PART ANSWER

SOURCE
Paste the reference entry (with link), following the APA Johny Harris. (2021, August 18). How the US
format, of an online source that contains an inaccurate Stole The
information or historical distortion about an event in Philippines [Video].
Philippine history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=7fcqhU-23TA
TYPE OF SOURCE Secondary Source, it is a commentary or brief
Explain if the chosen source is primary or secondary in summary of what the author thinks of the
nature. American colonization in the Philippines.
IDENITIFICATION OF HISTORICAL There were inaccuracies and discrepancies as to
INACCURACY OR DISTORTION facts and real context of the Philippine American
What historical inaccuracy or distortion is evident in the colonization. 
chosen source?
 First, Mai is not the kingdom that ancient
Filipinos evolved and formed into. Mai
was just one of the kingdoms that formed
in Pre-colonial Philippines, not the
whole. 

 Kingdom of Tondo in Luzon, not

Mindanao is the oldest one evidenced by
the discovery of the Laguna copper plate,
the oldest document aged 1621 years old
before magellan got to the Philippines in
Luzon. 

 500 years ago was the discovery of the

Philippines by the spaniards, not the
conquest of the country by Spain. Spain
did not succeed in claiming whole
archipelago. 

 Spain did not voluntarily sold the

Philippines to America. America forced
Spain to receive the payment of 20
million dollars to take over the
Philippines. Spain was forced by the US
Navy to sell the Philippines. 

 The video did not mention exploitation at

that time through cheap labor in the
Philippines and within United States.
How it carried out one of the most
gruesome treatments and tortures to
Filipinos, and how it used fancy
mechanisms to cover up for the atrocities
at that time.

Is the chosen source authentic? Why With retrospect to the American colonization era,
or why not? the video tackled in this table is not an historical
SOURCE source of the time, but rather a later commentary
CRITICISM or summary of the colonization made from the
point of view of the American author. The
chosen source is not authentic based on the
abovementioned grounds.
Is the chosen source credible? Why or The chosen source is not credible as there are