Antonette Marie S.

Jingco 1MUS1
2018888974 07 February 2019

Double-Edged Swords: Primary and Secondary Sources

Our understanding of history – as a collection of human experiences remembered,

represented, and reconstructed by our memory – largely relies on the text from which we read it.
Different kinds of sources can teach us different messages by placing significance on different
events or failing to mention critical details. Choosing to include or exclude certain parts of a story
can already reflect interpretation or value judgment. Hence, we must always be aware and critical
of the sources we refer to when studying history. In this short essay, a primary and a secondary
source regarding the First Philippine Republic is compared – a short account from a junior high
school textbook and an excerpt from the memoirs of a Filipino revolutionary.
Kayamanan Araling Asyano: Batayan at Sanayang Aklat sa Araling Panlipunan (2015) is
a social studies textbook used by Grade 7 students in line with the K to 12 Curriculum and it was
the same one required for my younger sister a few years ago. It is important to examine history
books intended for earlier years of education as these are the instruments used to mold the minds
of future generations. In discussing the development of Philippine Nationalism in the face of the
Philippine-American War, the book says: “Ang Unang Republika ng Pilipinas ay idineklara ni
Heneral Emilio Aguinaldo noong Hunyo 23, 1899 sa Kawit, Cavite. Si Aguinaldo ang unang
naging pangulo nito. Sa loob ng tatlong taon, nagpatuloy ang mga rebolusyonaryong Pilipino sa
kanilang pakikipaglaban para sa tunay na kalayaan ng bansa, at sa pagkakataong ito ay laban sa
panibagong mananakop – ang mga Amerikano” (pp.434-435). This short textbook account of the
First Republic and its struggle for independence highlights the prominence of Aguinaldo as a hero
and our first president but it glosses over the complexities and conflicts found within the ranks of
the revolutionaries, especially in the events surrounding Aguinaldo’s election into the
revolutionary government.
In the primary text Memoirs of General Artemio Ricarte (1992), Ricarte identifies that the
foundation of the First Philippine Republic and its officials were agreed upon during the Tejeros
Convention in the midst of an altercation between the Magdalo and the Magdiwang factions of the
Katipunan. The Magdalo faction was composed of Emilio Aguinaldo (though he was absent during
the convention), Baldomero Aguinaldo, Daniel Tirona, and Antonio Montenegro while the
Magdiwang was led by Andres Bonifacio along with Mariano Pascual, Santiago Alvarez, Luciano
San Miguel, Mariano Trias Closas, Severino de las Alas and Santos Nocon. After Bonifacio’s loss
and Aguinaldo’s win for the presidency, the rest of the officials were elected with Bonifacio
garnering the seat of Minister for Interior. His eligibility for the position was then questioned by
Tirona who insisted that the position should be occupied by a lawyer – despite prior agreement by
the body to respect the results of the majority vote regardless of a candidate’s background or social
status. Infuriated, Bonifacio walks out along with the Magdiwang. This event would later fuel the
rivalry between Bonifacio and Aguinaldo and inevitably change the course of Philippine History;
but it was left out of the above textbook. Instead many, if not most, of us only know that Aguinaldo
was the first President of the Philippines and that he led our nation’s fight for independence against
the Americans.
If students were only to look at their textbooks, they might never know the struggle behind
the formation of our very own halls of power. Events and details discarded and sacrificed for the
sake of brevity in secondary accounts could lead us to forget vital points in our history. In the
above comparison between a secondary source from a textbook and a primary source from the
memoirs of a katipunero himself, value judgments can already be observed in the secondary source
whereas the primary sources allows us to develop our own creative reconstruction and
understanding of the events. The authors of the textbook decided which parts of the complex story
to tell, perhaps to simplify it and make it understandable for the younger audience. But in doing
so, they decided which parts were only significant enough to be included in the history book
resulting to a one-sided, oversimplified narrative of Philippine nationalism.
For me, this decision reflects the advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary
sources. Secondary sources can provide brief, synthesized, summaries of events initially
discovered from primary sources but at the cost of losing the nuances and details of a story. They
can provide analyses but at the danger of the imposition of value judgments – on who was good
or bad, what was right or wrong. Meanwhile, first-hand or primary sources can give us specific
details of story which may end up being too lengthy, requiring much more time and effort to flesh
out and explain. These are then much more open to interpretation, presenting the danger of
misinterpretation by uncritical readers. Thus, both seem to be double-edged swords, each bearing
its own strengths and weaknesses depending on how one wields it. This shows that as we study
history, we must be aware and critical of our own use of various sources.

References:

Ricarte, A. (1992). “The Tejeros Convention” in Memoirs of General Artemio Ricarte. Manila:
National Historical Institute.

Samson, M. et. al. (2015). Kayamanan Araling Asyano:Batayan at Sanayang Aklat sa Araling
Panlipunan. Manila: Rex Publishing.