Sherie Anne C.

Bernabe

BSN 2-YA-4Irreg

ACTIVITY #2

1. Who is Santiago Alvarez? 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 Agoncillo? How come his writing is a secondary source?

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 writers regarding the “Tejeros
Convention”
4. Form your internal and external criticisms over the two sources.

Internal Criticism addresses issues of credibility, such as the author's character, dependability, and
ability and willingness to tell the truth. Santiago Alvarez, in my opinion, is a revolutionary general who is
in charge of ensuring that certain activities take place in specific locations. As a primary source, he
simply stated what happened at the time without knowing the truth about the two opposing factions,
the Magdalo and Magdiwang. I believe the narration is biased because he does not tell the truth from
the perspectives of Magdiwang and Magdalo. Meanwhile, in Teodoro Agoncillo as a secondary source,
he mentioned the events happened before and after the election ,even the description, the reason and
places of the two faction and the difference of the two.It was well written. In connection to External
criticism. In my opinion, I feel that Santiago Alvarez 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 excerpt comes from. Meanwhile, in Teodoro Agoncillo, a secondary
source, he mentioned the events that occurred before and after the election, including the description,
reason, and locations of the two factions, as well as the differences between the two. It was a well-
written piece. In relation to the external criticism. In my opinion, Santiago Alvarez's narration is a little
biased because it is not well detailed; he simply narrates it sequentially, without explaining the origins of
everything. Meanwhile, in Teodoro Agoncillo is well written, but I wasn't sure if I should believe in him
because of how well written his book where the excerpt comes from is. But, overall, the story is good,
despite the fact that they tell the scenario in different ways. For me, the moral of the story is that we, as
millennials, must analyze the entire scenario before making assumptions, and I believe that is why we
read it, that we must be critical and analyze the situation.