IMMEDIATE INFERENCES:EDUCTION
Jamil Adrian L. Matalam
There are generally two kinds of immediate inferences, eduction and oppositional inferences. They are said to be inferences because they have the nature of being a derivative, a taken from or drawn out. In this case, there are presuppositions, that which is something prior to which we draw out; for instance, in the act of taking there must be some object that is taken or the object from which we take something which comes first. Thus, Sirs Ryan Maboloc and Jet Pascua tells us that “inference is the way by which the mind acquires new knowledge from a set of facts that is already known” (Maboloc and Pascua, 32). To infer, then, is to draw conclusions from something given through thinking, or through the operation of the intellect (logic) in the mind. Conversely, in the act of concluding, or thinking, we infer. Truly, inference is (logical) thinking, and not simply the exercise of realigning or rearranging the subject and the predicate of propositions.
They are said to be immediate because they do not have essentially a middle term, a mediator. They are not borne out of combinations or comparisons, synthesis; they are what are called implied. Meaning, the ideas we infer from them are intrinsically part of the meaning of a given idea or proposition. The conclusions that we draw are from the object alone and not through the mediation or intervention of another matter. Thus the conclusion that Socrates is mortal cannot be an immediate inference because it is done through an act of combinations or comparisons. In such a conclusion the ideas of mortality and Socrates are combined and compared. We cannot infer that Socrates is mortal from the idea alone of what is mortal; we must also have an idea of what Socrates is before we could have such conclusion. Immediate inferences therefore, unlike mediated inferences, are conclusions drawn from one idea alone without comparing or combining it with another. They essentially belong to the same given idea or proposition but are not expressed, they are implied. Thus to have knowledge about them we use inferences (logical thinking), we make them express, or expose them from their being implied or hidden. Let us take for example the idea or proposition ‘All human beings are mortal creatures’. From it alone we could infer that some mortal creatures are human beings; or infer the opposite that all human beings are not immortal.
This lecture shall be essentially limited with the discussion of eduction as a mode of immediate inference. Eductions could be conversion, obversion, contraposition, and inversion. Further, we shall deal only with the first two since the knowledge of them is generally essential in proceeding with the last two, and because of energy and time constraint. We shall deal with the other two next time.
CONVERSION
We converse when we infer a new conclusion or idea by interchanging (conversing) the subject with its predicates. Thus, the converse of the idea or proposition that ‘life is unfair’ is ‘some unfair thing is life’. Note that the new conclusion, we call it converse, is implied in the given idea or proposition, we call convertend. We have arrived at a new idea, meaning, or an insight, not outside the meaning or extension of the given idea or proposition, it is derived from the nature of that idea alone. (If life is unfair then some unfair thing is life). Since it is not something outside the given idea it is in a certain sense not something new; no synthesis of ideas resulted. Conversion is simply the reversals, flip-flopping, of ideas or propositions, of course with the intention of discovering further the nature or truth of an idea. It is therefore an action of the intellect in the mind, of thinking, and thus a subject proper of logic.
One of our tasks in the Philo 102 course is the analysis of ideas or propositions. The course is also a study of the rules of formal logic. Therefore in our analysis of propositions we must observe these rules of formal logic. It is essential that we understand these rules lest we may not apply it correctly, and ultimately we end up having illogical and false ideas.
Sirs Ryan and Jet has provided as a good discussions of these rules. Let us review the contents of their book on logic entitled Elements of Logic, and review the rules in conversion of propositions. We shall just simplify our discussion of the rules. Afterwards, have some examples of its application.
The rules that are generally observed in conversions of propositions are the following:
1. Interchange subject and predicate of the given proposition
(convertend);
2. the quality of the proposition retained; and lastly
3. no term must be extended.
But we shall keep in mind of these following matters:
1.Only an (A) proposition can be partially converted, meaning an (A)
proposition can be converted to an (I) proposition and no other proposition.
2. Complete or total conversion can only be done and only with (E) and (I)
propositions.
3. Thus, an (O) proposition cannot be converted.
Let us see some examples of the application of these rules of conversion. Let us analyze these propositions.
1. (A) Every p is a q (convertend), let us converse this proposition.
1. (I) Some q is p. (converse)
Note that in this example we observed the three rules. First, we interchange the subject and predicate; then we retained the quality of the proposition which is affirmative; and lastly we did not extend any term. The last rule explains why in the converse the term some is used instead of every. Since the quantity of the predicate in the given proposition is particular we cannot extend it to universal, thus we cannot retain the term every. Moreover, we must keep in mind that an (A) proposition can only be partially converted, it can only be converted to an (I) proposition.
This time let us analyze these examples of conversion:
2. (E)Every p is not a q. (convertend)
2. (E) Every q is not a p. (converse)
3. (I) Some x is a y. (convertend)
3. (I) Some y is an x. (converse)
In the following examples the quantity of the propositions are retained, unlike the number 1 example. This is so because an (E) and an (I) proposition can be completely converted. Note that we have observed the three general rules of conversion; subjects and predicates were interchanged, quality retained, and we did not extend any term.
This time let us try to convert this idea or proposition.
4. (O) Some x is not a y. (convertend)
4. (O) Some y is not an x. (converse)
The conversion in this example is erroneous, wrong. The answer or converse was not mindful that (O) propositions cannot be converted. Formally, it violated the set rules of conversion and therefore wrong and illogical. Substantially, (O) propositions or ideas cannot be converted since they result to wrong inferences, they result to conclusions that are not implied in the given proposition or idea, and absurd or illogical conclusions. Take for example the proposition ‘some animals are not human’ and converse it to ‘some humans are not animals’. In this case, we end up with a wrong immediate inference and absurd conclusions. To infer that some humans are not animals is to extend the term human. There is therefore a violation of the third rule of conversion. Moreover, it leads to illogical and absurd conclusions. To infer that some humans are not animals is to reverse the order of things, and thus it is logically impossible or invalid. This is so because the idea animals is broader or superior than the idea human; thus the idea or term human is an example, particular, or inferior to the term animals. To say that some humans are not animal is obviously wrong, absurd and illogical idea.
A further question was asked by a student concerning conversions. May an (E) proposition be converted to an (O) proposition? Could there be a conversion from an (I) proposition to an (O) proposition?
The answer to question is no. No to the first question because only (A) proposition can be partially converted. Moreover, (E) are negative propositions and thus generally it is an exclusion of ideas; meaning it separates ideas. Converting it then to (O) proposition would lead to an extension of terms. No to the second question because the second rule of conversion is violated, the quality of the given proposition is not retained. An (I) proposition is an affirmative proposition, and converting it an (O) proposition would change its quality to a negative proposition.
OBVERSION
Another mode of eduction is obversion. In obversion we change the quality of ideas without changing its meaning. We turn around the same idea inside to out, or front to back, to see it in an opposite way, from positively looking at ideas to negatively looking at it or vice versa. We infer the opposite perspective of the same idea or proposition in terms of its quality. Thus, if the proposition ‘life is unfair’ is obversed we yield the inference ‘life is not fair’. Note that idea or meaning of the proposition is not changed but its quality changed by the use of the negative copula not. What we usually do in obversion is to think about or restate the idea or proposition by changing its quality and by providing the contradiction of its predicate.
Like conversion, obversion has formal rules that must be observed in arriving at a correct inference. They usually involve changing the quality and the predicate of the given proposition. Here is a more detailed account of the rules.
1. The subject and quantity of the proposition must be retained;
2. the quality of the proposition is changed by removing or adding
negatives copulas; lastly
3. use the contradictory of the predicate of the given proposition or
obvertend.
In this case we should be mindful of the following:
1. Only an (A) proposition can be obversed to an (E) proposition and vice versa.
2. Only an (I) proposition can be obversed to an (O propositiom and vice versa.
3. Therefore all obversion are by nature complete or total. No obversion may happen
from (A) to (O) or from (E) to (I). Moreover, there could be no obversion from (A) to
(I) or from (E) to (O) obviously because the second rule will not be observed, the
qualities of said propositions are the same.
Let us see some examples of the application of these rules. Let us try to analyze these propositions:
1. (A) Every man is homo economicus. (obvertend)
1. (E) Every man is not non-homo economicus. (obverse)
2. (E) All non-p is not a non-q. (obvertend)
2. (A) All non-p is a q. (obverse)
3. (O) Love is not a thing. (obvertend)
3. (I) Love is a non-thing. (obverse)
4. (I) Some games are non-violent. (obvertend)
4. (O) Some games are not violent. (obverse)
Clearly, the rules of obversion have been observed by the examples provided. Number 1 example for instance, reveals to us that the quantity and the subject of the proposition are retained, but the quality of the proposition is changed, and the contradictory of the predicate of the overtend is used, it was changed from homo economicus to non-homo economicus. The rest of the examples observed the same rule. Note that there are no examples of partial obversions like from (A) to (I) or from (E) to (I) since doing so is a clear violation of the first rule, the quantity of the proposition must not be changed. Thus, if one insists on partial obversion one may end up having wrong inferences or absurd and illogical ideas.
Perhaps athis point we could end the dicussion on the first two modes of eduction. We shall just proceed with the other two at another opportune time. Therefore the coverage of the preliminary examinations would begin with chapter 3 of your textbook and end with the idea of obversion.
I have some important reminders for the examination. Please do not forget to bring the following materials on the examination schedule:
1. Textliner or highlighter.
2. Legal sized (long) bond papers.
3. Either blue or black pens. Pencils will not be allowed in answering
the examination.
Reference
Maboloc, Christopher Ryan and Pascua, Edgar III. 2008. Elements of Logic: An
Integrative Approach. Quezon City, Philippines: Rex Bookstore.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
I have lost faith in the law
I have lost faith in the law
by. Jamil Matalam
I have lost faith in the law
Dreams of young men,
Intelligent profession,
Prestigious and Lucrative one.
politics is an open future,
destined for the congress,
or the malacaňan palace,
Nay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
But the law
Never truly answers
Ultimate questions,
Problems with the world.
Lawyers ever good disputers,
Masters of words and books,
Meaning of words they dispute,
But never bout changing the world.
by. Jamil Matalam
I have lost faith in the law
Dreams of young men,
Intelligent profession,
Prestigious and Lucrative one.
politics is an open future,
destined for the congress,
or the malacaňan palace,
Nay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
But the law
Never truly answers
Ultimate questions,
Problems with the world.
Lawyers ever good disputers,
Masters of words and books,
Meaning of words they dispute,
But never bout changing the world.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Maboloc on ZTE and our right to know the truth (Between Protest and Deliberation)
ZTE and our right to know the truth
Speaker Prospero Nograles complains that Jun Lozada and Jose de Venecia Jr. have been making the rounds in schools and campuses, recently in Davao City, to tell the students about the ZTE mess. The Speaker claims that it is “unfair” since the proper forum should be in court where the “accused” could find the means to defend herself against all these allegations.
We often hear government officials, school officials, etc. accused of wrongdoing, i.e. corruption, abuse, etc. that those allegations against them should be substantiated and brought to the “proper courts”, not in the streets, nor the media, not during sermons, for instance.
This issue is a big debate between two of the century’s greatest political thinkers, John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas. In no uncertain terms, we need to understand the distinction between deliberative and critical democracy.
Deliberative democracy concerns what Rawls calls the “public use of reason”. It is, according to him, the “political use of reason”, and concerns the instrumentalities of governments, i.e. courts, parliaments. He claims that the political should be insulated from our comprehensive doctrines (our beliefs) because only then can citizens under a constitutional rule work for an “overlapping consensus”. Public issues and matters pertaining to the affairs of government, therefore, belong to the forums that are constitutionally established, the constitution being a product of that overlapping consensus. Thus, complaints must be filed in courts so that both parties can avail of the due process. With regard to the ZTE issue, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Ombudsman, have done their constitutionally mandated tasks.
But civil society, which includes the “church, schools, the media, community organizations, and the masa”, whose culture is considered as non-public, may not be properly represented in these forums. For Habermas, the people have a right to voice out their concerns on important issues. Civil society, according to Habermas, can act as the people’s sounding board on issues in a democracy. It may not be the proper forum that the Speaker is talking about, but constitutionally, protest is a democratic right, i.e. freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, etc.
Of course, the Ombudsman, trial courts, and the senate would require documents, evidence, etc. to prove certain allegations. But leaving everything to these venues is perilous for a democracy. As a free people, we have a right to know the truth regarding the ZTE issue and make own judgment accordingly since it is only through this kind of vigilance that we are assured that our democratic rights are secured. Otherwise, without a critical populace, government can abuse its power. As the saying goes, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Speaker Prospero Nograles complains that Jun Lozada and Jose de Venecia Jr. have been making the rounds in schools and campuses, recently in Davao City, to tell the students about the ZTE mess. The Speaker claims that it is “unfair” since the proper forum should be in court where the “accused” could find the means to defend herself against all these allegations.
We often hear government officials, school officials, etc. accused of wrongdoing, i.e. corruption, abuse, etc. that those allegations against them should be substantiated and brought to the “proper courts”, not in the streets, nor the media, not during sermons, for instance.
This issue is a big debate between two of the century’s greatest political thinkers, John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas. In no uncertain terms, we need to understand the distinction between deliberative and critical democracy.
Deliberative democracy concerns what Rawls calls the “public use of reason”. It is, according to him, the “political use of reason”, and concerns the instrumentalities of governments, i.e. courts, parliaments. He claims that the political should be insulated from our comprehensive doctrines (our beliefs) because only then can citizens under a constitutional rule work for an “overlapping consensus”. Public issues and matters pertaining to the affairs of government, therefore, belong to the forums that are constitutionally established, the constitution being a product of that overlapping consensus. Thus, complaints must be filed in courts so that both parties can avail of the due process. With regard to the ZTE issue, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Ombudsman, have done their constitutionally mandated tasks.
But civil society, which includes the “church, schools, the media, community organizations, and the masa”, whose culture is considered as non-public, may not be properly represented in these forums. For Habermas, the people have a right to voice out their concerns on important issues. Civil society, according to Habermas, can act as the people’s sounding board on issues in a democracy. It may not be the proper forum that the Speaker is talking about, but constitutionally, protest is a democratic right, i.e. freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, etc.
Of course, the Ombudsman, trial courts, and the senate would require documents, evidence, etc. to prove certain allegations. But leaving everything to these venues is perilous for a democracy. As a free people, we have a right to know the truth regarding the ZTE issue and make own judgment accordingly since it is only through this kind of vigilance that we are assured that our democratic rights are secured. Otherwise, without a critical populace, government can abuse its power. As the saying goes, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Maboloc on ZTE and the Youth
ZTE and the youth and what is wrong with Philippines
By Ryan B. MabolocLinkoping,
SE03.01.08
Manila-based Asian Development Bank reports that in 2006, 14% of the Philippines’ 87 million people or 12.18 million live on $1 a day while 30% or 26.1 million are below the poverty line. This is despite a 20% increase in tax collection between 2002 and 2006, a GDP growth rate between 4.4% to 5.4%, export growth of 16%, and overseas remittances of $12 billion. The country is burdened by $57B in debts and an unemployment rate of 11%. In 2007, GDP has registered a rate of 7.3%, fastest in three decades. But the statistics above perplexes me. Is economic growth bad for Filipinos?Living in a poor country where hunger is the face of many people’s state of affairs, I have seen the terrible reality of human life which truly makes one doubt whether poverty can vanish from the earth. Inequality is a hard fact of life. About 25 years ago, fish was abundant in my beloved barrio, so they put a fishing port in the 90s. More than a decade has since gone by, and all the fishes have disappeared. They said the port will make the lives of people better, but after all, Fr. Pete Lamata was right for opposing the fish port. I have not understood him then. Right now I do. A hell lot of people in my barrio are still poor.
In the past few years, a great amount of wealth has been created by the Philippine economy through exports, extensive tax collection, and overseas remittances but such has not translated to the well-being of many poor Filipinos. What is wrong is not the way we practice liberal democracy, but the way we understand equality. In view of the evidence of human deprivation in our highly economized world, the sociologist Des Gasper says that the concept of equality should advance the idea that people are not just the means but more importantly, the principal ends of development. But the way we do it in country, our OFWs are our number one export product and clearly, we use them as means and its toll in families, not to mention the lonely nights of being away from your “one true love” is beyond any measurement. Development is about people. The 1990 Human Development Report begins with the statement, “people are the real wealth of a nation”. How many of the hundreds of politicians we have read this report?
Let me do some development analysis. First and foremost, money doesn’t solve our problems. The traditional concept of well-being in welfare economics evaluates social arrangements in terms of aggregate income and wealth through indices such as the Gross National Product, the Gross Domestic Product, and per capita income. For instance, the efforts to address the demand for social equality in many of poor countries are anchored on economic growth. Lowness of income of a country’s poor sector obviously indicates social inequality. Furthermore, it also suggests that families who live below a certain line experience hardships in maintaining a decent way of life or what mainstream economics calls a standard of living. Aggregation in terms of national income is seen to have a cascading effect envisioned to improve living standards. Basically put, it means that the poor are expected to take advantage from the gains due to economic growth, their welfare dependent on the amount of wealth the economy creates.
In measuring national development in terms of real numbers from a country’s economic activity policy makers assume that economic growth in terms of GNP and GDP will have a positive effect on the well-being of the poor. Des Gasper outlines this in what follows: economic production = income = consumption = personal utility = well-being (Gasper 2000, 283). Well-being is the end result of income coming from higher inputs to production in a country’s economic activity. The process of production employs people which in turn enable them to gain something from it. Income is translated to the consumption of commodities in which the process of production employs people which in turn enable them to gain something from it. Income is translated to the consumption of commodities which satisfies personal utility. The satisfaction of this advantage is construed as well-being in economic terms.
In their effort to arrest the problem of poverty, in many of third world countries, governments indicate a certain cut off point called the poverty line based on income earned per household to identify the poor. Those who live below this line are considered poor. This type of measurement shows that poverty is simply the lack of income or the lack of means to pursue a certain standard of living. Low income is seen as the lack of means, (i.e., income) to achieve well-being. Government programs concentrate on reducing the number of people who fall below the poverty line. But for Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, this is stupid because there can never be a policy to supplement the income of people who fall below the poverty line because the only information it provides is the recognition that some people are poor. In addition, Sen says that the aggregation exercise done through simple head counting pays no attention to the fact that people could be a little below the line, or a lot, and also the distribution of income among the poor may or may not be itself very unequal. Such type of measurement does not provide an adequate basis for the reasons why people are deprived of their well-being, or whether the kind of deprivation they suffer is so grave or unimaginable, say for instance the case of homeless orphans or families (i.e., in Manila, the Philippine capital, one does not only see street children but also street families). Thus, Sen says that the real extent of deprivation may be underestimated if we concentrate only on the size of incomes.
Philosophically, it can be argued here that poverty is a result of the lack of real or substantive freedoms, not income per se. Deprivation, destitution, and oppression suggest that the inability of a people to live meaningful life is due to their inability to actualize their freedoms or capabilities towards being or doing. People lack empowerment. From a political point of view, development as freedom highlights the fact that governments can do more in terms of enriching the lives of its people by focusing on their positive freedoms to lead a life that is worth living. In the Philippines, we do the reverse. We emphasize on the negative rights of people, i.e. I do not agree that the youth must go to the streets to protest. They must read their books inside the classroom. Why send them to a war that we (i.e. politicians, professionals, businessmen, etc.) have created for ourselves? They must do battle with great minds, i.e. Stephen Hawking, Jean Paul Sartre, and not the small minds in this ZTE thing.
Isaiah Berlin distinguished positive from negative freedom and Amartya Sen used this to explain the meaning of human development. The idea of negative freedom corresponds to what is sometimes called non-interference rights. These rights can be summed up as freedom from coercion. Positive freedom, on the other hand, refers to real opportunities that can be given to people. The difference between positive or substantial freedom from negative freedom can be shown, for instance, in the case of a person who is without much income or resource, and lives a life of deprivation and misery. His or her negative freedom may not have been violated at any given time, for instance, he or she has never been attacked violently. Yet, his or her negative freedom is also worth nothing to him or her. This is because he or she has never fully attained his human potential in terms of a life that is well-lived which positive freedom, i.e. capabilities, may have provided which negative freedom by itself does not.Nobody ever dreams of living a miserable life. But I fear that we are exposing the youth to a war that they shouldn’t take part of.
By Ryan B. MabolocLinkoping,
SE03.01.08
Manila-based Asian Development Bank reports that in 2006, 14% of the Philippines’ 87 million people or 12.18 million live on $1 a day while 30% or 26.1 million are below the poverty line. This is despite a 20% increase in tax collection between 2002 and 2006, a GDP growth rate between 4.4% to 5.4%, export growth of 16%, and overseas remittances of $12 billion. The country is burdened by $57B in debts and an unemployment rate of 11%. In 2007, GDP has registered a rate of 7.3%, fastest in three decades. But the statistics above perplexes me. Is economic growth bad for Filipinos?Living in a poor country where hunger is the face of many people’s state of affairs, I have seen the terrible reality of human life which truly makes one doubt whether poverty can vanish from the earth. Inequality is a hard fact of life. About 25 years ago, fish was abundant in my beloved barrio, so they put a fishing port in the 90s. More than a decade has since gone by, and all the fishes have disappeared. They said the port will make the lives of people better, but after all, Fr. Pete Lamata was right for opposing the fish port. I have not understood him then. Right now I do. A hell lot of people in my barrio are still poor.
In the past few years, a great amount of wealth has been created by the Philippine economy through exports, extensive tax collection, and overseas remittances but such has not translated to the well-being of many poor Filipinos. What is wrong is not the way we practice liberal democracy, but the way we understand equality. In view of the evidence of human deprivation in our highly economized world, the sociologist Des Gasper says that the concept of equality should advance the idea that people are not just the means but more importantly, the principal ends of development. But the way we do it in country, our OFWs are our number one export product and clearly, we use them as means and its toll in families, not to mention the lonely nights of being away from your “one true love” is beyond any measurement. Development is about people. The 1990 Human Development Report begins with the statement, “people are the real wealth of a nation”. How many of the hundreds of politicians we have read this report?
Let me do some development analysis. First and foremost, money doesn’t solve our problems. The traditional concept of well-being in welfare economics evaluates social arrangements in terms of aggregate income and wealth through indices such as the Gross National Product, the Gross Domestic Product, and per capita income. For instance, the efforts to address the demand for social equality in many of poor countries are anchored on economic growth. Lowness of income of a country’s poor sector obviously indicates social inequality. Furthermore, it also suggests that families who live below a certain line experience hardships in maintaining a decent way of life or what mainstream economics calls a standard of living. Aggregation in terms of national income is seen to have a cascading effect envisioned to improve living standards. Basically put, it means that the poor are expected to take advantage from the gains due to economic growth, their welfare dependent on the amount of wealth the economy creates.
In measuring national development in terms of real numbers from a country’s economic activity policy makers assume that economic growth in terms of GNP and GDP will have a positive effect on the well-being of the poor. Des Gasper outlines this in what follows: economic production = income = consumption = personal utility = well-being (Gasper 2000, 283). Well-being is the end result of income coming from higher inputs to production in a country’s economic activity. The process of production employs people which in turn enable them to gain something from it. Income is translated to the consumption of commodities in which the process of production employs people which in turn enable them to gain something from it. Income is translated to the consumption of commodities which satisfies personal utility. The satisfaction of this advantage is construed as well-being in economic terms.
In their effort to arrest the problem of poverty, in many of third world countries, governments indicate a certain cut off point called the poverty line based on income earned per household to identify the poor. Those who live below this line are considered poor. This type of measurement shows that poverty is simply the lack of income or the lack of means to pursue a certain standard of living. Low income is seen as the lack of means, (i.e., income) to achieve well-being. Government programs concentrate on reducing the number of people who fall below the poverty line. But for Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, this is stupid because there can never be a policy to supplement the income of people who fall below the poverty line because the only information it provides is the recognition that some people are poor. In addition, Sen says that the aggregation exercise done through simple head counting pays no attention to the fact that people could be a little below the line, or a lot, and also the distribution of income among the poor may or may not be itself very unequal. Such type of measurement does not provide an adequate basis for the reasons why people are deprived of their well-being, or whether the kind of deprivation they suffer is so grave or unimaginable, say for instance the case of homeless orphans or families (i.e., in Manila, the Philippine capital, one does not only see street children but also street families). Thus, Sen says that the real extent of deprivation may be underestimated if we concentrate only on the size of incomes.
Philosophically, it can be argued here that poverty is a result of the lack of real or substantive freedoms, not income per se. Deprivation, destitution, and oppression suggest that the inability of a people to live meaningful life is due to their inability to actualize their freedoms or capabilities towards being or doing. People lack empowerment. From a political point of view, development as freedom highlights the fact that governments can do more in terms of enriching the lives of its people by focusing on their positive freedoms to lead a life that is worth living. In the Philippines, we do the reverse. We emphasize on the negative rights of people, i.e. I do not agree that the youth must go to the streets to protest. They must read their books inside the classroom. Why send them to a war that we (i.e. politicians, professionals, businessmen, etc.) have created for ourselves? They must do battle with great minds, i.e. Stephen Hawking, Jean Paul Sartre, and not the small minds in this ZTE thing.
Isaiah Berlin distinguished positive from negative freedom and Amartya Sen used this to explain the meaning of human development. The idea of negative freedom corresponds to what is sometimes called non-interference rights. These rights can be summed up as freedom from coercion. Positive freedom, on the other hand, refers to real opportunities that can be given to people. The difference between positive or substantial freedom from negative freedom can be shown, for instance, in the case of a person who is without much income or resource, and lives a life of deprivation and misery. His or her negative freedom may not have been violated at any given time, for instance, he or she has never been attacked violently. Yet, his or her negative freedom is also worth nothing to him or her. This is because he or she has never fully attained his human potential in terms of a life that is well-lived which positive freedom, i.e. capabilities, may have provided which negative freedom by itself does not.Nobody ever dreams of living a miserable life. But I fear that we are exposing the youth to a war that they shouldn’t take part of.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
SI SAKAY AT ANG REPUBLIKA NG KATAGALUGAN
SI SAKAY AT ANG REPUBLIKA NG KATAGALUGAN
Jamil Adrian L. Matalam. Ateneo de Davao University. History 111 Lectures. 18 February 2008
______________________________________________________________
Naging kontrobersyal ang pagtatalakay sa kasaysayan nila Macario Sakay noon. Sila ay binansagang mga bandido, o mga tulisan ng mga Amerikano. Ang mga layunin nila ay para maghasik ng pananakot at kaguluhan. Itinuring sila bilang mga ordinaryong kriminal. Ganito rin ang pagtalakay sa kasasayan nila sa Sakay noon, itinuring silang mga bandido. Hindi sila itinuring nga nakikipaglaban para sa kalayaan ng Pilipinas at ng mga Pilipino. Nabago lamang ito noong mga dekada 60-70.
Nais natin dito, sa lecture na ito, alamin nang pahapyaw si Macario Sakay at ang Republika ng Katagalugan. Sila nga ba ay mga ordinaryong kriminal, mga bandido lamang, o mga bayani ng Pilipinas?
ANG KATIPUNAN
Si Sakay ay lumabas sa eksena ng ating kasaysayan noong nag-uumpisa pa lamang ang himagsikan laban sa mga Kastila. Isa siya sa mga naunang kasapi ng Katipunan. Nararapat na balik-tanawin muna natin ang Katipunan.
Ang Kataastaasan Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng manga Anak ng Bayan ay binuo noong 1892, sa Tondo, sa pangunguna ni Andres Bonifacio. Isa itong lihim na Katipunan ng mga makabayang Pilipino, o sa wikang English, isang assembly or gathering of patriot Filipinos. Ito ay naging isang lihim na katipunan sapagkat labag ito sa batas ng mga Kastilang naghari sa Pilipinas, dahil layon nito na paalisin ang mga Kastila sa Pilipinas. Marahilan, inilihim na rin ng mga katipunero sapagkat bumubuo pa ito ng lakas para sa himagsikan laban sa mga Kastila. Layunin nila ang kasarinlan ng Pilipinas.
Ayon sa mga historians, tulad ni Teodoro Agoncillo, ang Katipunan daw ay umusbong mula sa pagkukulang ng mga Propagandistas. Ang pagka-unsyami ng mga layunin nila ay humantong sa pagnanais ng kalayaan mula sa Espaňa. Namulat sila na walang balak ang mga Kastila na baguhin at paunlarin ang pamumuhay sa Pilipinas. Ang pag-asa nalang para sa pagbabago ay ang paghiwalay ng Pilipinas, Inang Bayan, sa Madre Espaňa.
Hindi nagtagal, lumawak at lumaki ang Katipunan. Mula sa lihim at maliit na katipunan sa Tondo umabot hanggang sa mga probinsya ang Katipunan. Kaya’t nagkaroon din ng pangkatan. Ang pangkat ni Bonifacio, mga katipunero ng Tondo, o ang mga tinatawag na tunay na katipunero,ay tinawag na Katagalugan. Sa Cavite naman ay may dalawang pangkat, ang Magdalo at Magdiwang. Ang unang pangkat ay pinamumunuan ng mga Aguinaldo, at nakabase sa Kawit. Ang ikalawa naman ay mula sa Noveleta, at pinamumunuan ng mga Alvarez, at kinabibilangan ni Artemio Ricarte. Ang grupo naman ni Pio del Pilar sa Makati ay tinawag na Magtagumpay. Ang mga iba’t-ibang pangkat ay may kanya-kanyang sariling bandila.
Ang pagpapatakbo sa Katipunan ay may sinusunod na istruktura. Nahahati ito sa iba’t-ibang baitang o nibel ng pamamahala. Meron itong tatlong nibel sa pangangasiwa sa Katipunan. Ang Kataastaasang Sanggunian, Ang Sangguniang Bayan, at Ang Sangguniang Balangay. Sakop ng kataastaasang Sangguniang ang pangkalahatang pamumuno sa Katipunan. Ito ay binubuo ng Supremo o Presidente, at ang kanyang gabinete. Ang Sangguniang Bayan ay ang namamalakad sa nibel ng probinsya. Ang Sangguniang Balangay naman sa pambayan o munisipyo. Ang Kataastaasang Sanggunian at ang mga presidente ng mga mababang sanggunian ang bumubuo sa Assemblia ng Katipunan.
SI MACARIO SAKAY
Si Macario Sakay ay isa sa mga pinuno ng isa sa mga Sangguniang Balangay ng Katipunan. Siya ay naging presidente ng Balangay Dapitan. Sa mga pinirmahan niyang dokumento bilang presidente ng Dapitan gamit niya ang ranggo ng isang Lieutenant-General. Ayon kay Orlino A. Ochosa, binubuo nila Bonifacio, Jacinto, at Sakay ang pamumuno sa Katagalugan, sila ang triumvirata ng Katagalugan.
Tulad nila Bonifacio at Jacinto si Sakay ay lumaki sa Tondo. Siya ay ipinanganak noong 1870, at isa siyang anak sa labas. Ang kanyang apelyido ay galling sa kanyang ina. Siya ay naging isang barbero, namasukan bilang isang trabahante ng isang banyaga korporasyon sa Pilipinas, at lumabas din daw siya sa entablado, sa mga moro-moro.
Hindi siya namatay noong pumutok ang himagsikan laban sa mga Kastila, kaya’t kasama siya sa mga unang lumaban sa mga Amerikano. Isa si Sakay sa mga naunang nadakip ng mga Amerikano noong sumiklab ang labanan noong 1899. Nakalaya naman siya noong 1902 dahil sa isang amnesty. Pagkatapos makalaya sa pagkakulong bumuo siya ng isang grupo at pinagpatuloy niya sa pakikipaglaban sa mga Amerikano.
Habang siya ay nakakulong, ay nahuli si Emilio Aguinaldo, ang Presidente ng Republika ng Pilipinas. Sa pagkahuli ni Aguinaldo, nanawagan siya ng tanggapin ng mga Pilipino ang pamahalaan ng United States of America. Hindi naka-apekto ang panawagan ni Aguinaldo sa pakikipaglaban sa mga Amerikano. Pinagpatuloy ni Miguel Malvar ang Republika ni Aguinaldo. Ngunit hindi nagtagal ay nahuli narin si Malvar, at bumagsak ng tuluyan ang Republika ni Aguinaldo. Ngunit tuloy parin ang pakikipaglaban nila Lucio San Miguel, at nila Faustino Gullermo. Sa mga lugar naman ng Cavite, Laguna, at Batangas tuloy ay pakikipaglaban nila Julian Montalan, Cornelio Felizardo, at Aniceto Oruga. Matapos makalaya, naging isa narin sa mga grupo na lumalaban sa mga Amerikano ang grupo ni Sakay, ang kanilang mga operasyon ay sa lalawigan ng Rizal.
ANG REPUBLIKA NG KATAGALUGAN
Sa mga panahon noong 1904 nagkaroon ng malaking problema ang mga Amerikano sa Samar. Dahil ditto ay nangangailangan dagdagan ang mga sundalong Amerikano sa Samar at pagtuonan ng buong pansin ito. Ito ay naging isang malaking pagkakataon para sa mga lumalaban sa mga Amerikano sa Luzon. Ito na ang pagkakataon nila upang makapaglunsad ng malawakang opensiba laban sa mga Amerikano.
Napagpasyahan ng mga pangkat nila Montalan, Felizardo, at Sakay na bumuo muna ng Republika bago tuluyang maglunsad ng malawakang pag-atake. Ninais nilang magkaisa muna sa pakikipaglaban sa mga Amerikano. Binuo nila ang Republika ng Katagalugan. Hinirang nila bilang Presidente Supremo si Sakay. Si Julian Montalan naman ang hinirang nila bilang pangkalahatang taga-pangasiwa sa mga operasyong militar. Kumukuha ng mga utos sila Lucio de Vega, Cornelio Felizardo, at Aniceto Oruga mula kay Montalan at Sakay. Si Franciso Carreon, isang tunay na katipunero, naman ang naging pangalawang pangulo at tagapagpayo ni Sakay.
Ang kuta nila Sakay, at pangunahing opisina narin ng Republika, ay sa mga bundok ng Tanay, Rizal. Ang tawag nila dito ay Di-Masalang. Hirap na hirap ang mga Amerikano sa pagtunton ng kuta na ito. Dito nagmumula ang mga utos, panawagan, at proklamasyon ni Sakay sa pamamahala ng Republika.
Ang Republika ng Katagalugan ay meron sariling saligang-batas. Ito ay binase nila sa saligang-batas ng Katipunan. Meron din itong mga gabinete, opisyales, at organisasyong militar. Nagpapadala ang Republika ng mga proklamasyoan at mga kasulatan sa iba’t-ibang banyagang embahada sa Pilipinas. Nagpapataw din ng mga kaparusahang kriminal sa mga lumalabag sa mga batas nito at sa mga tumutulong sa mga Amerikano.
Malaki ang bahagi ng mga mamamyang Pilipino sa buhay ng Republika ng Katagalugan. Mula sa kanila ang mga pagkain ng mga sundalo at opisyales ng Republika. Mga impormasyon at iba’t-ibang tulong ang ibinabhagi ng mga mamayang Pilipino sa Republika. Nagbabayad din sila ng buwis sa Republika ng Katagalugan.
Naging isang malaking hadlang sa mga ambisyon ng mga Ameikano ang Republika ng Katagalugan. Pinerwisyo nito ng mabuti ang mga programa ng mga Amerikano sa Pilipinas. Kaya’t lubos-lubos din ang galit ng mga Amerikano kanila Sakay. Iba’t-ibang paraan ang ginawa nila para madakip ang mga pinuno ng Republika. Pilitang nilipat nila sa ibang lugar ang taga-suporta nila Sakay, reconcentration sa wikang English ang paraan na ito. Dahil dito nahirapan at nagutom sila Sakay.
Natapos lamang ang pakikipaglaban ng mga Amerikano sa Republika nila Sakay noong ang mga pinuno nito ay nahuli. Naunang sumuko si Oruga. Napatay naman si Felizardo ng mga impostor. Si Sakay, Montalan, de Vega, at Villafuerte ay nahuli pagkatapos silang malinlang ng mga Amerikano. Inimbitahan sila ng Mga Amerikano sa isang pakikipag-usap, at pinangakuan na hindi huhulihin. Pumunta sila sa pakikipag-usap pero sa huli sila rin ay hinuli.
Si Macario Sakay ay nahuli noong Hulyo 1906. Ikinulong siya sa bilibid kasama ng kanyang mga heneral. Siya ay binitay, kasama ni Lucio de Vega, noong Setyembre 13, 1907. Ang kanyang mga huling salita ay “Mga Tunay na Katipunan Kami.”
KONKLUSYON
Ang grupo ni Sakay ay hindi maaring ituring isang grupo lamang ng mga tulisan. Ang kanilang mga adhikain at layunin ay nag-ugat sa mga layuning makabayan ng Katipunan. Minimithi nila ang kasarinlan at kabutihan ng Pilipinas. Hindi para lamang manakot, magnakaw, at maghasik ng lagim.
Ang malawakang suporta na ibinigay ng mga Pilipino sa kanila ay isang patunay na hindi sila mga ordinaryong kriminal. Kaisa nila ang mga Pilipino sapagkat ang mga Pilipino ay kanilang ipinaglalaban. Ang kanilang pakikipaglaban ay ang pagpapatuloy sa mga layunin ng Katipunan.
Ang pagtatag din ng isang Republika ay patunay na hindi sila mga ordinaryong bandido o tulisan. Ang nais nila ay isang pamahalaan ng mga Pilipino. Ang mga ordinaryong kriminal ay walang balak magtatag ng isang Republika o pamahalaan sapagkat ang mga layunin ng mga ito ay pansarili lamang.
REFERENCES:
Agoncillo, Teodoro. History Of The Filipino People 8th ed. Quezon City: Garotech
Publishing, 1990.
Constantino, Renato. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Manila,Philippines: ISBN, 1998.
Ochosa, Orlino A. Bandoleros: Outlawed Guerillas Of The Philippine-American War
1903-1907. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers, 1995.
Jamil Adrian L. Matalam. Ateneo de Davao University. History 111 Lectures. 18 February 2008
______________________________________________________________
Naging kontrobersyal ang pagtatalakay sa kasaysayan nila Macario Sakay noon. Sila ay binansagang mga bandido, o mga tulisan ng mga Amerikano. Ang mga layunin nila ay para maghasik ng pananakot at kaguluhan. Itinuring sila bilang mga ordinaryong kriminal. Ganito rin ang pagtalakay sa kasasayan nila sa Sakay noon, itinuring silang mga bandido. Hindi sila itinuring nga nakikipaglaban para sa kalayaan ng Pilipinas at ng mga Pilipino. Nabago lamang ito noong mga dekada 60-70.
Nais natin dito, sa lecture na ito, alamin nang pahapyaw si Macario Sakay at ang Republika ng Katagalugan. Sila nga ba ay mga ordinaryong kriminal, mga bandido lamang, o mga bayani ng Pilipinas?
ANG KATIPUNAN
Si Sakay ay lumabas sa eksena ng ating kasaysayan noong nag-uumpisa pa lamang ang himagsikan laban sa mga Kastila. Isa siya sa mga naunang kasapi ng Katipunan. Nararapat na balik-tanawin muna natin ang Katipunan.
Ang Kataastaasan Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng manga Anak ng Bayan ay binuo noong 1892, sa Tondo, sa pangunguna ni Andres Bonifacio. Isa itong lihim na Katipunan ng mga makabayang Pilipino, o sa wikang English, isang assembly or gathering of patriot Filipinos. Ito ay naging isang lihim na katipunan sapagkat labag ito sa batas ng mga Kastilang naghari sa Pilipinas, dahil layon nito na paalisin ang mga Kastila sa Pilipinas. Marahilan, inilihim na rin ng mga katipunero sapagkat bumubuo pa ito ng lakas para sa himagsikan laban sa mga Kastila. Layunin nila ang kasarinlan ng Pilipinas.
Ayon sa mga historians, tulad ni Teodoro Agoncillo, ang Katipunan daw ay umusbong mula sa pagkukulang ng mga Propagandistas. Ang pagka-unsyami ng mga layunin nila ay humantong sa pagnanais ng kalayaan mula sa Espaňa. Namulat sila na walang balak ang mga Kastila na baguhin at paunlarin ang pamumuhay sa Pilipinas. Ang pag-asa nalang para sa pagbabago ay ang paghiwalay ng Pilipinas, Inang Bayan, sa Madre Espaňa.
Hindi nagtagal, lumawak at lumaki ang Katipunan. Mula sa lihim at maliit na katipunan sa Tondo umabot hanggang sa mga probinsya ang Katipunan. Kaya’t nagkaroon din ng pangkatan. Ang pangkat ni Bonifacio, mga katipunero ng Tondo, o ang mga tinatawag na tunay na katipunero,ay tinawag na Katagalugan. Sa Cavite naman ay may dalawang pangkat, ang Magdalo at Magdiwang. Ang unang pangkat ay pinamumunuan ng mga Aguinaldo, at nakabase sa Kawit. Ang ikalawa naman ay mula sa Noveleta, at pinamumunuan ng mga Alvarez, at kinabibilangan ni Artemio Ricarte. Ang grupo naman ni Pio del Pilar sa Makati ay tinawag na Magtagumpay. Ang mga iba’t-ibang pangkat ay may kanya-kanyang sariling bandila.
Ang pagpapatakbo sa Katipunan ay may sinusunod na istruktura. Nahahati ito sa iba’t-ibang baitang o nibel ng pamamahala. Meron itong tatlong nibel sa pangangasiwa sa Katipunan. Ang Kataastaasang Sanggunian, Ang Sangguniang Bayan, at Ang Sangguniang Balangay. Sakop ng kataastaasang Sangguniang ang pangkalahatang pamumuno sa Katipunan. Ito ay binubuo ng Supremo o Presidente, at ang kanyang gabinete. Ang Sangguniang Bayan ay ang namamalakad sa nibel ng probinsya. Ang Sangguniang Balangay naman sa pambayan o munisipyo. Ang Kataastaasang Sanggunian at ang mga presidente ng mga mababang sanggunian ang bumubuo sa Assemblia ng Katipunan.
SI MACARIO SAKAY
Si Macario Sakay ay isa sa mga pinuno ng isa sa mga Sangguniang Balangay ng Katipunan. Siya ay naging presidente ng Balangay Dapitan. Sa mga pinirmahan niyang dokumento bilang presidente ng Dapitan gamit niya ang ranggo ng isang Lieutenant-General. Ayon kay Orlino A. Ochosa, binubuo nila Bonifacio, Jacinto, at Sakay ang pamumuno sa Katagalugan, sila ang triumvirata ng Katagalugan.
Tulad nila Bonifacio at Jacinto si Sakay ay lumaki sa Tondo. Siya ay ipinanganak noong 1870, at isa siyang anak sa labas. Ang kanyang apelyido ay galling sa kanyang ina. Siya ay naging isang barbero, namasukan bilang isang trabahante ng isang banyaga korporasyon sa Pilipinas, at lumabas din daw siya sa entablado, sa mga moro-moro.
Hindi siya namatay noong pumutok ang himagsikan laban sa mga Kastila, kaya’t kasama siya sa mga unang lumaban sa mga Amerikano. Isa si Sakay sa mga naunang nadakip ng mga Amerikano noong sumiklab ang labanan noong 1899. Nakalaya naman siya noong 1902 dahil sa isang amnesty. Pagkatapos makalaya sa pagkakulong bumuo siya ng isang grupo at pinagpatuloy niya sa pakikipaglaban sa mga Amerikano.
Habang siya ay nakakulong, ay nahuli si Emilio Aguinaldo, ang Presidente ng Republika ng Pilipinas. Sa pagkahuli ni Aguinaldo, nanawagan siya ng tanggapin ng mga Pilipino ang pamahalaan ng United States of America. Hindi naka-apekto ang panawagan ni Aguinaldo sa pakikipaglaban sa mga Amerikano. Pinagpatuloy ni Miguel Malvar ang Republika ni Aguinaldo. Ngunit hindi nagtagal ay nahuli narin si Malvar, at bumagsak ng tuluyan ang Republika ni Aguinaldo. Ngunit tuloy parin ang pakikipaglaban nila Lucio San Miguel, at nila Faustino Gullermo. Sa mga lugar naman ng Cavite, Laguna, at Batangas tuloy ay pakikipaglaban nila Julian Montalan, Cornelio Felizardo, at Aniceto Oruga. Matapos makalaya, naging isa narin sa mga grupo na lumalaban sa mga Amerikano ang grupo ni Sakay, ang kanilang mga operasyon ay sa lalawigan ng Rizal.
ANG REPUBLIKA NG KATAGALUGAN
Sa mga panahon noong 1904 nagkaroon ng malaking problema ang mga Amerikano sa Samar. Dahil ditto ay nangangailangan dagdagan ang mga sundalong Amerikano sa Samar at pagtuonan ng buong pansin ito. Ito ay naging isang malaking pagkakataon para sa mga lumalaban sa mga Amerikano sa Luzon. Ito na ang pagkakataon nila upang makapaglunsad ng malawakang opensiba laban sa mga Amerikano.
Napagpasyahan ng mga pangkat nila Montalan, Felizardo, at Sakay na bumuo muna ng Republika bago tuluyang maglunsad ng malawakang pag-atake. Ninais nilang magkaisa muna sa pakikipaglaban sa mga Amerikano. Binuo nila ang Republika ng Katagalugan. Hinirang nila bilang Presidente Supremo si Sakay. Si Julian Montalan naman ang hinirang nila bilang pangkalahatang taga-pangasiwa sa mga operasyong militar. Kumukuha ng mga utos sila Lucio de Vega, Cornelio Felizardo, at Aniceto Oruga mula kay Montalan at Sakay. Si Franciso Carreon, isang tunay na katipunero, naman ang naging pangalawang pangulo at tagapagpayo ni Sakay.
Ang kuta nila Sakay, at pangunahing opisina narin ng Republika, ay sa mga bundok ng Tanay, Rizal. Ang tawag nila dito ay Di-Masalang. Hirap na hirap ang mga Amerikano sa pagtunton ng kuta na ito. Dito nagmumula ang mga utos, panawagan, at proklamasyon ni Sakay sa pamamahala ng Republika.
Ang Republika ng Katagalugan ay meron sariling saligang-batas. Ito ay binase nila sa saligang-batas ng Katipunan. Meron din itong mga gabinete, opisyales, at organisasyong militar. Nagpapadala ang Republika ng mga proklamasyoan at mga kasulatan sa iba’t-ibang banyagang embahada sa Pilipinas. Nagpapataw din ng mga kaparusahang kriminal sa mga lumalabag sa mga batas nito at sa mga tumutulong sa mga Amerikano.
Malaki ang bahagi ng mga mamamyang Pilipino sa buhay ng Republika ng Katagalugan. Mula sa kanila ang mga pagkain ng mga sundalo at opisyales ng Republika. Mga impormasyon at iba’t-ibang tulong ang ibinabhagi ng mga mamayang Pilipino sa Republika. Nagbabayad din sila ng buwis sa Republika ng Katagalugan.
Naging isang malaking hadlang sa mga ambisyon ng mga Ameikano ang Republika ng Katagalugan. Pinerwisyo nito ng mabuti ang mga programa ng mga Amerikano sa Pilipinas. Kaya’t lubos-lubos din ang galit ng mga Amerikano kanila Sakay. Iba’t-ibang paraan ang ginawa nila para madakip ang mga pinuno ng Republika. Pilitang nilipat nila sa ibang lugar ang taga-suporta nila Sakay, reconcentration sa wikang English ang paraan na ito. Dahil dito nahirapan at nagutom sila Sakay.
Natapos lamang ang pakikipaglaban ng mga Amerikano sa Republika nila Sakay noong ang mga pinuno nito ay nahuli. Naunang sumuko si Oruga. Napatay naman si Felizardo ng mga impostor. Si Sakay, Montalan, de Vega, at Villafuerte ay nahuli pagkatapos silang malinlang ng mga Amerikano. Inimbitahan sila ng Mga Amerikano sa isang pakikipag-usap, at pinangakuan na hindi huhulihin. Pumunta sila sa pakikipag-usap pero sa huli sila rin ay hinuli.
Si Macario Sakay ay nahuli noong Hulyo 1906. Ikinulong siya sa bilibid kasama ng kanyang mga heneral. Siya ay binitay, kasama ni Lucio de Vega, noong Setyembre 13, 1907. Ang kanyang mga huling salita ay “Mga Tunay na Katipunan Kami.”
KONKLUSYON
Ang grupo ni Sakay ay hindi maaring ituring isang grupo lamang ng mga tulisan. Ang kanilang mga adhikain at layunin ay nag-ugat sa mga layuning makabayan ng Katipunan. Minimithi nila ang kasarinlan at kabutihan ng Pilipinas. Hindi para lamang manakot, magnakaw, at maghasik ng lagim.
Ang malawakang suporta na ibinigay ng mga Pilipino sa kanila ay isang patunay na hindi sila mga ordinaryong kriminal. Kaisa nila ang mga Pilipino sapagkat ang mga Pilipino ay kanilang ipinaglalaban. Ang kanilang pakikipaglaban ay ang pagpapatuloy sa mga layunin ng Katipunan.
Ang pagtatag din ng isang Republika ay patunay na hindi sila mga ordinaryong bandido o tulisan. Ang nais nila ay isang pamahalaan ng mga Pilipino. Ang mga ordinaryong kriminal ay walang balak magtatag ng isang Republika o pamahalaan sapagkat ang mga layunin ng mga ito ay pansarili lamang.
REFERENCES:
Agoncillo, Teodoro. History Of The Filipino People 8th ed. Quezon City: Garotech
Publishing, 1990.
Constantino, Renato. The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Manila,Philippines: ISBN, 1998.
Ochosa, Orlino A. Bandoleros: Outlawed Guerillas Of The Philippine-American War
1903-1907. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers, 1995.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
