When and where did the Cry of Rebellion happen?

The Philippine Revolution continues to be the centerpiece of our national narrative, yet it remains a source of many historical controversies that persist in the present. One of these controversies is the cry of rebellion, when and where did this important historical event happen? How do we navigate the very confusing narratives about the place and the date of the event that marked the formal call of revolution and the historical tearing of Sedulas? Hi, I am Lee Candelaria. I am Veckel Porha. I am Aaron Malieri. And this is podcasts, Conversations on Philippine History, Politics and Society. In the fourth episode of contested Philippine histories, we interrogate the question, when and where did the cry of rebellion date this? Before we start, what is this cry? Why cry? Why do we shout? Since the language in English is a shout, right? So why do we cry? Why do we cry? Are you sure? Because it's emotional. No revolution. It's because you don't feel like going out. Oh, I don't know. Of course, try to make things light. But this is a cry, you know. There is a cry in Spanish, it's a cry. The voice is actually a cry of rebellion. So there is a cry in the cry of the Dolores in Mexico in the late 1810s. And this is the silbbing official of the Mexican Revolution. So in the context of the Philippines, we have it. So the bus, I cry in English. But it's not literal that it's a shout, right? So in the Philippines, that's the one that's a cry. This is the answer that the Mexican has chosen. That's right. That's right. That's the Professor Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel, and Cardathion, and Ramon Villegas, the Arctic Lunarang Balintawac, the cry for a nation-wide revolution. This was released in 1996, this cry, or cry, or a cry. I'm going to admit, in the past, in the state of the Philippines, and the National Insurgent Government, we've seen a lot of it, and it's a very fascinating story. It's a very interesting story. It's a very old story. It's a story that's very interesting. I'm sure you know the listeners, because last season, what did we do? What did the president of the city say? Yes. This is a different extreme expression of the divide of the country. Because the city is the same, it's the same as the other. So for those who have a problem, the formal pro-eban of the country, the people of Colombia, the Spanish people, and they don't know what they are, the people of this country, are in the history of the past. That's why we know this event called "National Heroes Day". It's been a long time since we've seen a lot of people here. So, that's it, there are a lot of people who don't know the date. So they just said that it's the last Monday of August. The debate is not going to happen. It's going to happen. Well, it can happen. Because until now, we really don't know exactly when and where. Or do we? Because the Philippine government has commemorated this event as the cry of Pugadláwin. And the supposed site of this is currently in Baháitoro, in Kansas City. In this site, you'll see one of the live-size tabloes of Cateponero and one of the historical marker, if you are aware of the date and place of Pugadláwin on August 23, 1896. In the past, historians agreed that the exact date and place is not important. Even Ambeath Ocampo said that, "You know, let's just call it the cry of if it's true, because you'll see some of the places that are still in historical accounts." It's a cry of if it's true. So it remains a controversy, a contested history. And the official history demands that facts of history are depicted as accurately as possible. So we should be guided by our ability to analyze historical sources so that we can see the importance of this event. According to Ay White in the Counts, the history is new to the location and the future. The historian Jim Richardson identified all propositions as follows. One, we have the account of Pio Valenzuela in the 1911. He said that he had a position in the competition in August 23. In the 1970s, the new account, in the past two years, he became one of August 23. And then in the 1920s, the new account of Pugadláwin in August 23. And then in the 1970s, Pio Valenzuela became one of August 23. In the past two years, there were different places. And then we have an appeal, who in 1925 said that it happened in Cancong, but August 26. And then a certain sin for all those in Pedro also in 1925 says it happened in Cancong, but he said that he had a position. And then Ramón Bernardo, 1927, said that he had a position in August 24, in Baháitoro, Baháinita, Angsora. And then, in the second year, in two separate occasions, in 1929 and 1957, almost 30 years apart, he said that he had a position in Cancong, and that he had a position in August 26. But wait, there's more. In 1930, he said that he had a position in Cancong, he said that he had a position in Cancong, but he said that he had a position in Cancong. If he had a position in the beginning, he said that he had a position in Cancong. And then he said that he had a position in Cancong, he said that he had a position in the beginning, he said that he had a position in Cancong, that he had a position in Cancong, but he said that he had a position in Cancong, so he said that he had a position in Cancong, and that he had a position in Cancong. Anyway, in 1936, Francisco Carreon, in Cancong, the village of Cancong, the village of Cancong, and finally, in the 1961, in Cancong, the village of Cancong, in August 26, Cancong is very popular. That's true. Actually, if majority wins this, one of the villages of Cancong is true. But history doesn't work as simple as that. We have to consider a lot of factors to ascertain the truth from primary sources. There are only two types of source criticism. So if you're not familiar with the source criticism, we actually discussed it in episode 3 of our first season of History 101, which is the first episode of history. So let's pause this for a moment, and then come back here. Okay, so let's get to that point. So let's start with the account of Pio Valenzuela. If you're familiar with the source criticism, you should know because the same guy who has a lot of accounts who have a lot of money, is the original one, right? Make up your mind girl. So it's very interesting to see Pio Valenzuela. Because it's the account that Sabi Dau has from a Spanish ambassador who was the one who was the owner of August 26. Then he was the owner of August 23. So it's a major red flag. It's a valid account when you're not on the court. Okay, so, so here, so far, we can conclude that the first person who was the owner of August 23, in Bahia Toro, and possibly the owner of August 23, August 24, August 25, or August 26. We're going to do a week-long celebration for you. So anyway, let's take a look at that. If you're familiar with the story, we're going to talk about a lot of other conflicting accounts. For Jim Richards' son, in his article, "Notes on the Cry of August 1896, so we're going to listen to what we call the name of our son. Because it's not just that it's literally the same. So, based on primary accounts, the owner of August 23 was the third person who was the owner of August 23. So he was the owner of the revolution, the owner of the Sedula, and of course, the owner was the owner. So of course, we know that he was the third person who was the owner of August 23, so the owner of August 23 was the third person who was the owner of August 23, and of course, he was the owner of August 23, and of course, he was the owner of August 23, and of course, he was the owner of August 23, yung Pablo Filipino alos heroes de nobenta isa is yung nasa Vincent's Hollow ngayon. Ang kino ko memorate nun ay yung unang laban, so August 26, 1896. No, and it is clear kung sa neganap yung unang laban at kung kailan. Pero nang bagoy ang definition ng unang sigaw, especially in the terrain of commemoration of Filipinos. Since in the 1960s, Sabingani Jim Richardson, nagbagoyong mismong definition ng cry. Hindi na ito yung unang laban, because ito yung decision ng mag-himag-sik, nasi ng danaman ng pagpunit ng sedula. So, mas malapit sa pagpapakawadugan niya gunsideo. Ang problema ka si Jan, posibling naganap ang pagpunit ng sedula ng ilang beses, pati yung mga sigaw ng ilang beses, kasi hindi naman isang grupulang yung galaban mula sa ibat ibang lugar. Kong ibat ibang instants yung sigaw at pagpunit, ito lang ang ibat iba yung mga alala na nito ang first hand or first hand witnesses na to. In according to Jim Richardson, there is also a source that confirms that the formal decision was arrived at on August 24, 1896. Isang pahin na di umano mula sa burador ng punong ng kataasta asang sanggunyan or the supreme council of the katipunan? So ang panong na lang ayon sa 'an? At ayon sa sources nga, tapong lugar lang yun. Kangkong, pasong tamo, o bahitoro. Jim Richardson agrees that it happened in Kangkong, according to I-Witness accounts hidden. Not in bahitoro, where the commemorative monuments are. So bakit hindi rin puget lawin. We can blame peelvalans well again for this, kasi this is a failure of memory. But due to a concluance of events, the sight of the cry came to be known as puget lawin. And no other than the National Historical Institute in 1963 and in 2001, reaffirmed that it occurred in puget lawin in bahitoro. And Jim Richardson argues that while the NHI in 2001 found no evidence to belay the claim of the NHI in 1963, they also did not find any that supports that it happened in puget lawin in bahitoro. But Richardson argues that the sight is actually the house of Apollonya Samsung in Kangkong. Alright, so at this point, I think it's enough for us to appreciate how history and historiography is a very challenging field of study. So, hindi hito yung misconception ng maramis atin na memorization lang, kasi bakit mo imi-memorize halimbawa yung date and place ng unang sigaw samantalong in the first place, we cannot even identify the exact location. And after the possibility that the date and place, the Philippine government, officially commemorates today, August 23 at puget lawin in bahitoro, could actually be wrong based on new documents that were found in the past decade lang and all eyewitness accounts that have existed for long. So, this is a testament that indeed history is attentive and an ever-changing field. And this is what one event. When we look at our past, it's not just one, two, or twenty, or a hundred events. That pagharami niya, so we must definitely find a way to appreciate our history without limiting it to dates and places and people which could eventually change. So speaking of new documents, next episode, ang papalakain na manatin, ay ang retraction ni Rizal, especially in light of new documents found just a few years ago. No, so toto oong habang binawin ni Rizal ang lahat ng kritisismo niya labancasin bahan, bago shabitain sa pagumbayan. If you like this episode, chances are you will also love our past seasons. So, check out our earlier seasons anywhere you get your podcasts. We are also in YouTube, by the way. And for more content and resources, check out our website podgas.org. Another website you can visit, especially on takatipunan, is kasa isayan dash kkk.info. So, please let us know what you think about podgas. So, you can send us a message or a like our posts or tweets and social media accounts and share it also to your peers and your friends. So, that's it for today. Thank you for listening. Until next time and have a good day. [Music]