Riph - Activity 2
Riph - Activity 2
Riph - Activity 2
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.
Internal Criticism: Santiago Alvarez's writing is very trustworthy; it explains in detail what took
place during the Tejeros Convention, which was a betrayal, and their plans to harm the Spanish
people. However, Santiago Alvarez's work is more concerned with the election and what
transpired during it.
External Criticism: Santiago Alvarez also has a distinctive style of writing, and everything he says
in his works is the absolute truth because he lived through the events they are based on and
wrote them. He writes objectively about the propertied class's betrayal, the ascent of a peasant
leader, and the popular uprising against Spain. His writing is devoid of adjectives and comprises
quotes from convention dialogues. He was unable to capture the true sentiment of the Tejeros
Convention participants.
"The Revolt of the Masses, the story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan" by Teodoro Agoncillo.
Internal Criticism: He demonstrates in his writings that the armed independence movement in
Manila was started by workers and craftspeople, and that the upper classes were only
grudgingly dragged into the conflict. Even though it's only a secondary source, he did a fantastic
job of writing his work.
External Criticism: Teodoro Agoncillo writes about the Tejeros Convention in a distinctive
manner, and his works also address revolution, nationalism, class conflict, and the conflict that
took place before the Tejeros Convention. In his writing, he accentuated Bonifacio's emotion
and employed figures of phrase. Less conversation may be found in his writing.