DETECTIVE QUIZ

START

The Truth

tHE caVITE mUTINY

bEHIND

NEXT

CAVITE MUTINY

NEXT

THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY

next

Our source based on extensive account sent by Gov Izquierdo to overseas minister, accept his characterization as a frustrated separatist revolution. It points to the real authors who escaped execution because of ties to Izquierdo.

CAVITE MUTINY

NEXT

spanish perspectivevs. Filipino perspective

NEXT

spanish perspective1st Evidence

spanish perspective

EVIDENCE NO.1

José Montero y Vidal is a Spanish Historian who shared that the Cavite Munity was an attempt of the Indios (native indigenous people) to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.

NEXT

spanish perspective2nd Evidence

spanish perspective

EVIDENCE NO.2

event of 1872 was planned by every Filipino educated leaders, native lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite, and native clergy.

NEXT

spanish perspective3rd Evidence

EVIDENCE NO.3

spanish perspective

The anonymous letter on January 19

NEXT

spanish perspective4th Evidence

spanish perspective

EVIDENCE NO.4

“I make known to you that, as I was informed this very night, in the market here [Cavite] and in the walls [Intramuros] on Friday or Saturday of this week they will fire a cannon shot in the fort of Manila, the sign of a revolt against the Spaniards. They are taking this occasion since the squadron is not here. The one who is acting as the head of the revolt is the Very Reverend Father Burgos in Manila, and in Cavite the artillery sergeants and the corporals of the native marines. (BNM, ms 13.228; in Tormo Sanz 1977, 70)”

NEXT

spanish perspective5th Evidence

EVIDENCE NO.5

spanish perspective

Cavite Mutiny was not its own isolated event

NEXT

Filipino perspective1st Evidence

spanish perspective

EVIDENCE NO.1

The 60-page letter of Izquierdo to the overseas Minister

NEXT

Filipino perspective2nd Evidence

spanish perspective

EVIDENCE NO.2

“Big reunion. The friends will come with bullets and Powder”

NEXT

Filipino perspective3rd Evidence

spanish perspective

EVIDENCE NO.3

the rebels and he repeatedly named Burgos as the principal figure

RESULTS

Filipino perspective4th Evidence

spanish perspective

EVIDENCE NO.4

All based on anonymous reports and rumors.

RESULTS

Filipino perspective5th Evidence

spanish perspective

EVIDENCE NO.5

Zamora was not aware

RESULTS

WHO TELLS THE TRUTH?

Piedad-Pugay, C. A. (2012). The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. Retrieved from https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/ Cavite Mutiny of 1872 Spanish Version. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/university-of-the-visayas/rizal-works/cavite-mutiny-of-1872-spanish-version/17272404 SPARKS OF RESISTANCE: 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY. (2022). Retrieved from https://nhcp.gov.ph/sparks-of-resistance-150th-anniversary-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/

The three priests (GomBurza) executed had nothing to do with the revolt. The evidence for the GumBurZa was not strong enough to be guilty. 3-5 correct

Izquierdo's account holds great importance since he received a confidential letter, and it possesses great credibility as that was there was no reason for him to give false information to the Overseas Minister or the King of Spain Even if there were obvious error on the letter.

Case closed!