Allan Gabriel A.

Lariosa

Rizal’s Life and Works

BSME 3A

Part I

1. Discuss some of the points mentioned in the lesson that support Rizal's
sensible presupposition that the native populations in the archipelago were
economically self-sufficient and thriving and culturally lively and colorful.

a. “The conversion and conquest were not as widespread as portrayed because the
missionaries were only successful in conquering a portion of the population of
certain islands.”

Rizal pointed out in this statement that the Spanish conquest which Morga claims a
success and widespread was not as successful as it was written. Only a portion of the
population were reached by the grasps of the Spaniards. The remaining portion were
untouched and this shows the preexisting evidence that the native populations in the
archipelago has a structured government of their own and has beliefs, traditions, and
culture so integral and established they have not been influenced.

b. “The present state of the Philippines was not necessarily superior to its past.”

Rizal argued that the Philippines’ current status and culture was not necessarily better
or improved compared to the past. Some of these aspects were argued clearly better for
the natives than there is on the present. The Spaniard’s colonization of the Philippines
decimated, demoralized, exploited, and ruined the Filipinos. It is sensible that Rizal
points out that the ancient beliefs and traditions of the natives were highly influenced by
the conqueror’s own beliefs and traditions that most of it are forgotten and twisted as it
was passed and practiced by the succeeding generations.

c. ” This is another preoccupation of the Spaniards who, like any other nation in that
matter of food, loathe that to which they are not accustomed or is unknown to
them…”

Morga claims on his writings that the natives preferred to eat salty fish that is close to
rotting that is smells bad. Rizal annotated this statement and argued that the Spaniards
hated what is not common to them. The fish Morga is referring is similar to today’s
bagoong. It can be concluded that even in the culinary aspect, the natives have a
variety of dishes to cook and experiment which reflects to the culture they have
established.
2. Do you think that Morga might have been biased when he wrote the Sucesos
de las Islas Filipinas? Why or why not? Explain.

Based on the lesson, Morga is inclined to be biased when he wrote the Sucesos de
las Islas Filipinas. Most of his discussions point towards the Spanish regime success’ in
conquering the Philippines and its great influence in making the archipelago its colony.
However, this was not the absolute truth. This is only the truth of the Spaniards and it is
not fully taking on the perspective of the truth of the native Filipinos. Spain did not fully
influence and conquered the archipelago. Spain did not bring peace and prosperity. He
often disjoints the reality to make the Spanish conquest a heroic act and not an
abomination in its nature.

3. What do you think Rizal meant in his statement, "if the book (Sucesos de las
Islas Filipinas) succeeds to awaken your consciousness of our past, already
effaced from your memory, and to rectify what he has been falsified and
slandered then I have not worked in vain, and with this as a basis, however
small it may be, we shall be able to study the future"?

Rizal emphasizes that if the book shall serve its true purpose to educate the
people about the reality of the situation of the natives and the archipelago even
before the Spanish conquest began, his works, labor, and sacrifice should not be
useless. Rizal believed that the Spanish put effort into the revision of our history and
it has always been one-sided making their occupation pleasurable to the eye. With
this, however it may seem small, it will definitely bring an enormous impact to the
future.

4. What are the salient goals of Rizal in writing the Annotations of Antonio
Morga's Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas?

Rizal had strong beliefs and integral arguments in writing the Annotations of Antonio
Morga’s Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas. Here are the major goals in which he aspires to
achieve:

1. He had a burning desire to inform and correct exactly the conditions of the
Philippines when the Spaniards came ashore to the islands.
2. He wants to emphasize the idea that the conquest of the Spaniards contributed
to the decline of the rich culture and tradition of the natives.
 3. He aspires to rectify the falsification and twisting of the reality written in Morga’s
Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas that blotted our memories of the past.

Part II

THE RIZAL RETRACTION AND OTHER CASES

by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung

The Rizal Retraction and other cases - National Historical Commission of the
Philippines (nhcp.gov.ph)

      The flow of history is as inexorable as the tidal flow of an angry ocean. But every so often in our
collective recollection, it is remembered that sometimes the skillful use of forgery can redirect the flow of
history itself. Do history books narrate objectively what

One example I can think of is the

? happened or is it dependent to the author’s
subjective point of view?
inconsistency of different history Forgery is a white-collar crime that
books on their narration of a generally refers to the false making or
particular historical event. material alteration of a legal instrument
with the specific intent to defraud anyone.

      In the Philippines today, forgery is usually resorted to redirect the flow of money from the rightful
beneficiary to the unworthy pockets of invisible people. This pertains to the abysmal corruption that is
happening within different agencies and branches of
the government. It is a reoccurring event of
dishonesty and manipulation.

      That money is usually the target of forgery is known and practiced all over the world, but forgery in the
hands of the wily, has power to affect a redirection of events and undoing of history. It has the power to
obscure or believe an occurrence or create an event that did not actually transpire.  It also has the power
to enslave and destroy.

      In October 1600, the Muslim Ottoman Army and a Christian army, led by Austrians, with
Hungarian, French, Maltese and German troops were battling it out for territory called Kanizsa. The
Ottoman army was outgunned and outmanned, but the Ottoman commander, Tiryaki Hasan Pasha
was a clever man. He knew that the Hungarians were not too happy to be allied with the Austrians.
So, he sent fake letters, designed them to be captured by the Austrians. The letters contained
Hungarian alliance with Ottoman forces. The Austrian upon reading the fake letters signed by a
reliable source (obviously forged) decided to kill all Hungarian soldiers.

    The Hungarians revolted and the Christian army disintegrated from within. Thus, did the Ottomans
won the battle, by issuing forged communication.

By the power of forgery and deception, the Ottoman army concocted a revolt within the
enemy’s base. They purposely sent forged letters signed by forged reliable source to
create chaos and miscommunication inside. And so, the enemy has shattered from within and
the Ottoman army stood victorious. This shows how forgery can even reverse the tide of war
and turn allies into enemies.

During World War II, the British, to protect the secrecy of the Allied plan to invade Sicily in 1943,
     
launched operation Mincemeat. This was a deception campaign to mislead German Intelligence about
     
the real target of the start of the Allied Invasion of Europe.
A military strategy to deceive the enemy to believe that they have the upper
hand. A confidential document in the hands of the enemy is certainly
something plus       A series
it came from of seemingly
dead genuine
bodies of secret
soldiers. documents,
Increasing with forged signatures, were attached to a
the chance
that it is true; so, they thought. A series of seemingly genuine documents
British corpse dressed in military uniforms. It was left to float somewhere in a beach in Spain, where
with signatures can manipulate and change the course of history.
plenty of German agents were sure to get hold of it.

      The body with the fake documents was found eventually and its documents seen by German
agents. The documents identified Sardinia and Corsica as the targets of the Allied invasion. The
Germans believed it, and was caught with their pants down when allied forces hit the beaches of the
 This kind of deception was also used by the British against the Germans in North Africa. They placed a
map of British minefields, then attached them to a corpse. The minefields were non-existent but the
Germans saw the map and considered it true. Thus, they rerouted their tanks to areas with soft sand
where they bogged down.

be or become stuck in mud or wet ground

      In 1944, a Japanese sea plane crashed near Cebu. According to Japanese military officials who
were captured, and later released, they were accompanying Gen. Koga, Commander in Chief of the
Japanese Combined Fleet. Gen. Koga died in the crash. A little later, Filipino fisherman recovered
some Japanese documents. They delivered the documents to US Intelligence. The documents
revealed that Leyte was lightly defended. As a result, the Americans shifted their invasion target to
Leyte instead of Cotabato Bay in Mindanao.  
Not being what it purports to be; false or fake

      On October 17, 1944 the invasion of Leyte went underway. Leyte was lightly defended as the Koga
papers have indicated. But it was during the invasion of Leyte when the Japanese navy launched their
last offensive strike against the US fleet, with the objective of obliterating it once and for all. They nearly
succeeded. After this near-tragic event, the Koga papers were considered by some military strategists
as spurious and could have been manufactured by the Japanese to mislead the American navy into
thinking
     that Leyte was a defenceless island. That Leyte was a trap. And the Americans nearly fell into
it.

Through the course of history, forgery has made a few victorious and a few in defeat. A
simple letter can make a complicated mess. From this historical event, Americans almost
got obliterated once and for all if not only they considered the papers as spurious.

In recent memory, there was an incident in which the forging of documents served to negate the
existence of an independent Philippines.

     In 1901, the Americans managed to capture a Filipino messenger, Cecilio Segismundo who carried
with him documents from Aguinaldo. The American then faked some documents complete with forged
signature, telling Aguinaldo that some Filipino officers were sending him guerrillas with American
prisoners. With the help of a Spanish traitor, Lazaro Segovia, the Americans assembled a company of
pro-American Filipino soldiers, the Macabebe scouts. These were the soldiers who penetrated the camp
of Aguinaldo, disguised as soldiers of the Philippine Republic. They managed to capture Aguinaldo. With
the president captured, his generals began to surrender, and the Republic began to fall. 

      The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its authenticity.

      It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were many
witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was
found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the original document
was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.
28 years have passed and only then the document was
As reproductions, was it copied verbatim from the original document or was it by the
opened for public viewing.
interpretation of Rizal’s writing by authors? I understand Rizal could have used different
terminologies in the time that he wrote the supposed Retraction letter and there is a
possibility that the ones that copied may have different perspectives on the text.

      However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported   that as early as 1907, the retraction of Rizal was
copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original

An interesting catch to the supposed retraction of Rizal, so there are copies of the
verbatim of the letter? If there was isn’t this enough evidence that Rizal retracted?
Though we cannot deny the possibility that the letter, handwriting, and signature were
forged.
document, also copied it verbatim.

Three supposed original versions of the text but with different time of writing. How come a
text has different dates? Isn’t this supposed to well-documented? Or was there someone
altering the dates for an agenda? With this, could it be that Rizal did not retract and the
letter of evidence is forged?

      In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this the date of the signing
was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal supposedly signed. The date was
“December 29, 1890.”

      Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date “December 29, 189C”. The
number “0” was evidently altered to make it look like a letter C. Then still later, another supposedly
original version came up. It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”.

      So which is which? a withdrawal of a statement, accusation, or undertaking

      Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported that the forger of
Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which
was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature forging
was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during the final day of the Filipino-
American war to forge Rizal’s signature.

      This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman Roque himself, them
being neighbors.

      To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the night.

It is mind-boggling how up until the present there still wasn’t an evidence if Rizal really
retracted or not. All the presented letters were inconsistent, unclear, and contrast to the
events that followed Rizal’s life and works. There were witnesses that he retracted but
there were also those who said that he did not. Its their words against each other.

      Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by the friars to deflect
the heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses.

This said document is one of the “proofs” that the Friar’s claim that Rizal retracted
before few days of his execution. It means that what he said against the Catholic church in
the Philippines and the Friars are taken back.

      Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also figured prominently during the
revolution. It was him, Andres Bonifacio reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation of
agitation in exchange of pardon.

It is believed that the reason behind Rizal’s retractions was that he and Josephine can marry under the
Catholic Church but again the documents did not match with other existing documents under their names. Which
would negate the claims that Rizal retracted. This is also still under investigation.

      There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of Josephine Bracken, written on
February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written by Josephine
herself supported the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon closer look, there is a
glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and other letters written by Josephine to
Rizal.
      Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a hero, whether he retracted
or not, we must investigate if he really did a turn-around. If he did not, and the documents were
forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.
Whatever is the truth, Rizal was still a hero. Scholars are still debating this issue up until the present.
The Philippines’ history should be factual and not polluted by forged stories and events.