational and liberal ideals in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Equality, tolerance, freedom,
and liberty were values that first emerged in the eighteenth-century French Revolution, which
spread throughout Europe and reached the educated class of the colonies. Jacinto, an ilustrado
himself, certainly got an understanding of these values. Aside from the liberal values that can be
dissected in the document, we can also decipher certain Victorian and chivalrous values in the
text. For example, various provisions in the Kartilya repeatedly emphasized the importance of
honor in words and in action.
The teaching of the Katipunan on how women should be treated with honor and respect, while
positive in many respects and certainly a significant stride from the practice of raping and
physically abusing women, can still be telling of the Katipunan's secondary regard for women in
relation to men. For example, in the tenth rule, the document specifically stated that men should
be the guide of women and children, and that he should set a good example, otherwise the
women and the children would be guided in the path of evil. Nevertheless, the same document
stated that women should be treated as companions by men and not as playthings that can be
exploited for their pleasure.
In the contemporary eyes, the Katipunan can be criticized because of these provisions. However,
one must not forget the context where the organization was born. Not even in Europe or in the
whole of the West at that juncture recognized the problem of gender inequality. Indeed, it can be
argued that Katipunan's recognition of women as important partners in the struggle, as reflected
not just in Kartilya but also in the organizational structure of the fraternity where a women's unit
was established, is an endeavor advanced for its time. Aside from Rizal's known Letter to the
Women of Malolos, no same effort by the supposed cosmopolitan Propaganda Movement was
achieved until the movement's eventual disintegration in the latter part of the 1890s.
Aside from this, the Kartilya was instructive not just of the Katipunan's conduct toward other
people, but also for the members' development as individuals in their own rights. Generally
speaking, the rules in the Kartilya can be classified as either directed to how one should treat his
neighbor or to how one should develop and conduct one's self. Both are essential to the success
and fulfillment of the Katipunan's ideals. For example, the Kartilya' teachings on honoring one's
word and not wasting time are teaching directed toward self-development, while the rules on
treating the neighbor' wife, children, and brothers the way that you want yours to be treated is
instruction on how Katipuneros should treat and regard their neighbors.
All in all, proper reading of the Kartilya will reveal a more thorough understanding of the Katipunan
and the significant role that it played in the revolution and in the unfolding of the Philippine history,
as we know it.
“Reading the Proclamation of the Philippine Independence"
Every year, the country commemorates the anniversary of the Philippine Independence
proclaimed on 12 June 1898, in the province of Cavite. Indeed, such event is a significant turning
point in the history of the country because it signaled the end of the 333 years of Spanish
colonization. There have been numerous studies done on the events leading to the independence
of the country but very few students had the chance to read the actual document of the
declaration. This is in spite of the historical importance of the document and the details that the
document reveals on the rationale and circumstances of that historical day in Cavite. Interestingly,
reading the details of the said document in hindsight is telling of the kind of government that was
created under Aguinaldo, and the forthcoming hand of the United States of America in the next few
years of the newly created republic. The declaration was a short 2,000-word document, which
summarized the reason behind the revolution against Spain, the war for independence, and the
future of the new republic under Emilio Aguinaldo.
The proclamation commenced with a characterization of the conditions in the Philippines during
the Spanish colonial period. The document specifically mentioned abuses and inequalities in the
colony. The declaration says:

"...taking into consideration, that their inhabitants being already weary of bearing the ominous
yoke of Spanish domination, on account of the arbitrary arrests and harsh treatment practiced by
the Civil Guard to the extent of causing death with the connivance and even with the express
orders of their commanders, who sometimes went to the extreme of ordering the shooting of
prisoners under the pretext that they were attempting to escape, in violation of the provisions of
the Regulations of their Corps, which abuses were unpunished and on account of the unjust
deportations, especially those decreed by General Blanco, of eminent personages and of high
social position, at the instigation of the Archbishop and friars interested in keeping them out of the
way for their own selfish and avaricious purpose, deportations which are quickly brought about by
a method of procedure more execrable than that of the Inquisition and which every civilized nation
rejects on account of a decision being rendered without a hearing of the persons accused."
The above passage demonstrates the justifications behind the revolution against Spain.
Specifically cited are the abuse by the Civil Guards and the unlawful shooting of prisoners whom
they alleged as attempting to escape. The passage also condemns the unequal protection of the
law between the Filipino people and the "eminent personages." Moreover, the line mentions the
avarice and greed of the clergy like the friars and the archbishop himself. Lastly, the passage also
condemns what they saw as the unjust deportation and rendering of other decision without proper
hearing, expected of any civilized nation.
From here, the proclamation proceeded with a brief historical overview of the Spanish occupation
since Magellan's arrival in Visayas until the Philippine Revolution, with specific details about the
latter, especially after the Pact of Biak-na-Bato had collapsed. The document narrates the spread
of the movement "like an electric spark" through different towns and provinces like Bataan,
Pampanga, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, and Morong, and the quick decline of Spanish forces in
the same provinces. The revolt also reached Visayas; thus, the independence of the country was
ensured. The document also mentions Rizal's execution, calling it unjust. The execution, as written
in the document, was done to "please the greedy body of friars in their insatiable desire to seek
revenge upon and exterminate all those who are opposed to their Machiavellian purposes, which
tramples upon the penal code prescribed for these islands." The document also narrates the
Cavite Mutiny of January 1872 that caused the infamous execution of the martyred native priests
Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, "whose innocent blood was shed through the
intrigues of those so-called religious orders" that incited the three secular priests in the said
mutiny.
The proclamation of independence also invokes that the established republic would be led under
the dictatorship of Emilio Aguinaldo. The first mention was at the very beginning of the
proclamation. It stated:
"In the town of Cavite Viejo, in this province of Cavite, on the twelfth day of June eighteen hundred
and ninety-eight, before 'me, Don Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, Auditor of War and Special
Commissioner appointed to proclaim and solemnize this act by the Dictatorial Government of
these Philippine Islands, for the purposes and by virtue of the circular addressed by the Eminent
Dictator of the same Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy."
The same was repeated toward the last part of the proclamation. It states:
"We acknowledge, approve and confirm together with the orders that have been issued therefrom,
the Dictatorship established by Don Emilio Aguinaldo, whom we honor as the Supreme Chief of
this Nation, which this day commences to have a life of its own, in the belief that he is the
instrument selected by God, in spite of his humble origin, to effect the redemption of this
unfortunate people, as foretold by Doctor Jose Rizal in the magnificent verses which he composed
when he was preparing to be shot, liberating them from the yoke of Spanish domination in
punishment of the impunity with which their Government allowed the commission of abuses by its
subordinates."
Another detail in the proclamation that is worth looking at is its explanation on the Philippine flag
that was first waved on the same day. The document explained:
"And finally, it was unanimously resolved that this Nation, independent from this day, must use the
same flag used heretofore, whose design and colors and described in the accompanying drawing,
with design representing in natural colors the three arms referred to. The white triangle represents
the distinctive emblem of the famous Katipunan Society, which by means of its compact of blood
urged on the masses of the people to insurrection; the three stars represent the three principal
Islands of this Archipelago, Luzon, Mindanao and Panay, in which this insurrectionary movement
broke out; the sun represents the gigantic strides that have been made by the sons of this land on
the road of progress and civilization, its eight rays symbolizing the eight provinces of Manila,
Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bataan, Laguna and Batangas, which were declared in
a state of war almost as soon as the first insurrectionary movement was initiated; and the colors
blue, red and white, commemorate those of the flag of the United States of North America, in
manifestation of our profound gratitude towards that Great Nation for the disinterested protection
she is extending to us and will continue to extend to us."
This often-overlooked detail reveals much about the historically accurate meaning behind the most
widely known national symbol in the Philippines. It is not known by many for example, that the
white triangle was derived from the symbol of the Katipunan. The red and blue colors of the flag
are often associated with courage and peace, respectively. Our basic education omits the fact that
those colors were taken from the flag of the United States. While it can always be argued that
symbolic meaning can always change and be reinterpreted, the original symbolic meaning of
something presents us several historical truths that can explain the subsequent events, which
unfolded after the declaration of independence on the 12th day of June 1898.
Analysis of the "Proclamation of the Philippine Independence"
As mentioned earlier, a re-examination of the document on the declaration of independence can
reveal some often-overlooked historical truths about this important event in Philippine history.
Aside from this, the document reflects the general revolutionary sentiment of that period. For
example, the abuses specifically mentioned in the proclamation like friar abuse, racial
discrimination, and inequality before the law reflect the most compelling sentiments represented
by the revolutionary leadership. However, no mention was made about the more serious problem
that affected the masses more profoundly (i.e., the land and agrarian crisis felt by the numerous
Filipino peasants in the nineteenth century). This is ironic especially when renowned Philippine
Revolution historian, Teodoro Agoncillo, stated that the Philippine Revolution was an agrarian
revolution. The common revolutionary soldiers fought in the revolution for the hope of owning the
lands that they were tilling once the friar estates in different provinces like Batangas and Laguna
dissolve, if and when the revolution succeeded. Such aspects and realities of the revolutionary
struggle were either unfamiliar to the middle-class revolutionary leaders like Emilio Aguinaldo,
Ambrosio Rianzares-Bautista, and Felipe Buencamino, or were intentionally left out because they
were landholders themselves.
The Treaty of Paris was an agreement signed between Spain and the United States of America
regarding the ownership of the Philippine Islands and other Spanish colonies in South America.
The agreement ended the short-lived Spanish-American War. The Treaty was signed on 10
December 1898, six months after the revolutionary government declared the Philippine
Independence. The Philippines was sold to the United States at $20 million and effectively
undermined the sovereignty of the Filipinos after their revolutionary victory. The Americans
occupied the Philippines immediately which resulted in the Philippine-American War that lasted
until the earliest years of the twentieth century.

The proclamation also gives us the impression on how the victorious revolutionary government of
Aguinaldo historicized the struggle for independence. There were mentions of past events that
were seen as important turning points of the movement against Spain. The execution of the
GOMBURZA, for example, and the failed Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was narrated in detail. This shows
that they saw this event as a significant awakening of the Filipinos in the real conditions of the
nation under Spain. Jose Rizal's legacy and martyrdom was also mentioned in the document.
However, the Katipunan as the pioneer of the revolutionary movement was only mentioned once
toward the end of the document. There was no mention of the Katipunan's foundation. Bonifacio
and his co-founders were also left out. It can be argued, thus, that the way of historical narration
found in the document also reflects the politics of the victors. The enmity between Aguinaldo's
Magdalo and Bonifacio's Magdiwang in the Katipunan is no secret in the pages of our history. On
the contrary, the war led by Aguinaldo's men with the forces of the United States were discussed in
detail.
The point is, even official records and documents like the proclamation of independence, while
truthful most of the time, still exude the politics and biases of whoever is in power. This manifests
in the selectiveness of information that can be found in these records. It is the task of the historian,
thus, to analyze the content of these documents in relation to the dominant politics and the
contexts of people and institutions surrounding it. This tells us a lesson on taking primary sources
like official government records within the circumstance of this production. Studying one historical
subject, thus, entails looking at multiple primary sources and pieces of historical evidences in
order to have a more nuanced and contextual analysis of our past.
A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy's Philippine Cartoons:
Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941)
Political cartoons and caricature are a rather recent art form, which veered away from the classical
art by exaggerating human features and poking fun at its subjects. Such art genre and technique
became a part of the print media as a form of social and political commentary, which usually
targets persons of power and authority. Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing opinions
through heavy use of symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial and opinion
pieces. The unique way that a caricature represents opinion and captures the audience's
imagination is reason enough for historians to examine these political cartoons. Commentaries in
mass media inevitably shape public opinion and such kind of opinion is worthy of historical
examination.
In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941), Alfred
McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political cartoons published in newspaper dailies
and periodicals in the aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look at selected
cartoons and explain the context of each one.
The first example shown above was published in The Independent on May 20, 1916. The cartoon
shows a politician from Tondo, named Dr. Santos, passing his crown to his brother-in-law, Dr.
Barcelona. A Filipino guy (as depicted wearing salakot and barong tagalog) was trying to stop
Santos, telling the latter to stop giving Barcelona the crown because it is not his to begin with.
The second cartoon was also published by The Independent on 16 June 1917. This was drawn by
Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a commentary to the workings of Manila Police at that
period. Here, we see a Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken because he had nothing to eat.
The police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A man wearing salakot, labeled Juan de
la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to leave the small-time pickpockets and thieves and to
turn at the great thieves instead. He was pointing to huge warehouses containing bulks of rice,
milk, and grocery products.
The third cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of colorum automobiles in the
city streets. The Philippine Free Press published this commentary when fatal accidents involving
colorum vehicles and taxis occurred too often already.
This fourth cartoon depicts a cinema. A blown-up police officer was at the screen saying that
couples are not allowed to neck and make love in the theater. Two youngsters looked horrified
while an older couple seemed amused.
The next cartoon was published by The Independent on 27 November 1915. Here, we see the
caricature of Uncle Sam riding a chariot pulled by Filipinos wearing school uniforms. The Filipino
boys were carrying American objects like baseball bats, whiskey, and boxing gloves. McCoy, in his
caption to the said cartoon, says that this cartoon was based on an event in 1907 when William
Howard Taft was brought to the Manila pier riding a chariot pulled by students of Liceo de Manila.
Such was condemned by the nationalists at that time.
The last cartoon was published by Lipang Kalabaw on 24 August 1907. In the picture, we can see
Uncle Sam rationing porridge to the politicians and members of the Progresista Party (sometimes
known as the Federalista Party) while members of the Nacionalista Party look on and wait for their
turn. This cartoon depicts the patronage of the United States being coveted by politicians from
either of the party.
Analysis of the Political Caricatures during the American Period
The transition from the Spanish Colonial period to the American Occupation period demonstrated
different strands of changes and shifts in culture, society, and politics. The Americans drastically
introduced democracy to the nascent nation and the consequences were far from ideal. Aside from
this, it was also during the American period that Filipinos were introduced to different
manifestations of modernity like healthcare, modern transportation, and media. This ushered in a
more open and freer press. The post-independence and the post-Filipino-American period in the
Philippines were experienced differently by Filipinos coming from different classes. The upper
principalia class experienced economic prosperity with the opening up of the Philippine economy
to the United States but the majority of the poor Filipino remained poor, desperate, and victims of
state repression.
The selected cartoons illustrate not only the opinion of certain media outfits about the Philippine
society during the American period but also paint a broad image of society and politics under the
United States. In the arena of politics, for example, we see the price that Filipinos paid for the
democracy modeled after the Americans. First, it seemed that the Filipino politicians at that time
did not understand well enough the essence of democracy and the accompanying democratic
institutions and processes. This can be seen in the rising dynastic politics in Tondo as depicted in
the cartoon published by The Independent. Patronage also became influential and powerful, not
only between clients and patrons but also between the newly formed political parties composed of
the elite and the United States. This was depicted in the cartoon where the United States,
represented by Uncle Sam, provided dole outs for members of the Federalista while the
Nacionalista politicians looked on and waited for their turn. Thus, the essence of competing
political parties to enforce choices among the voters was cancelled out. The problem continues up
to the present where politicians transfer from one party to another depending on which party was
powerful in specific periods of time.
The transition from a Catholic-centered, Spanish-Filipino society to an imperial American-
assimilated one, and its complications, were also depicted in the cartoons. One example is the
unprecedented increase of motorized vehicles in the city. Automobiles became a popular mode of
transportation in the city and led to the emergence of taxis. However, the laws and policy
implementation were mediocre. This resulted in the increasing colorum and unlicensed vehicles
transporting people around the city. The rules governing the issuance of driver's license was loose
and traffic police could not be bothered by rampant violations of traffic rules. This is a direct
consequence of the drastic urbanization of the Philippine society. Another example is what McCoy
called the "sexual revolution" that occurred in the 1930s.
Young people, as early as that period, disturbed the conservative Filipino mindset by engaging in
daring sexual activities in public spaces like cinemas. Here, we can see how that period was the
meeting point between the conservative past and the liberated future of the Philippines.
Lastly, the cartoons also illustrated the conditions of poor Filipinos in the Philippines now governed
by the United States. From the looks of it, nothing much has changed. For example, a cartoon
depicted how police authorities oppress petty Filipino criminals while turning a blind eye on
hoarders who monopolize goods in their huge warehouses (presumably Chinese merchants). The
other cartoon depicts how Americans controlled Filipinos through seemingly harmless American
objects. By controlling their consciousness and mentality, Americans got to control and subjugate
Filipinos.
Revisiting Corazon Aquino's Speech Before the U.S. Congress
Corazon "Cory" Cojuangco Aquino functioned as the symbol of the restoration of democracy and
the overthrow of the Marcos Dictatorship in 1986. The EDSA People Power, which installed Cory
Aquino in the presidency, put the Philippines in the international spotlight for overthrowing a
dictator through peaceful means. Cory was easily a figure of the said revolution, as the widow of
the slain Marcos oppositionist and former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. Cory was hoisted as
the antithesis of the dictator. Her image as a mourning, widowed housewife who had always been
in the shadow of her husband and relatives and had no experience in politics was juxtaposed
against Marcos's statesmanship, eloquence, charisma, and cunning political skills. Nevertheless,
Cory was able to capture the imagination of the people whose rights and freedom had long been
compromised throughout the Marcos regime. This is despite the fact that Cory came from a rich
haciendero family in Tarlac and owned vast estates of sugar plantation and whose relatives
occupy local and national government positions.
The People Power Revolution of 1986 was widely recognized around the world for its peaceful
character. When former senator Ninoy Aquino was shot at the tarmac of the Manila International
Airport on 21 August 1983, the Marcos regime greatly suffered a crisis of legitimacy. Protests from
different sectors frequented different areas in the country. Marcos's credibility in the international
community also suffered. Paired with the looming economic crisis, Marcos had to do something to
prove to his allies in the United States that he remained to be the democratically anointed leader
of the country. He called for a Snap Election in February 1986, where Corazon Cojuangco Aquino,
the widow of the slain senator was convinced to run against Marcos. The canvassing was rigged
to Marcos's favor but the people expressed their protests against the corrupt and authoritarian
government. Leading military officials of the regime and Martial Law orchestrators themselves,
Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel V. Ramos, plotted to take over the presidency, until civilians heeded
the call of then Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and other civilian leaders gathered in EDSA.
The overwhelming presence of civilians in EDSA successfully turned a coup into a civilian
demonstration. The thousands of people who gathered overthrew Ferdinand Marcos from the
presidency after 21 years.
On 18 September 1986, seven months since Cory became president, she went to the United
States and spoke before the joint session of the U.S. Congress. Cory was welcomed with long
applause as she took the podium and addressed the United States about her presidency and the
challenges faced by the new republic. She began her speech with the story of her leaving the
United States three years prior as a newly widowed wife of Ninoy Aquino.
She then told of Ninoy's character, conviction, and resolve in opposing the authoritarianism of
Marcos. She talked of the three times that they lost Ninoy including his demise on 23 August 1983.
The first time was when the dictatorship detained Ninoy with other dissenters. Cory related:
"The government sought to break him by indignities and terror. They locked him up in a tiny, nearly
airless cell in a military camp in the north. They stripped him naked and held a threat of a sudden
midnight execution over his head. Ninoy held up manfully under all of it.
I barely did as well. For forty-three days, the authorities would not tell me what had happened to
him. This was the first time my children and I felt we had lost him."
Cory continued that when Ninoy survived that first detention, he was then charged of subversion,
murder, and other crimes. He was tried by a military court, whose legitimacy Ninoy adamantly
questioned. To solidify his protest, Ninoy decided to do a hunger strike and fasted for 40 days.
Cory treated this event as the second time that their family lost Ninoy. She said:
"When that didn't work, they put him on trial for subversion, murder and a host of other crimes
before a military commission. Ninoy challenged its authority and went on a fast. If he survived it,
then he felt God intended him for another fate. We had lost him again. For nothing would hold him
back from his determination to see his fast through to the end. He stopped only when it dawned on
him that the government would keep his body alive after the fast had destroyed his brain. And so,
with barely any life in his body, he called off the fast on the 40th day."
Ninoy's death was the third and the last time that Cory and their children lost Ninoy. She
continued:
"And then, we lost him irrevocably and more painfully than in
the past. The news came to us in Boston. It had to be after the three happiest years of our lives
together. But his death was my country's resurrection and the courage and faith by which alone
they could be free again. The dictator had called him a nobody. Yet, two million people threw aside
their passivity and fear and escorted him to his grave."
Cory attributed the peaceful EDSA Revolution to the martyrdom of Ninoy. She stated that the
death of Ninoy sparked the revolution and the responsibility of "offering the democratic alternative"
had "fallen on (her) shoulders." Cory's address introduced us to her democratic philosophy, which
she claimed she also acquired from Ninoy. She argued:
"I held fast to Ninoy's conviction that it must be by the ways of democracy. I held out for
participation in the 1984 election the dictatorship called, even if I knew it would be rigged. I was
warned by the lawyers of the opposition, that I ran the grave risk of legitimizing the foregone
results of elections that were clearly going to be fraudulent. But I was not fighting for lawyers but
for the people in whose intelligence, I had implicit faith. By the exercise of democracy even in a
dictatorship, they would be prepared for democracy when it came. And then also, it was the only
way I knew by which we could measure our power even in the terms dictated by the dictatorship.
The people vindicated me in an election shamefully marked by government thuggery and fraud.
The opposition swept the elections, garnering a clear majority of the votes even if they ended up
(thanks to a corrupt Commission on Elections) with barely a third of the seats in Parliament. Now, I
knew our power."
Cory talked about her miraculous victory through the people's struggle and continued talking about
her earliest initiatives as the president of a restored democracy. She stated that she intended to
forge and draw reconciliation after a bloody and polarizing dictatorship. Cory emphasized the
importance of the EDSA Revolution in terms of being a "limited revolution that respected the life
and freedom of every Filipino." She also boasted of the restoration of a fully constitutional
government whose constitution gave utmost respect to the Bill of Rights. She reported to the U.S.
Congress:
"Again, as we restore democracy by the ways of democracy, so are we completing the
constitutional structures of our new democracy under a constitution that already gives full respect
to the Bill of Rights. A jealously independent constitutional commission is completing its draft which
will be submitted later this year to a popular referendum. When it is approved, there will be
elections for both national and local positions. So, within about a year from a peaceful but national
upheaval that overturned a dictatorship, we shall have returned to full constitutional government."

Cory then proceeded on her peace agenda with the existing communist insurgency, aggravated by
the dictatorial and authoritarian measure of Ferdinand Marcos. She asserted:
"My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a communist insurgency that numbered less
than five hundred. Unhampered by respect for human rights he went at it with hammer and tongs.
By the time he fled, that insurgency had grown to more than sixteen thousand. I think there is a
lesson here to be learned about trying to stifle a thing with a means by which it grows."
Cory's peace agenda involves political initiatives and re-integration program to persuade
insurgents to leave the countryside and return to the mainstream society to participate in the
restoration of democracy. She invoked the path of peace because she believed that it was the
moral path that a moral government must take. Nevertheless, Cory took a step back when she
said that while peace is the priority of her presidency, she "will not waiver" when freedom and
democracy are threatened. She said that, similar to Abraham Lincoln, she understands that "force
may be necessary before mercy" and while she did not relish the idea, she "will do whatever it
takes to defend the integrity and freedom of (her) country."
Cory then turned to the controversial topic of the Philippine foreign debt amounting to $26 billion at
the time of her speech. This debt had ballooned during the Marcos regime. Cory expressed her
intention to honor those debts despite mentioning that the people did not benefit from such debts.
Thus, she mentioned her protestations about the way the Philippines was deprived of choices to
pay those debts within the capacity of the Filipino people. She lamented:
"Finally, may I turn to that other slavery, our twenty-six-billion-dollar foreign debt. I have said that
we shall honor it. Yet, the means by which we shall be able to do so are kept from us. Many of the
conditions imposed on the previous government that stole this debt, continue to be imposed on us
who never benefited from it."
She continued that while the country had experienced the calamities brought about by the corrupt
dictatorship of Marcos, no commensurate assistance was yet to be extended to the Philippines.
She even remarked that given the peaceful character of EDSA People Power Revolution, "ours
must have been the cheapest revolution ever." She demonstrated that Filipino people fulfilled the
"most difficult condition of the debt negotiation," which was the "restoration of democracy and
responsible government."
Cory related to the U.S. legislators that wherever she went, she met poor and unemployed
Filipinos willing to offer their lives for democracy. She stated:
"Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or impoverished village. They came to me with one
cry, democracy. Not food although they clearly needed it but democracy. Not work, although they
surely wanted it but democracy. Not money, for they gave what little they had to my campaign.
They didn't expect me to work a miracle that would instantly put food into their mouths, clothes on
their back, education in their children and give them work that will put dignity in their lives. But I
feel the pressing obligation to respond quickly as the leader of the people so deserving of all these
things."
Cory proceeded in enumerating the challenges of the Filipino people as they tried building the new
democracy. These were the persisting communist insurgency and the economic deterioration.
Cory further lamented that these problems worsened by the crippling debt because half of the
country's export earnings amounting to $2 billion would "go to pay just the interest on a debt
whose benefit the Filipino people never received." Cory then asked a rather compelling question to
the U.S. Congress:

"Has there been a greater test of national commitment to the ideals you hold dear than that my
people have gone through? You have spent many lives and much treasure to bring freedom to
many lands that were reluctant to receive it. And here, you have a people who want it by
themselves and need only the help to preserve it."
Cory ended her speech by thanking America for serving as home to her family for what she
referred to as the "three happiest years of our lives together." She enjoined America in building the
Philippines as a new home for democracy and in turning the country as a "shining testament of our
two nations' commitment to freedom."
Analysis of Cory Aquino's Speech
Cory Aquino's speech was an important event in the political and diplomatic history of the country
because it has arguably cemented the legitimacy of the EDSA government in the international
arena. The speech talks of her family background, especially her relationship with her late
husband, Ninoy Aquino. It is well known that it was Ninoy who served as the real leading figure of
the opposition at that time. Indeed, Ninoy's eloquence and charisma could very well compete with
that of Marcos. In her speech, Cory talked at length about Ninoy's toil and suffering at the hands of
the dictatorship that he resisted. Even when she proceeded talking about her new government,
she still went back to Ninoy's legacies and lessons. Moreover, her attribution of the revolution to
Ninoy's death demonstrates not only Cory's personal perception on the revolution, but since she
was the president, it also represents what the dominant discourse was at that point in our history.
The ideology or the principles of the new democratic government can also be seen in the same
speech. Aquino was able to draw the sharp contrast between her government and of her
predecessor by expressing her commitment to a democratic constitution drafted by an
independent commission. She claimed that such constitution upholds and adheres to the rights
and liberty of the Filipino people. Cory also hoisted herself as the reconciliatory agent after more
than two decades of a polarizing authoritarian politics. For example, Cory saw the blown-up
communist insurgency as a product of a repressive and corrupt government. Her response to this
insurgency rooted from her diametric opposition of the dictator (i.e., initiating reintegration of
communist rebels to the mainstream Philippine society). Cory claimed that her main approach to
this problem was through peace and not through the sword of war.
Despite Cory's efforts to hoist herself as the exact opposite of Marcos, her speech still revealed
certain parallelisms between her and the Marcos's government. This is seen in terms of continuing
the alliance between the Philippines and the United States despite the known affinity between the
said world super power and Marcos. The Aquino regime, as seen in Cory's acceptance of the
invitation to address the U.S. Congress and to the content of the speech, decided to build and
continue with the alliance between the Philippines and the United States and effectively
implemented an essentially similar foreign policy to that of the dictatorship. For example, Cory
recognized that the large sum of foreign debts incurred by the Marcos regime never benefitted the
Filipino people. Nevertheless, Cory expressed her intention to pay off those debts. Unknown to
many Filipinos was the fact that there was a choice of waiving the said debt because those were
the debt of the dictator and not of the country. Cory's decision is an indicator of her government's
intention to carry on a debt-driven economy.
Reading through Aquino's speech, we can already take cues, not just on Cory's individual ideas
and aspirations, but also the guiding principles and framework of the government that she
represented.

True or False. Write true if the statement is true. Otherwise, write false in the space
provided.
1. non-written documents are not useful as primary sources in conducting historical research.
2. The assassination of Ninoy Aquino is an important historical event that fueled people's anger
and condemnation of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
3. Apolinario Mabini penned the "Kartilya ng Katipunan." 4. Magellan and his fleet received a warm
welcome from all of the chieftains and local leaders in the Philippine Islands.
5. The Americans radically altered the social structure in the Philippines after they took over from
Spain in terms of socioeconomic equality.
6. The "Proclamation of Philippine Independence" reflects the social and economic discontent of
the masses about land ownership and other agrarian issues.
7. The enmity between Aguinaldo and Bonifacio did not affect how the former's revolutionary
government credited Bonifacio to the beginnings of the Philippine Revolution.
8. Corazon Aquino did not want to forge alliance with the United States because the latter was a
known important ally of Marcos.
9. The conservative attitude of the youth toward sexuality did not change since the Spanish period
until the 1930s.
10. The forces of Magellan were successful in defeating and conquering Lapulapu.
True or False. Write true if the statement is true. Otherwise, write false in the space
provided.
1. History is the study of the past.
2. Historical sources that were not written should not be used in writing history.
3. The subject of historiography is history itself.
4. History has no use for the present, thus, the saying "past is past" is true.
5. History is limited to the story of a hero versus a villain.
6. Only primary sources may be used in writing history.
7. There are three types of sources: primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.
8. External criticism is done by examining the physical characteristics of a source.
9. Internal criticism is done by looking at a source's quality of paper and type of ink, among others.
10. The historians are the only source of history.
B. What Source? Read the following scenarios and classify the sources discovered as
primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. Write your answer in the space provided.
Jose was exploring the library in his new school in Manila. He wanted to study the history of
Calamba, Laguna during the nineteenth century. In one of the books, he saw an old photograph of
a woman standing in front of an old church, clipped among the pages. At the back of the photo
was a fine inscription that says: "Kalamba, 19 de Junio 1861."
Is the photograph a primary, secondary, or a tertiary source?
It was Lean's first day in his first year of college in a big university. His excitement made him come
to class unusually early and he found their classroom empty. He explored the classroom and sat at
the teacher's table. He looked at the table drawer and saw a book entitled U.G. An Underground
Tale: The Journey of Edgar Jopson and the First Quarter Storm Generation. He started reading
the book and realized that it was a biography of a student leader turned political activist during the
time of Ferdinand Marcos. The author used interviews with friends and family of Jopson, and other
primary documents related to his works and life.
Is the book a primary, secondary, or a tertiary source?
Lorena was a new teacher of Araling Panlipunan in a small elementary school in Mauban,
Quezon. Her colleagues gave her the new textbook that she ought to use in class. Before the
class started, Lorena studied the textbook carefully. She noted that the authors used works by
other known historians in writing the textbook. She saw that the bibliography included Teodoro
Agoncillo's The Revolt of the Masses and The Fateful Years: Japan's Adventure in the Philippines,
1941-45. She also saw that the authors used Ma. Luisa Camagay's Working Women of Manila
During the 19th Century and many others.
Is the textbook a primary, secondary, or a tertiary source?
Manuel visited the United States for a few months to see his relatives who have lived there for
decades. His uncle brought him on tours around Illinois. Manuel visited the Field Museum of
Natural History where a golden image of a woman caught his eye. Manuel looked closer and read
that the image was called "The Golden Tara." It originated from Agusan del Sur and was bought by
the museum in 1922. It was believed to be made prior to the arrival of the Spaniards in the
Philippines.
Is the sculpture a primary, secondary, or tertiary source?
Gregoria loved to travel around the country. She liked bringing with
her a travel brochure that informs her of the different sites worth visiting in the area. Her travel
brochure was usually produced by the tourism department of the province. It shows pictures of
destinations visited by tourists and a few basic information about the place like the origin of the
name, the historical significance of the place, and some other information acquired by the office's
researchers and writers.
Is the travel brochure a primary, secondary, or a tertiary source?
C. My Primary Source. Using the examples of a primary source in this chapter, bring a
primary source that can be used in the writing of your life history. Present this in class and
discuss how it qualifies as a primary source.