Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Sa Aking Mga Kabata

ni Dr. Jose P. Rizal

Kapagka ang baya’y sadyáng umiibig


Sa kanyáng salitáng kaloob ng langit,
Sanglang kalayaan nasa ring masapit
Katulad ng ibong nasa himpapawid.

Pagka’t ang salita’y isang kahatulan


Sa bayan, sa nayo’t mga kaharián,
At ang isáng tao’y katulad, kabagay
Ng alin mang likha noong kalayaán.

Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang salitâ


Mahigit sa hayop at malansáng isdâ,
Kayâ ang marapat pagyamaning kusà
Na tulad sa ináng tunay na nagpalà.

Ang wikang Tagalog tulad din sa Latin


Sa Inglés, Kastilà at salitang anghel,
Sapagka’t ang Poong maalam tumingín
Ang siyang naggawad, nagbigay sa atin.

Ang salita nati’y huwad din sa iba


Na may alfabeto at sariling letra,
Na kaya nawalá’y dinatnan ng sigwâ
Ang lunday sa lawà noóng dakong una.

Theme: “Love for one’s language.”

This poem had a strong sense of nationalism expressing Rizal’s love for our own language. He emphasized
the significance and the usage of our mother tongue. Mother tongue was the language we learned since birth
(which was Filipino). It gave us a sense of identity. Language could not only be our way to communicate but it
also served as the reflection of our culture. Rizal also highlighted on this poem that all languages were equal in
terms of its significance and usage. Filipino language like other languages had its own alphabet and words. The
values and attitude that still valid and usable today is we should be more proud of our nationality and identity,
and by enriching our language we could show our sense of pride as Filipinos.
Generalization

A law was passed by Congress on June 19, l960, or Republic Act No. 2733, declared the site of Magallanes
on Limasawa Island as the national shrine to commemorate the first Mass ever held in the country that gave birth
to Christianity in this now predominantly Catholic nation.
Limasawa was identified as the most likely venue in 1894 with the publication of a manuscript of
Pigafetta's account of Magellan's voyage--the Ambrosian codex in Milan--in its Italian text.

The commission concluded that the First Mass was held in Limasawa after it found that:
- The most complete and reliable account of the Magellan expedition into Philippine shores in 1521 is that
of Antonio Pigafetta which is deemed as the only credible primary source of reports on the celebration of
the first Christian Mass on Philippine soil.
- James Robertson's English translation of the original Italian manuscript of Pigaffeta's account is most
reliable for being ''faithful'' to the original text as duly certified by the University of the Philippines'
Department of European Language.
- Pigafetta's Mazaua, the site of the first Christian Mass held on Philippine soil, is an island lying off the
southwestern tip of Leyte while Masao in Butuan is not an island but a barangay of Butuan City located
in a delta of the Agusan River along the coast of Northern Mindanao. The position of Mazaua, as plotted
by Pigafetta, matched that of Limasawa.
- The measurement of distances between Homonhon and Limasawa between Limasawa and Cebu, as
computed by the pro-Limasawa group, matches or approximates the delineations made by Pigafetta of the
distances between Homonhon and Mazaua and between Mazaua and Cebu.
- Magellan's fleet took a route from Homonhon to Mazaua and from Mazaua to Cebu that did not at any
time touch Butuan or any other part of Mindanao. The docking facilities at Limasawa did not pose any
problem for Magellan's fleet which anchored near or at some safe distance from the island of the eastern
shore.

Cavite Mutiny
Cavite Mutiny, (Jan. 20, 1872), brief uprising of 200 Filipino troops and workers at the Cavite arsenal,
which became the excuse for Spanish repression of the embryonic Philippine nationalist movement. Ironically,
the harsh reaction of the Spanish authorities served ultimately to promote the nationalist cause.
Reason
The primary cause of the mutiny is believed to "be an order from Governor-General Carlos to subject the
soldiers of the Engineering and Artillery Corps to personal taxes, from which they were previously exempt. The
taxes required them to pay a monetary sum as well as to perform forced labor called, polo y servicio. The mutiny
was sparked on January 20, 1872 when the laborers received their pay and realized the taxes as well as the falla,
the fine one paid to be exempt from forced labor, had been deducted from their salaries.
Different accounts in the Cavite mutiny also highlighted other probable causes of the “revolution” which
includes Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained
press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly,
the presence of the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the
rebels and enemies of Spain.
In addition, accounts of the mutiny suggest that the Spanish Revolution in Spain during that time added
more determination to the natives to overthrow the current colonial Spanish government.
Masterminds
The Cavite Mutiny led to the persecution of prominent Filipinos; secular priests Mariano Gómez, José
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora—who would then be collectively named GomBurZa—were tagged as the
masterminds of the uprising. The priests were charged with treason and sedition by the Spanish military tribunal—
a ruling believed to be part of a conspiracy to stifle the growing popularity of Filipino secular priests and the
threat they posed to the Spanish clergy. The GomBurZa were publicly executed, by garrote, on the early morning
of February 17, 1872 at Bagumbayan.

Rizal Retraction
The morning after the execution of Jose Rizal, the newspapers of Manila and Madrid recorded the event,
and announced that on the eve of his death Rizal retracted his religious errors, abjured freemasonry, and in the
last hours of his life had married Josephine Bracken.
In most newspapers the text of a letter of retraction supposedly written by Rizal was printed in full. The
government sent the announcement to Spanish consulates abroad with the request to obtain for it the widest
possible publicity.
Those who had read Rizal's books or who knew him closely and admired him, both in the country and abroad,
took one look at the announcement and declared it "an ecclesiastical fraud."
In a letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt shortly after the execution, Fredrich Stahl, a Manila pharmacist, wrote:
"On the day of the execution, the Spaniards published an article in all the local papers, according to which,
Rizal, in a written declaration made by him on the day of his death, retracted all his writings and deeds and
proclaims himself to be a repentant sinner and a loyal Spaniard. But nobody here believes this, as the Spaniards
publish the same thing about everyone who is shot. Besides, nobody has ever seen his written declaration ... It is
in the hands of the archbishop."
Was there a plot among the higher ecclesiastical authorities to perpetrate a fraud?
There was certainly no signed letter of retraction, a contradiction in itself for a man so strong in conviction as
Rizal. There was also no marriage with Josephine Bracken, although they did live together during his exile in
Dapitan.
Rizal himself believed that there was a strong likelihood of fraud after his death, and that the prime mover in
this would be the friar archbishop. It was the friars who were zealously seeking his retraction. They even came
up with several retraction formulas for him to sign.
Rizal's intuition of fraud was not misplaced; what played him false was the involvement of his mentors, the
Jesuits, who took part in the effort to make him retract and return to the Catholic faith.
Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin
The Cry of Pugad Lawin alternately and originally referred to as the Cry of Balintawak, was the beginning
of the Philippine Revolution against the Spanish Empire.
At the close of August 1896, members of the Katipunan secret society (Katipuneros) led by Andrés
Bonifacio rose up in revolt somewhere in an area referred to as Caloocan, wider than the jurisdiction of present-
day Caloocan City which may have overlapped into present-day Quezon City.
Originally the term "cry" referred to the first clash between the Katipuneros and the Civil Guards (Guardia
Civil). The cry could also refer to the tearing up of community tax certificates (cédulas personales) in defiance of
their allegiance to Spain. The inscriptions of "Viva la Independencia Filipina" can also be referred as term for the
cry. This was literally accompanied by patriotic shouts.
Because of competing accounts and ambiguity of the place where this event took place, the exact date and
place of the Cry is in contention. From 1908 until 1963, the official stance was that the cry occurred on August
26 in Balintawak. In 1963 the Philippine government declared a shift to August 23 in Pugad Lawin, Quezon City.
Date and Place
Various accounts give differing dates and places for the Cry. An officer of the Spanish guardia civil, Lt.
Olegario Diaz, stated that the Cry took place in Balintawak on August 25, 1896. Historian Teodoro Kalaw in his
1925 book The Filipino Revolution wrote that the event took place during the last week of August 1896 at
Kangkong, Balintawak. Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, the leader of the Magdiwang
faction in Cavite, stated in 1927 that the Cry took place in Bahay Toro, now in Quezon City on August 24, 1896.
Pío Valenzuela, a close associate of Andrés Bonifacio, declared in 1948 that it happened in Pugad Lawin on
August 23, 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide stated in his books in 1954 that the "Cry" happened in Balintawak on
August 26, 1896. Fellow historian Teodoro Agoncillo wrote in 1956 that it took place in Pugad Lawin on August
23, 1896, based on Pío Valenzuela's statement. Accounts by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel
Encarnacion and Ramon Villegas claim the event to have taken place in Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay
Banlat, Quezon City.
Some of the apparent confusion is in part due to the double meanings of the terms "Balintawak" and
"Caloocan" at the turn of the century. Balintawak referred both to a specific place in modern Caloocan City and
a wider area which included parts of modern Quezon City. Similarly, Caloocan referred to modern Caloocan City
and also a wider area which included modern Quezon City and part of modern Pasig. Pugad Lawin, Pasong Tamo,
Kangkong and other specific places were all in "greater Balintawak", which was in turn part of "greater Caloocan".
The Code of Kalantiaw
The Code of Kalantiaw was a legendary legal code in the epic story Maragtas. It is said to have been written in
1433 by Datu Kalantiaw, a chief on the island of Negros in the Philippines. It was actually written in 1913 by
Jose E. Marco as a part of his historical fiction Las antiguas leyendas de la Isla de Negros (Spanish, "The Ancient
Legends of the Island of Negros"), which he attributed to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon.

Evidence 1: In 1917, the historian Josué Soncuya wrote about the Code of Kalantiaw in his book Historia
Prehispana de Filipinas ("Prehispanic History of the Philippines") where he moved the location of the Code's
origin from Negros to the Panay province of Aklan because he suspected that it may be related to the Ati-atihan
festival. Other authors throughout the 20th century gave credence to the story and the code.
In 1965, then University of Santo Tomas doctoral candidate William Henry Scott began an examination of
prehispanic sources for the study of Philippine history. Scott eventually demonstrated that the code was a forgery
committed by Marco. When Scott presented these conclusions in his doctoral dissertation, defended on 16 June
1968 before a panel of eminent Filipino historians which included Teodoro Agoncillo, Horacio de la Costa,
Marcelino Foronda, Meceredes Grau Santamaria, Nicolas Zafra and Gregorio Zaide, not a single question was
raised about the chapter which he had called The Contributions of Jose E. Marco to Philippine historiography.
Scott later published his findings debunking the code in his book Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of
Philippine History. Filipino historians later removed the code from future literature regarding Philippine history.
When Antonio W. Molina published a Spanish version of his The Philippines through the Centuries as historia
de Filipinas (Madrid, 1984), he replaced the Code with one sentence: "La tésis doctoral del historador Scott
desbarate la existencia misma de dicho Código" (The doctoral dissertation of the historian Scott demolishes the
very existence of the Code).
Philippine historian Teodoro Agoncillo describes the Code as "a disputed document". Some history texts continue
to present it as historical fact. Struggle for Freedom (subtitled A textbook on Philippine History) says,
"Reproduced herein is the entire Code of Kalantiaw for your critical examination and for you to decide on its
veracity and accuracy."
The story is still believed by people in the central provinces. Some maintain the opinion that this is due to mis-
education. But taking into consideration that after the Spanish colonization, local literary achievements in culture
and government in the former territories of the Confederation of Madya-as were eclipsed by the emphasis of the
Spanish colonial regime on Catholic Christian faith, and the fact that Ilonggo litearary heritage was primarily
orally passed from one generation to another, as in the case of the oldest and longest epic in Hiligaynon Hinilawod
that survive in the Sulod society in the hinterlands of Panay, the local beliefs inherited by the Ilonggos from their
ancestors cannot be just be hastily dismissed as fabricated. In fact, Maragtas and the Code of Kalantiaw are
something that serious historians have to study more carefully. What Walter Scott failed to consider in his
jusgement is the nature of the transmission of Ilonggo local literature. He just limited himself with evaluating a
relatively recent attempt to into writing what Ilonggos have bequeathed to their descendants through generations
by means of oral tradition.
Evidence 2: The story of Datu Kalantiaw is often mistaken to be part of the epic of ten intrepid chiefs who
founded Visayan civilization as much as 800 years ago, as told in an ancient and mysterious document called the
Maragtas. This document, however, was an ordinary book written in 1907 by Pedro Monteclaro in which he
compiled the local legends of the Visayas from mainly oral traditions and a few written documents that were
fairly modern in their origins. Monteclaro never mentioned a chief by the name of Kalantiaw in his Maragtas.
Some of the Maragtas legends are a part of Visayan folklore and they are a source of fierce pride for many
Visayans today. The stories of the ten datus or chiefs might have been told for generations and they are perfectly
believable, as far as legends go, if we put aside the modern additions such as obviously phoney "original"
manuscripts and the use of precise but utterly uncorroborated dates from the pre-colonial era.
After all, it is not hard to believe that exiles could have sailed from Borneo to settle in Panay. Why not? Even
though there are no ancient documents to show that Chief Sumakwel and his followers actually existed, there is
much archaeological and foreign documentary evidence of regular trade and travel at that time between the
Philippines and its neighbours.
But while Monteclaro's misguided nationalism, combined with the blatant dishonesty of other writers who
embellished his work, blurred the line between legends and hard historical facts, the story of Kalantiaw is more
alarming because he was never a part of the Philippines' history or even its oral traditions. Kalantiaw was an utter
hoax from the beginning.
Generalization
We should not believe in the second evidence because of this three reasons.
1. The first reason is the lack of historical evidence. There are simply no written or pictorial documents from that
time in Philippine history. There are no documents from other countries that mention the great Kalantiaw either.
There is also no evidence that Philippine culture ever spawned such a barbaric set of laws. The early Spanish
accounts tell us that Filipino custom at that time allowed even the most serious lawbreakers to pay a fine or to be
placed into servitude for a time in cases of debt. As the missionary Francisco Colín wrote in 1663:
In the punishment of crimes of violence the social rank of the slayer and slain made a great deal of difference. If
the slain was a chief, all his kinsfolk took the warpath against the slayer and his kinfolk, and this state of war
continued until arbiters were able to determine the amount of gold which had to be paid for the killing… The
death penalty was not imposed by public authority save in cases where both the slayer and slain were commoners,
and the slayer could not pay the blood price. K1
Arbitration is still the custom of those Philippine cultures that were never conquered by the Spaniards.
2. The second reason is the lack of evidence for Kalantiaw even as a legend of oral history. Many ardent admirers
of the Datu, who disdain all historical evidence to the contrary, claim that he has long been a part of Visayan
culture and heritage. This is simply not true. In almost 400 years of documented Philippine history – from
Magellan's arrival in 1521 until the second decade of the 20th century – no such legend was ever recorded.
Kalantiaw even escaped the attention of Pedro Monteclaro when he published the Maragtas legends in 1907. This
is very suspicious considering that there are more stories today about Kalantiaw than there are about any of the
ten datus of the Maragtas.
3. The third and most important reason to reject the Kalantiaw myth is its source. If Kalantiaw was not a historical
figure or a legendary character, where did he come from? Many writers on this subject didn't bother to mention
where they obtained their information. Some, like Digno Alba, simply created "facts" from thin air. Scott
eventually traced the ultimate origin of Kalantiaw back to a single person, José E. Marco of Pontevedra, Negros
Occidental, who definitely did not live in the 1400s. In 1913, Marco claimed to have discovered the Pavón
documents that were mentioned in Scott's letter to Digno Alba. These documents, which contain the Code of
Kalantiaw, were in fact Marco's own creation. Kalantiaw eventually became the most successful of many hoaxes
in Marco's career of almost 50 years as a forgery and fraud.