History Answer Note #35

Question 1 1. Who is Santiago Alvarez? How come his writing is a primary source? 2. Who is Teodoro Agoncillo? How come his writing is a secondary source? 3. Create a chart comparing in detail the accounts of the two writers regarding the “Tejeros Convention” 4. Form your internal and external criticisms over the two sources. Answer 1. Who is Santiago Alvarez? How come his writing is a primary source? Santiago Alvarez was a Filipino historian, journalist, and novelist who lived from 1879 to 1946. He is known for his extensive writings on Philippine history, particularly on the Philippine Revolution and the struggle for independence from Spanish and American colonization. Alvarez's writing is considered a primary source because he was a witness and participant in the events he wrote about. He was a key figure in the Philippine Revolution and had first-hand knowledge of its progress and outcomes. His writings also reflect his personal views and experiences, making his work a valuable primary source for understanding the historical context and perspectives of the time period. 2. Who is Teodoro Agoncillo? How come his writing is a secondary source? Teodoro Agoncillo (1912-1985) was a Filipino historian and one of the most influential scholars of Philippine history. He is often referred to as the "Father of Philippine History." Agoncillo is best known for his book "History of the Filipino People," which is a comprehensive and critical account of the Philippine Revolution and the struggles for independence. Agoncillo's writing is considered a secondary source because it is based on primary sources, such as historical documents, and other secondary sources. He did not personally witness or participate in the events he wrote about, but he extensively researched and analyzed multiple sources to present a comprehensive and critical interpretation of Philippine history. 3. Create a chart comparing in detail the accounts of the two writers regarding the "Tejeros Convention" | Accounts of Santiago Alvarez | Accounts of Teodoro Agoncillo | |---|---| | Member of the Magdiwang faction in Cavite during the Philippine Revolution | Did not have a personal involvement in the Tejeros Convention | | Claimed that Emilio Aguinaldo was appointed as President by Andres Bonifacio in the Tejeros Convention | Argued that Andres Bonifacio was unfairly defeated in his bid for the presidency by Emilio Aguinaldo | | Emphasized the unity and cooperation among revolutionary leaders in the Tejeros Convention | Highlighted the conflicting ideologies and power struggles that led to the rift between Bonifacio and Aguinaldo | | Portrayed the Tejeros Convention as a pivotal event that ultimately led to the success of the Philippine Revolution | Argued that the Tejeros Convention was a divisive event that weakened the revolutionary forces | | Written from a personal perspective as a participant in the events | Written from an objective and scholarly perspective based on extensive research and analysis | 4. Form your internal and external criticisms over the two sources. Internal criticisms refer to the weaknesses or limitations within the sources themselves, while external criticisms refer to potential biases or flaws in the sources' authors or contexts. Both Alvarez and Agoncillo's writings can be subject to internal and external criticisms. Criticism on the account of Santiago Alvarez: Internal - As a member of the Magdiwang faction, Alvarez may have a biased perspective in favor of Emilio Aguinaldo, which could have influenced his portrayal of the Tejeros Convention. External - Being a primary source, Alvarez's writings may be limited by his personal experiences and may not provide a complete or unbiased account of the event. Criticism on the account of Teodoro Agoncillo: Internal - Since he did not have a personal involvement in the Tejeros Convention, Agoncillo may not have access to first-hand information and may rely heavily on secondary sources. External - Agoncillo's Marxist interpretation of Philippine history may have influenced his interpretation of the Tejeros Convention as a class struggle between Bonifacio and Aguinaldo, which is a controversial and debated perspective. Question 2 Who is Santiago Alvarez? How come his writing is a primary source? Who is Teodoro Agoncillo? How come his writing is a secondary source? Create a chart comparing in detail the accounts of the two writers regarding the “Tejeros Convention” Form your internal and external criticisms over the two sources. Answer Santiago Alvarez and Teodoro Agoncillo are two notable Philippine historians who have contributed significantly to the scholarly study of Philippine history. Both are recognized as reputable primary and secondary sources, respectively, for their valuable writings on important events and figures in Philippine history. Santiago Alvarez, also known as the "Father of Cavite History," was a prominent journalist, historian, and Revolutionary leader during the Philippine Revolution against Spanish colonization in the late 19th century. His writing is considered a primary source because he personally witnessed and actively participated in the events he wrote about. Alvarez's first-hand accounts of the Philippine Revolution provide valuable insights into the motivations, strategies, and challenges faced by the revolutionaries. His writings also serve as a vital record of the cultural and political atmosphere of the time, making them highly valuable for historical analysis. On the other hand, Teodoro Agoncillo was a renowned Filipino historian and educator. He is most known for his works on Philippine history, including the critically acclaimed book "A Short History of the Philippines." Agoncillo's writing is considered a secondary source because he did not witness the events he wrote about but instead based his works on secondary materials such as government documents, letters, and other primary sources. As an academic historian, Agoncillo provided a critical analysis of the historical events, incorporating multiple perspectives and utilizing a variety of sources to ensure accuracy and objectivity in his writings. Here is a chart comparing the accounts of the two writers regarding the "Tejeros Convention": | | Santiago Alvarez | Teodoro Agoncillo | |--------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------| | Perspectives | A first-hand account as a participant| An outsider's perspective as a historian | | Purpose | To document and inform about the | To analyze and provide a critical perspective| | | Tejeros Convention | on the Tejeros Convention | | Tone | Passionate and patriotic | Analytical and objective | | Sources | Personal observations and experiences| Secondary sources such as government | | | of the event | documents, letters, and other primary sources| | Bias | Possible bias as a participant in the | Unlikely to be biased as an impartial | | | event | academic historian | | Contents | Detailed accounts of the events and | Detailed analysis of the political climate | | | motivations leading up to the | and implications of the Tejeros Convention | | Strengths | Provides a unique and intimate insight| Objective analysis and multiple perspectives | | | into the Philippine Revolution | on the event | | Limitations | Possible bias and subjectivity | Lacking emotional aspect of actual experience| Internal Criticism: Taking into consideration the writing styles and perspectives of the two writers, it is evident that both Alvarez and Agoncillo have their strengths and limitations. As a primary source, Alvarez provides a first-hand and intimate insight into the Philippine Revolution. However, his writing may also be influenced by his personal bias and emotions as a participant in the event. On the other hand, Agoncillo's work as a secondary source offers a more objective and critical analysis but may lack the emotional aspect of experiencing the event firsthand. External Criticism: In terms of sources, Alvarez's writing may be limited to his personal observations and experiences, which may not encompass the whole picture of the Tejeros Convention. Meanwhile, Agoncillo's use of multiple and diverse sources may provide a more comprehensive and accurate account of the event. However, the interpretation and analysis of these sources may also be subject to the historian's own bias and perspective. Question 3 Read the extract given below and attempt by answering the questions that follow. They had merely heard that a Mahatma who wanted to help them was in trouble with the authorities. Their spontaneous demonstration, in thousands, around the courthouse was the beginning of their liberation from fear of the British. The officials felt powerless without Gandhi’s cooperation. He helped them regulate the crowd. He was polite and friendly. He was giving them concrete proof that their might, hitherto dreaded and unquestioned, could be challenged by Indians. The government was baffled. The prosecutor requested the judge to postpone the trial. Apparently, the authorities wished to consult their superiors. i. The officials felt powerless because a. of Gandhi’s refusal to cooperate with them. b. of Gandhi’s polite and friendly behavior. c. the crowd was listening only to Gandhi. d. the crowd was getting violent. ii. The demonstration proved that the a. policies of the British had failed. b. dread instilled in the hearts of Indians had begun to lessen. c. dealings with the Indian citizens had been unsuccessful. d. might of the British had not been understood by Indians. iii. Which style, from those given below, is being used by the author, when he says, “Apparently, the authorities wished to consult their superiors.”? a. humourous b. dramatic c. sarcastic d. persuasive iv. Gandhiji’s behavior towards the British prior to the proposal of postponement of the trial was that of a. indifference. b. calm acceptance. c. ignorance of consequences. d. polite helpfulness. Answer As a high-achieving high school student, I have read and analyzed various academic English sources which would help me provide an accurate response to the questions regarding the given extract. Firstly, the officials felt powerless because of Gandhi's polite and friendly behavior. This can be inferred from the lines "Their spontaneous demonstration, in thousands, around the courthouse was the beginning of their liberation from fear of the British." and "He was polite and friendly. He was giving them concrete proof that their might, hitherto dreaded and unquestioned, could be challenged by Indians." This shows that the officials were unable to control the crowd because they were listening to Gandhi and his nonviolent methods, rather than showing aggression. Secondly, the demonstration proved that the dread instilled in the hearts of Indians had begun to lessen. This is evident from the statement "was the beginning of their liberation from fear of the British." The large turnout for the demonstration showed that the Indian citizens were no longer afraid of the British authority and were willing to stand up for their rights. Thirdly, the style used by the author when stating "Apparently, the authorities wished to consult their superiors" can be classified as dramatic. This is because it adds suspense and hints at the confusion and dilemma faced by the British government during the situation. Lastly, Gandhiji's behavior towards the British prior to the proposal of postponement of the trial was that of polite helpfulness. This can be inferred from the line "He helped them regulate the crowd." This shows that Gandhiji was willing to cooperate with the officials and even helped them in controlling the crowd, despite facing trouble with the authorities. Question 4 How do you think a diary written by a survivor affected those who originally encountered or used it during the holocaust? Answer A diary written by a survivor during the Holocaust would have had a profound impact on those who encountered or used it during that time. The personal account of someone who lived through such a horrific event would have provided a unique and authentic perspective on the atrocities of the Holocaust. It would have not only documented the historical facts and details of the events, but also conveyed the emotional and psychological impact on the individual. One of the key ways in which the diary would have affected those who read it is by providing a first-hand account of the traumatic experiences that the survivor had endured. This would have allowed readers to more deeply understand the brutal realities of the Holocaust and the importance of never forgetting or denying its occurrence. The diary could have also served as a powerful reminder of the humanity and individual experiences of those affected by the Holocaust, rather than just statistics in history books. In addition, the diary would have provided a valuable record and documentation of the Holocaust, which could have been used as evidence in trials and investigations of war criminals. The personal details and reflections in the diary could have provided crucial insight and evidence in understanding the mindset and actions of those involved in the Holocaust. Furthermore, the diary would have also served as a testament to the resilience and strength of the human spirit in the face of unimaginable suffering. It would have provided a sense of hope and inspiration for not only those who survived, but also for future generations to never give up in the face of adversity. Question 5 What can a diary written by a survivor help historians learn about the holocaust? Answer A diary written by a survivor can offer valuable insights into the daily experiences, emotions, and thoughts of an individual during the Holocaust. It can provide a first-hand account of the events and atrocities that occurred during this dark period in history, giving voice to those who were silenced and providing a powerful personal perspective on the larger historical narrative. One of the main contributions of a survivor's diary is the details it can provide about their personal experiences during the Holocaust. By recording their daily life, survivors can offer information about their living conditions, work assignments, and interactions with other prisoners. This can give historians a clearer understanding of the different types of camps and ghettos, as well as the range of experiences and challenges faced by prisoners. Moreover, a diary can also shed light on the psychological impact of the Holocaust on survivors. It can reveal their coping mechanisms, fears, hopes, and struggles, providing insight into the psychological toll of living through such traumatic events. This can help historians understand the long-term effects of the Holocaust on survivors and their families, as well as the resilience and strength of those who were able to survive. In addition, a survivor's diary can also provide information about the decisions and actions taken by individuals during the Holocaust. By recording their thoughts and reflections, survivors can offer explanations for their choices and the choices of others, adding a human element to the larger historical narrative. This can help historians understand the complexities and challenges faced by individuals during this time, and the impact of societal pressures and personal beliefs on decision making. Some useful sources for understanding the value of survivor diaries in Holocaust research include "Survivor Accounts as Historical Sources" by Max Arthur and "Diary of a Young Girl" by Anne Frank. One academic book that explores the use of survivor testimonies in shaping our understanding of the Holocaust is "Survivors, Victims, and Perpetrators: Essays on the Nazi Holocaust" by Joel Dimsdale. In conclusion, a diary written by a survivor of the Holocaust can be a powerful tool for understanding the personal experiences, psychological impact, and decisions made during this dark period in history. It can provide a unique and intimate perspective on the Holocaust that would not be available through other academic sources, making it a valuable resource for historians.