Adaya, Reymond

18-36885
I-Witness: 'Savage: Juan Luna in Paris'
1. What are the primary sources you encountered in the documentary? Secondary
sources? Tertiary sources?
a.) Primary sources: A primary source is a testimony of an individual who was a
participant in or a direct witness to the event that is being described. It is a document or
physical object which was written or created during the time under a study.
•"Spolarium"
•"The Parisian life"
•Painting of "Mi Novia"
•Images of Juan Luna and the Taveras.
•Written records of Luna presented by Martine Delaleuf.
b.) Secondary Sources: analyse a scholarly question and often use primary sources
as evidence. This may include books and articles about a topic.  
•Constancio Ongpin- take side with Juan Luna.
•Mara Pardo de Tavera- defended the side of Paz.
•Mme. Martine Delaleuf- president of the prestigious organization where Juan
Luna won the awards.
•Prof. Eric Zerrudo- Professor of University of Santo Tomas who interprets The
Parisian Life painting of Luna.
•Maria Luna Magannon- retired History professor who said that cafes played a
big part in the life of the illustrados back then.
•French newspaper about the ongoing case of Juan Luna.
c.) Tertiary Sources: It provides third hand information by reporting ideas and details
from secondary source. Summarize and digest the information in primary and
secondary sources to provide background on a topic, idea, or event. 
•Howie Severino-reported the details and ideas presented by the secondary
sources.
2. Why did Constancio Ongpin and Mara Pardo de Tavera had different interpretation
about the same event? Based on the sources they presented, who is more convincing
between the two? Why?
Constancio Ongpin and Mara Pardo de Tavera had different interpretation about
the incident happened in the history because they were influenced by their background.
As we all know, historical facts can be affected by influence and historians can be
subjective with regards to their interpretation about a certain event. The information
provided by both of them were filled with bias now that they were defending and taking
side based on their loyalty. As for Ongpin, he has to take side of Luna and Tavera for
Paz because they don't want to stain the identity of either Luna or Paz as it runs on their
own blood. This pertains to the subjective nature of history where historians claim an
event happened in a certain way while another disagree completely. Speaking of which,
they create their own version of the story– just for the sake of their personal motives.
However, based on the sources they presented, I am more convinced with the
story of Mara Pardo de Tavera. She presented the painting of Juan Luna, ‘The Parisian
Life’ that shows the betrayal of the acclaimed hero to his wife, Paz. It was confirmed by
Father Casal, director of the national museum, that the girl in the painting does not
reflect how Paz looks like, instead it was the girl who he praised in his notebook and
that he considered as his number one model. On the other hand, Ongpin narrated a
story that lacks on proof and just merely based on ‘what could probably happen’ on that
certain time. And just like Tavera, I also consider this as a nationalist point of view,
biased against the intelligence of people. Well, setting my opinion aside, what’s sure is
that Paz and Juliana de Tavera died on the hands on Juan Luna.
3. Did Howie Severino presented the documentary objectively? Explain your answer.
No doubt, Howie Severino presented the documentary objectively. He
documented the story without being biased on the details being narrated by the two
major secondary sources. He did not jump into any conclusions but he dig deeper about
the information of the past rather. He verifed the sources, date them, and he even went
directly to Paris to locate the place of origin knowing that it is important for a historian to
base their accounts on source materials. This speaks of so much willingness of
Severino to unravel the truth and give justice into something that people is not really
aware of. In addition, I did not see any of his personal view to the documentary because
he is so immersed in seeking for the truth– one thing that every historian should do as
much as possible. He even entertain both sides of the story while keeping his
commentary and bias out of it. Imagine what could probably happen if Severino became
subjective on the documentary? For sure, many people will be blinded by the truth, and
they will just rely on what his personal claims are. Good thing is, he did not attach his
bias of what really happened on that event.
 I would like to end this by saying that history is the life of people and humanity
and historians are indeed, an asset in discovering past events. May historians be
objective as much as possible while unraveling the life that we had before.