Activity 2

ACTIVITY 2 1. Who is Santiago Alvarez? How how come his writing is a primary source? -

Santiago Alvarez” is general, founder and honorary president of the first directorate of the Nacionalista party. Due to his inflamed bravery and courage in Cavite’s famous battles as commander he is named as “kidlat ng apoy” and the only child of revolutionary general Mariano Alvarez. His writing become primary source because he is in the scene, or an eye-witnessed because he personally experienced what happen that time.

2. Who is Teodoro Agocillo? How come his writing is a secondary sources? -

He’s a prominent 20th-century Filipino historian. He and his contemporary Renato Constantino were among the first Filipino historians renowned for promoting a distinctly nationalist point of view of Filipino history. His writing is secondary because he is prominent historian in 20th century in the Philippines and he tell regarding what happened in “Tejeros convention.

3. Create a chart comparing in detail the accounts of the two writters regarding the “Tejeros Convention’’ -

Alvarez’s version focused on how the election went on and the events that took place in Tejeros. Agoncillo’s version included the small details including the emotions that every personality had exhibited. The complete list of attendees were added. It is much more detailed and more information was added to prove or debunk claims by historians.

4. Form your internal and external criticisms over the two sources -

Internal Criticism deals with the problem of credibilities such as the Character of the Author, his reliability, and his ability and willingness to tell the truth. In my personal stance, Santiago Alvarez is a revolutionary general that have responsibility for keeping what activities happen in certain places. As a primary source, he just mentioned what actually happened at that time without knowing the truth between the two-opposing faction, which is the Magdalo and Magdiwang. I can say that the narration is sounded bias because he didn’t tell what the truth in the point of view of Magdiwang and Magdalo. Meanwhile, in Teodoro Agoncillo as a secondary source, he mentioned the events that happened before and after the election, even the description, the reason and places of the two factions, and the difference between the two. External Critism In my opinion, I feel that Santiago Alvarez's narration is a little bit bias because it is not well detailed, he just narrates it sequentially, without telling the roots of everything. Meanwhile, in Teodoro Agoncillo is well written, but in my

personal opinion, I did not know if I should believe in him, because of how well written his book where the excerpt comes from. but overall, the story is good even though they have different ways to tell the scenario.