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

 He is a general, honorary president and founder of the first directorate of the

Nationalista party. “Kidlatang apoy” was his alias and he became famous for his bravery
and courage during the battles in Cavite. He is the child of a revolutionary general
named Mariano Alvarez. His writing is a primary source because he was there when the
incident happened.
2. Who is Teodoro Agoncillo? How come his writing is a secondary source?

 He is a prominent 20th century Filipino historian. He and his contemporary Renato

Constantino were among the earliest Filipino historians known to adopt a distinctly
nationalistic view of Philippine history. His writing is secondary as he is a prominent 20th
century Philippine historian and reports on the events of the "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.

Santiago Alvarez Teodoro Agoncillo

 Title EXCERPT FROM THE SANTIAGO
ALVAREZ ACCOUNT “Katipunan
and the Revolution: Memoirs of
a General”
 Accounts Gen. Satiago Alvarez aka
“Kidlatang Apoy” or “General
Apoy” was a Magdiwang man
and the Commander-in-chief.
He’s focusing on what
happened in the election made
by two factions Magdiwang and
Magdalo in Tejeros Convention.
Santiago's point of view is to tell
what really happens at the
convention, but he has not
detailed Bonifacio, but
highlights some of the things
that Bonifacio does. When he
pulled out the revolver and
pointed it at, Daniel Tirona
because he was offended by
what he said.
There is no Edilberto
Evangelista in the memoirs of
Santiago Álvarez. There is a
scene in which Dr. Jose Rizal's
sister named Trining and her
EXCERPT from TEODORO
AGONCILLO, “The Revolt of the
Masses, the story of Bonifacio
and the Katipunan”
He is a historian in 20th century
here in the Philippines.
Agoncillo is more focusing on
telling the story specifying the
before and after the convention
happens.
He began to point out some
background information on the
two factions Magdalo and
Magdiwang. He said there was a
misunderstanding in both
camps, so the Tejeros
Convention was created to clear
up the misunderstanding. The
details about Bonifacio were
clear, as he was expected to be
impartial in two factions, but his
actions in this case were
motivated by respect for the
uncle of his wife, Mariano
Álvarez, president of
Magdiwang. He mentions the
name Evangelista where
 widow Josephine beg General
Apoy not to arrest Mr.
Montenegro but to leave him at
the mansion where they lived.
Santiago Álvarez concentrated
on the objective approach and
went on to explain what
happened in the
aforementioned elections of
two factions, the Magdiwang
and Magdalo conventions in
Tejeros. The delegations of the
interested party are detailed
and also mentioned, which only
take place on the day of the
election.
 Internal Criticism Santiago Álvarez is a
revolutionary general who is in
charge of maintaining activities
in certain places. As the main
source, he only mentioned what
actually happened at the time,
not knowing the truth between
the two opposing factions,
namely Magdalo and
Magdiwang. I can tell that the
narrative sounds skewed
because he didn't tell the truth
from Magdiwang and Magdalo's
point of view.
 External Criticism For me, Alvarez is a little bit bias
because it was not that
detailed. He just describes
chronologically without saying
the root of everything.
Bonifacio decided that he would
nominate them because they
are educated. Nothing is said
about Trining (Dr. José Rizal's
sister) and his widow Josephine
pleading with General Apoy not
to arrest Mr. Montenegro. The
objective of Teodoro Agoncillo
is to draw attention to the
events prior to the Tejeros
Congress. Mention important
dates, battles, and events that
Álvarez knew were different.
Teodore Agoncillo as a
secondary source, he
mentioned the events before
and after the election, including
the description, reason and
location of the two factions and
the difference between the two.
It was well written.
For Agoncillo, it was well
written. But in my personal
opinion I'm not sure if I should
trust him, given the quality of
his book from which the excerpt
comes. but overall, the story is
still good even though they
have different ways of telling
the plot. To me, the moral of
the story is we have to analyze
the whole scenario before
making assumptions and I think
that's the message of why we're
reading it, that we have to be
critical when we’re analyzing a
situation.