10 Principles of Economics

Jump to navigationJump to search

Contents

 1How People Make Decisions

o 1.1People face trade-offs

o 1.2Significance of opportunity cost in decision making

o 1.3Rational people think at the margin

o 1.4People respond to incentives

 2How People Interact With Each Other

o 2.1Trade can make everyone better off

o 2.2Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity

o 2.3Government can sometimes improve market outcomes

 3The Forces and Trends That Affect How The Economy as a Whole Works

o 3.1A country's standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services

o 3.2Prices rise when the government prints too much money

o 3.3Society faces a short-run trade off between inflation and unemployment

Gregory Mankiw in his Principles of Economics outlines Ten Principles of Economics that we will
replicate here, they are:

1. People face trade-offs

2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it

3. Rational people think at the margin

4. People respond to incentives

5. Trade can make everyone better off

6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity

7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes

 8. A country's standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services

9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money

10.Society faces a short-run tradeoff between Inflation and unemployment.

How People Make Decisions[edit]

People face trade-offs[edit]

 “There is no thing such as a free lunch.” To get one thing that we like, we usually have to
give up another thing that we like. Making decisions requires trading one goal for another.

 Examples include how students spend their time, how a family decides to spend its income,
how the government spends revenue, and how regulations may protect the environment at a
cost to firm owners.

 A special example of a trade-off is the trade-off between efficiency and equity.

 Definition of efficiency: the property of society getting the maximum benefits

from its scarce resources.

 Definition of equity: the property of distributing economic prosperity fairly

among the members of society.

 For example, tax paid by wealthy people and then distributed to poor may improve
equity but lower the incentive for hard work and therefore reduce the level of output
produced by our resources.

 This implies that the cost of this increased equity is a reduction in the efficient use of
our resources.

 Another Example is “guns and butter”: The more we spend on national defense(guns) to
protect our borders, the less we can spend on consumer goods (butter) to raise our standard of
living at home.

 Recognizing that trade-offs exist does not indicate what decisions should or will be made.
Significance of opportunity cost in decision making [edit]

 Because people face trade off, making decisions requires comparing the costs and benefits
of alternative courses of action.

 The cost of…

 …going to college for a year is not just the tuition, books, and fees, but also the
foregone wages.

 …seeing a movie is not just the price of the ticket, but the value of the time you
spend in the theater
 This is called opportunity cost of resource

 Definition of opportunity cost: whatever must be given up in order to obtain some item.
or last best alternative forgone

 When making any decision, decision makers should consider the opportunity costs of each
possible.
Rational people think at the margin[edit]

 Economists generally assume that people are rational.

 Definition of rational: systematically and purposefully doing the best you can to
achieve your objectives.

 Consumers want to purchase the bundle of goods and services that allows them the
greatest level of satisfaction given their incomes and the prices they face.

 Firms want to produce the level of output that maximizes the profits.

 Many decisions in life involve incremental decisions: Should I remain in school this
semester? Should I take another course this semester? Should I study an additional hour for
tomorrow’s exam?

 Rational people often make decisions by comparing marginal benefits and marginal costs.

 If the additional satisfaction obtained by an addition in the units of a commodity is equal to

the price a consumer is willing to pay for that commodity, he achieves maximum satisfaction,
which is the main goal of every rational consumer.

 Example: Suppose that flying a 200-seat plane across the country costs the airline
$1,000,000, which means that the average cost of each seat is $5000. Suppose that the
plane is minutes away from departure and a passenger is willing to pay $3000 for a seat.
Should the airline sell the seat for $3000? In this case, the marginal cost of an additional
passenger is very small.

 Another example: Why is water so cheap while diamonds are expensive? Because
water is plentiful, the marginal benefit of an additional cup is small. Because diamonds are
rare, the marginal benefit of an extra diamond is high.
People respond to incentives[edit]

 Incentive is something that induces a person to act [by offering rewards to people who
change their behavior].

 Because rational people make decisions by comparing costs and benefits, they respond to
incentives.

 Incentives may possess a negative or a positive intention. It may be in a positive or a

negative way.
For example,by offering a raise in the salary of whosoever works harder can induce people to work
hard which is a positive incentive. Whereas putting a tax on a good,say fuel, can induce people to
consume it less which is a negative incentive.

How People Interact With Each Other[edit]

Trade can make everyone better off[edit]

 Trade is not like a sports competition, where one side gains and the other side loses.

 Consider trade that takes place inside your home. Your family is likely to be involved in trade
with other families on a daily basis. Most families do not build their own homes, make their own
clothes, or grow their own food.

 Countries benefit from trading with one another as well.

 Trade allows for specialization in products that benefits countries (or families)
Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity [edit]
Many countries that once had centrally planned economies have abandoned this system and are
trying to develop market economies.

 Definition of market economy: an economy that allocates resources through the

decentralized decisions of many firms and households as they interact in markets for
goods and services.

 Market prices reflect both the value of a product to consumers and the cost of the resources
used to produce it.

 Centrally planned economies have failed because they did not allow the market to work.

 Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand

 Adam Smith’s 1776 work suggested that although individuals are motivated by self-
interest, an invisible hand guides this self-interest into promoting society’s economic well-
being.
Government can sometimes improve market outcomes[edit]
There are two broad reasons for the government to interfere with the economy: the promotion of
efficiency and equity.

 Government policy can be most useful when there is market failure.

 Definition of market failure: a situation in which a market left on its own fails to
allocate resources efficiently.

 Examples of Market Failure

 Definition of externality: the impact of one person’s actions on the well-being of

a bystander. (Ex.: Pollution)
  Definition of market power: the ability of a single economic actor (or small
group of actors) to have a substantial influence on market prices.

 Because a market economy rewards people for their ability to produce things that
other people are willing to pay for, there will be an unequal distribution of economic
prosperity.

 Note that the principle states that the government can improve market outcomes. This is not
saying that the government always does improve market outcomes.

The Forces and Trends That Affect How The Economy as a Whole
Works[edit]
A country's standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and
services[edit]

 Differences in the standard of living from one country to another are quite large.

 Changes in living standards over time are also quite large.

 The explanation for differences in living standards lies in differences in productivity.

 Definition of productivity: the quantity of goods and services produced from each hour
of a worker’s time.

 High productivity implies a high standard of living.

 Thus, policymakers must understand the impact of any policy on our ability to produce goods
and services.

 To boost living standards the policy makers need to raise productivity by ensuring that
workers are well educated, have the tools needed to produce goods and services, and have
access to the best available technology.

 Per capita income of nation

Prices rise when the government prints too much money [edit]

 Definition of inflation: sustained increase in the overall level of prices in the economy.

 When the government creates a large amount of money, the value of money falls.

 Examples: Germany after World War I (in the early 1920s) and the United States in the
1970s
Society faces a short-run trade off between inflation and unemployment [edit]

 Most economists believe that the short-run effect of a monetary injection (injecting/adding
money into the economy) is lower unemployment and higher prices.
  An increase in the amount of money in the economy stimulates spending and
increases the demand of goods and services in the economy.

 Higher demand may over time cause firms to raise their prices but in the meantime, it
also encourages them to increase the quantity of goods and services they produce and to
hire more workers to produce those goods and services. More hiring means lower
unemployment.

 Some economists question whether this relationship still exists.

 The short-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment plays a key role in analysis of
the business cycle.

 Definition of business cycle: fluctuations in economic activity, such as employment

and production.

 Policymakers can exploit this trade-off by using various policy instruments, but the extent
and desirability of these interventions is a subject of continuing debate..

Historical method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
"Scientific history" redirects here. For the study of the development of science, see History of
science.

Thucydides (c. 460-c. 400 BC) dubbed the "father of scientific history"

 Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary
sources and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to
write histories in the form of accounts of the past. The question of the nature, and even the
possibility, of a sound historical method is raised in the philosophy of history as a question
of epistemology. The study of historical method and of different ways of writing history is known
as historiography.

Contents

 1Source criticism

o 1.1Procedures for contradictory sources

o 1.2Core principles for determining reliability

o 1.3Eyewitness evidence

o 1.4Indirect witnesses

o 1.5Oral tradition

o 1.6Anonymous sources

 2Synthesis: historical reasoning

o 2.1Argument to the best explanation

o 2.2Statistical inference

o 2.3Argument from analogy

 3See also

 4Footnotes

 5References

 6External links

Source criticism[edit]
Main article: Source criticism
Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating the qualities of
an information source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance to the subject under investigation.
Gilbert J Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:[1]

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?

 2. Where was it produced (localization)?

3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?

4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?

5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?

6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism.
The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. Together, this inquiry is known
as source criticism.
R. J. Shafer on external criticism: "It sometimes is said that its function is negative, merely saving us
from using false evidence; whereas internal criticism has the positive function of telling us how to
use authenticated evidence."[2]
Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the
general rule, "for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be
separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author." An author's trustworthiness
in the main may establish a background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each
piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually.
Procedures for contradictory sources[edit]
Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source
criticism in history:[3]

1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.

2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version
will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.

3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of
its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.

4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with
most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.

5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary

observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they
deal with facts known by most contemporaries.

6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably
enhanced.

7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take
the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the
credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating
principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a statement
found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its own.
Core principles for determining reliability[edit]
The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians,
Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[4]

 Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a

letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

 Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the
source increase its reliability.

 The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to
give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

 An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable
than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

 If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the
message is strongly increased.

 The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should
be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

 If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias
then the credibility of the message is increased.
Eyewitness evidence[edit]
R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:[5]

1. Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in
senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it
says)?

2. How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the
observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the
proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise
required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?

3. How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?

1. Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting?
Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?

2. When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is
much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have
forgotten relevant material.

3. What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that
audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?
 4. Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject
reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging
to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual
information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict
with what we know?

5. Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.

6. Are there inner contradictions in the document?

Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-
known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or
falsehood seems unlikely. If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that
road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that
proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the
principate of Augustus. If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at
any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the
advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on
the market called 'A and B Coffee.'"[6]
Indirect witnesses[edit]
Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present
on the scene but heard of the events from someone else. [7] Gottschalk says that a historian may
sometimes use hearsay evidence when no primary texts are available. He writes, "In cases where
he uses secondary witnesses...he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary
witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony
as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory
answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the
primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such
cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his
knowledge. Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its
credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself." Gottschalk adds, "Thus hearsay evidence
would not be discarded by the historian, as it would be by a law court merely because it is hearsay." [8]
Oral tradition[edit]
Gilbert Garraghan maintains that oral tradition may be accepted if it satisfies either two "broad
conditions" or six "particular conditions", as follows:[9]

1. Broad conditions stated.

1. The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses, reaching from

the immediate and first reporter of the fact to the living mediate witness from whom
we take it up, or to the one who was the first to commit it to writing.

2. There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the
fact in question.

2. Particular conditions formulated.

 1. The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would necessarily be
known directly to a great number of persons.

2. The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for a definite period of time.

3. During that definite period it must have gone without protest, even from persons
interested in denying it.

4. The tradition must be one of relatively limited duration. [Elsewhere, Garraghan

suggests a maximum limit of 150 years, at least in cultures that excel in oral
remembrance.]

5. The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the tradition lasted, and
the necessary means of critical investigation must have been at hand.

6. Critical-minded persons who would surely have challenged the tradition – had they
considered it false – must have made no such challenge.
Other methods of verifying oral tradition may exist, such as comparison with the evidence of
archaeological remains.
More recent evidence concerning the potential reliability or unreliability of oral tradition has come out
of fieldwork in West Africaand Eastern Europe.[10]
Anonymous sources[edit]
Historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts. [11]

Synthesis: historical reasoning[edit]

Once individual pieces of information have been assessed in context, hypotheses can be formed
and established by historical reasoning.
Argument to the best explanation[edit]
C. Behan McCullagh lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:
[12]

1. The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other
statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement
'the hypothesis', and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)

2. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible
hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation
statements.

3. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible
hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it
implies more probable than any other.

4. The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the
same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted
truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable
negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.
 5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same
subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already
implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

6. It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis
about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer
observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.

7. It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in
characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further
investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.
McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a
large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be
true."[13]
Statistical inference[edit]
McCullagh states this form of argument as follows:[14]

1. There is probability (of the degree p1) that whatever is an A is a B.

2. It is probable (to the degree p2) that this is an A.

3. Therefore, (relative to these premises) it is probable (to the degree p1 × p2) that this is a B.
McCullagh gives this example:[15]

1. In thousands of cases, the letters V.S.L.M. appearing at the end of a Latin inscription on a
tombstone stand for Votum Solvit Libens Merito.

2. From all appearances the letters V.S.L.M. are on this tombstone at the end of a Latin
inscription.

3. Therefore, these letters on this tombstone stand for '’Votum Solvit Libens Merito’’.
This is a syllogism in probabilistic form, making use of a generalization formed by induction from
numerous examples (as the first premise).
Argument from analogy[edit]
The structure of the argument is as follows:[16]

1. One thing (object, event, or state of affairs) has properties p1 . . . pn and pn + 1.

2. Another thing has properties p1 . . . pn.

3. So the latter has property pn + 1.

McCullagh says that an argument from analogy, if sound, is either a "covert statistical syllogism" or
better expressed as an argument to the best explanation. It is a statistical syllogism when it is
"established by a sufficient number and variety of instances of the generalization"; otherwise, the
argument may be invalid because properties 1 through n are unrelated to property n + 1, unless
property n + 1 is the best explanation of properties 1 through n. Analogy, therefore, is uncontroversial
only when used to suggest hypotheses, not as a conclusive argument.
First Voyage Around the World by
Antonio Pigafetta
By

Anna Ettore

462
Antonio Pigafetta was a key player of one of the most amazing world
exploration trips.He was born in Vicenza in 1492, and he was an Italian seafarer
and geographer.

The relevance of his own venture, fundamentally lies in the fact that he took
part to the first globe circumnavigation, between 1519 and 1522, and he was
able to accomplish it after the murder of Ferdinand Magellan, leaving a detailed
description of the journey in the Report of the first trip around the world, a lost
manuscript that was rescued later, in 1797, and today is considered one of the
most important documentary evidence relating the geographical discoveries of
the Sixteenth Century.

Antonio Pigafetta, fascinating and fleeing personality, for scholars he still

represents a partial mystery. About him too little is known to define a
satisfactory profile on the biographical side. Documents and the testimony of
contemporaneous are scarces, and his own character primarily appears from
what he wrote in his own report.

His own narration about the first world circumnavigation was one of the
greatest achievements in the history of navy exploration and discovery.
In this narration can be found descriptions of peoples, countries, goods and
even the languages that were spoken, of which the seafarer was trying to
assemble some brief glossaries.

Pigafetta tells how, being in Barcelona in 1519, he heard about Magellan’s

expedition, and being wishful to learn about the world, he asked for and
obtained the permission to join in the voyage.

Magellan’s fleet weighed anchor from Seville on August 10th of the same year
with five smaller vessels, heading towards Canary Islands and down along the
African coast, and across the Equator. From there they sailed towards Brazil
coast , where they stayed for some time, making supplies and weaving friendly
contacts with the cannibalistic natives who dwelled there.

Moving on, then they arrived in Patagonia, where they spent winter months in a
desolate solitude. They met local people, who looked like giants in their eyes full
of wonder, because of their robust body types.

They survived the mutiny of one of the captains and some disgruntled sailors,
and continued the exploration of the coast. One of the vessels was drowned, but
the whole crew managed to be saved.

They proceeded until the discovery of the strait, named after, Magellan himself,
on October 21st 1520, and went through, although one of the ships deserted,
sailing back to Spain.
Finally, they arrived in the Philippines, where they became acquainted with the
natives who proved hospitable and welcomed them as guests in the king’s
palace. The indigenous people, affected by the celebration of Mass and the
crucifix planted in the island, promised to convert to Christianity.

Quickly they developed commerce and trade, and the king, the queen and other
notables of Cebu were converted, until the entire population rapidly followed
them in the new religion.
Shortly after, happened the disastrous episode that changed the course of the
expedition. Magellan took part in a conflict between some local tribes and was
killed. The rest of the expedition managed to escape and retired, preparing to
leave, but a trap set by Magellan’s interpreter and the king of Cebu, led to
another massacre of the Europeans.

The surviving ships continued toward Borneo and to the city of Brunei, where
they managed to stock up, then from there, traveling southbound, they came to
the Moluccas, 27 months after the departure from Spain, finding a warm
welcome by an astrologer king who had predicted their arrival.

But at this point, despite the perspective of good business and the rich
exchanges that would lie ahead, their desire to return to Spain urged them and
pushed them to a quick return.

Translation by Silvia Accorrà (edited by Davide Spagnoli)

First Voyage Around the World

by Antonio Pigafetta

That land of Verzin is wealthier and larger than Spagnia, Fransa, and Italia, put
together, and belongs to the king of Portugalo. The people of that land are not
Christians, and have no manner of worship.
They live according to the dictates of nature, and reach an age of one hundred
and twenty-five and one hundred and forty years. They go naked, both men
and women. They live in certain long houses which they call boii and sleep in
cotton hammocks called amache, which are fastened in those houses by each
end to large beams. A fire is
built on the ground under those hammocks. In each one of those boii, there are
one hundred men with their wives and children, and they make a great racket.
They have boats called canoes made of one single huge tree, hollowed out by
the use of stone hatchets. Those people employ stones as we do iron, as they
have no iron. Thirty or forty men occupy one of those boats. They paddle with
blades like the shovels of a furnace, and thus, black, naked, and shaven, they
resemble, when paddling, the inhabitants of the Stygian marsh. Men and
women are as well proportioned as we. They eat the human flesh of their
enemies, not because it is good, but because it is a certain established custom.
That custom, which is mutual, was begun by an old woman, who had but one
son who was killed by his enemies. In return some days later, that old woman’s
friends captured one of the company who had killed her son, and brought him
to the place of her abode. She seeing him, and remembering her son, ran upon
him like an infuriated bitch, and bit him on one shoulder. Shortly afterward he
escaped to his own people, whom he told that they had tried to eat him,
showing them [in proof] the marks on his shoulder. Whomever the latter
captured afterward at any time from the former they ate, and the former did
the same to the latter, so that such a custom has sprung up in this way. They
do not eat the bodies all at once, but every one cuts off a piece, and carries it to
his house, where he smokes it. Then every week, he cuts off a small bit, which
he eats thus smoked with his other food to remind him of his enemies. The
above was told me by the pilot, Johane
Carnagio, who came with us, and who had lived in that land for four years.
Those people paint the whole body and the face in a wonderful manner with fire
in various fashions, as do the women also.
The men are [are: doublet in original manuscript] smooth shaven and have no
beard, for they pull it out. They clothe themselves in a dress made of parrot
feathers, with large round arrangements at their buttocks made from the
largest feathers, and it is a ridiculous sight.
Almost all the people, except the women and children, have three holes pierced
in the lower lip, where they carry round stones, one finger or thereabouts in
length and hanging down outside. Those people are not entirely black, but of a
dark brown color. They keep the privies uncovered, and the body is without
hair, while both men and women always go naked. Their king is called cacich
[i.e., cacique].
They have an infinite number of parrots, and gave us 8 or 10 for one mirror:
and little monkeys that look like lions, only [they are] yellow, and very
beautiful. They make round white [loaves of] bread from the marrowy
substance of trees, which is not very good, and is found between the wood and
the bark and resembles buttermilk curds.
They have swine which have their navels [lombelico] on their backs, and large
birds with beaks like spoons and no tongues.
The men gave us one or two of their young daughters as slaves for one hatchet
or one large knife, but they would not give us their wives in exchange for
anything at all. The women will not shame their husbands under any
considerations whatever, and as was told us, refuse to consent to their
husbands by day, but only by night. The women cultivate the fields, and carry
all their food from the mountains in panniers or baskets on the head or fastened
to the head. But they are always accompanied by their husbands, who are
armed only with a bow of brazil-wood or of black palm-wood, and a bundle of
cane arrows,
doing this because they are jealous [of their wives]. The women carry their
children hanging in a cotton net from their necks. I omit other particulars, in
order not to be tedious. Mass was said twice on shore, during which those
people remained on their knees with so great contrition and with clasped hands
raised aloft, that it was an exceeding great pleasure to behold them. They built
us a house as they thought that we were going to stay with them for some
time, and at our departure they cut a great quantity of brazil-wood [verzin] to
give us. It had been about two months since it had rained in that land, and
when we reached that port, it happened to rain, whereupon they said that we
came from the sky and that we had brought the rain with us.
Those people could be converted easily to the faith of Jesus Christ.

At first those people thought that the small boats were the children of the ships,
and that the latter gave birth to them when they were lowered into the sea from
the ships, and when they were lying so alongside the ships (as is the custom),
they believed that the ships were nursing them. One day a beautiful young
woman came to the flagship, where I was, for no other purpose than to seek
what chance might offer. While there and waiting, she cast her eyes upon the
master’s room, and saw a nail longer than one’s finger. Picking it
up very delightedly and neatly, she thrust it through the lips of her vagina
[natura], and bending down low immediately departed, the captain-general and
I having seen that action.

Translation by James Alexander Robertson (Blaire & Robertson, 1906)

Declaration of
PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE
Translation by Sulpicio Guevara

In the town of Cavite-Viejo, Province of Cavite, this 12th day of June 1898:
BEFORE ME, Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, War Counsellor and Special Delegate
designated to proclaim and solemnize this Declaration of Independence by the
Dictatorial Government of the Philippines, pursuant to, and by virtue of, a Decree
issued by the Engregious Dictator Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy,

The undersigned assemblage of military chiefs and others of the army who could
not attend, as well as the representatives of the various towns,

Taking into account the fact that the people of this country are already tired of
bearing the ominous joke of Spanish domination,

Because of arbitrary arrests and abuses of the Civil Guards who cause deaths in
connivance with and even under the express orders of their superior officers who
at times would order the shooting of those placed under arrest under the pretext
that they attempted to escape in violation of known Rules and Regulations, which
abuses were left unpunished, and because of unjust deportations of illustrious
Filipinos, especially those decreed by General Blanco at the instigation of the
Archbishop and friars interested in keeping them in ignorance for egoistic and
selfish ends, which deportations were carried out through processes more
execrable than those of the Inquisition which every civilized nation repudiates as a
trial without hearing.

Had resolved to start a revolution in August 1896 in order to regain the

independence and sovereignty of which the people had been deprived by Spain
through Governor Miguel Lopez de Legazpi who, continuing the course followed
by his predecessor Ferdinand Magellan who landed on the shores of Cebu and
occupied said Island by means of a Pact of Friendship with Chief Tupas, although
he was killed in the battle that took place in said shores to which battle he was
provoked by Chief Kalipulako ** of Mactan who suspected his evil designs,
landed on the Island of Bohol by entering also into a Blood Compact with its Chief
Sikatuna, with the purpose of later taking by force the Island of Cebu, and because
his successor Tupas did not allow him to occupy it, he went to Manila, the capital,
winning likewise the friendship of its Chiefs Soliman and Lakandula, later taking
possession of the city and the whole Archipelago in the name of Spain by virtue of
an order of King Philip II, and with these historical precedents and because in
international law the prescription established by law to legalize the vicious
acquisition of private property is not recognized, the legitimacy of such revolution
can not be put in doubt which was calmed but not complete stifled by the
pacification proposed by Don Pedro A. Paterno with Don Emilio Aguinaldo as
President of the Republic established in Biak-na-Bato and accepted by Governor-
General Don Fernando Primo De Rivera under terms, both written and oral, among
them being a general amnesty for all deported and convicted persons; that by
reason of the non-fulfillment of some of the terms, after the destruction of the
plaza of Cavite, Don Emilio Aguinaldo returned in order to initiate a new
revolution and no sooner had he given the order to rise on the 31st of last month
when several towns anticipating the revolution, rose in revolt on the 28th , such
that a Spanish contingent of 178 men, between Imus Cavite-Viejo, under the
command of major of the Marine Infantry capitulated , the revolutionary
movement spreading like wild fire to other towns of Cavite and the other
provinces of Bataan, Pampanga, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, and Morong, some of
them with seaports and such was the success of the victory of our arms, truly
marvelous and without equal in the history of colonial revolutions that in the first
mentioned province only the Detachments in Naic and Indang remained to
surrender; in the second all Detachments had been wiped out; in the third the
resistance of the Spanish forces was localized in the town of San Fernando where
the greater part of them are concentrated, the remainder in Macabebe, Sexmoan,
and Guagua; in the fourth, in the town of Lipa; in the fifth, in the capital and in
Calumpit; and in last two remaining provinces, only in there respective capitals,
and the city of Manila will soon be besieged by our forces as well as the provinces
of Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, Pangasinan, La Union, Zambales, and some others in the
Visayas where the revolution at the time of the pacification and others even before,
so that the independence of our country and the revindication of our sovereignty is
assured.

And having as witness to the rectitude of our intentions the Supreme Judge of the
Universe, and under the protection of our Powerful and Humanitarian Nation, The
United States of America, we do hereby proclaim and declare solemnly in the
name by authority of the people of these Philippine Islands,

That they are and have the right to be free and independent; that they have ceased
to have allegiance to the Crown of Spain; that all political ties between them are
should be completely severed and annulled; and that, like other free and
independent States, they enjoy the full power to make War and Peace, conclude
commercial treaties, enter into alliances, regulate commerce, and do all other acts
and things which and Independent State Has right to do,

And imbued with firm confidence in Divine Providence, we hereby mutually bind
ourselves to support this Declaration with our lives, our fortunes, and with our
sacred possession, our Honor.

We recognize, approve, and ratify, with all the orders emanating from the same,
the Dictatorship established by Don Emilio Aguinaldo whom we reverse as the
Supreme Head of this Nation, which today begins to have a life of its own, in the
conviction that he has been the instrument chosen by God, inspite of his humble
origin, to effectuate the redemption of this unfortunate country as foretold by Dr.
Don Jose Rizal in his magnificent verses which he composed in his prison cell
prior to his execution, liberating it from the Yoke of Spanish domination,

And in punishment for the impunity with which the Government sanctioned the
commission of abuses by its officials, and for the unjust execution of Rizal and
others who were sacrified in order to please the insatiable friars in their hydropical
thirst for vengeance against and extermination of all those who oppose their
Machiavellian ends, trampling upon the Penal Code of these Islands, and of those
suspected persons arrested by the Chiefs of Detachments at the instigation of the
friars, without any form nor semblance of trial and without any spiritual aid of our
sacred Religion; and likewise, and for the same ends, eminent Filipino priest,
Doctor Don Jose Burgos, Don Mariano Gomez, and Don Jacinto Zamora were
hanged whose innocent blood was shed due to the intrigues of these so-called
Religious corporations which made the authorities to believe that the military
uprising at the fort of San Felipe in Cavite on the night of January 21, 1872 was
instigated by those Filipino martyrs, thereby impeding the execution of the decree-
sentence issued by the Council of State in the appeal in the administrative case
interposed by the secular clergy against the Royal Orders that directed that the
parishes under them within the jurisdiction of this Bishopric be turned over to the
Recollects in exchange for those controlled by them in Mindanao which were to be
transferred to the Jesuits, thus revoking them completely and ordering the return of
those parishes, all of which proceedings are on file with the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs to which they are sent last month of the year of the issuance of the proper
Royal Degree which, in turn, caused the grow of the tree of the liberty in our dear
land that grow more and more through the iniquitous measures of oppressions,
until the last drop of our chalice of suffering having been drained, the first spark of
revolution broke out in Caloocan, spread out to Santa Mesa and continued its
course to the adjoining regions of the province were the unequalled heroism of its
inhabitants fought a one sided battle against superior forces of General Blanco and
General Polavieja for a period of 3 months, without proper arms nor ammunitions,
except bolos, pointed bamboos, and arrows.

Moreover, we confer upon our famous Dictator Don Emilio Aguinaldo all the
powers necessary to enable him to discharge the duties of Government, including
the prerogatives of granting pardon and amnesty,

And lastly, it was results unanimously that this Nation, already free and
independent as of this day, must used the same flag which up to now is being used,
whose designed and colored are found described in the attached drawing, the white
triangle signifying the distinctive emblem of the famous Society of the
"Katipunan" which by means of its blood compact inspired the masses to rise in
revolution; the tree stars, signifying the three principal Islands of these
Archipelago - Luzon, Mindanao, and Panay where the revolutionary movement
started; the sun representing the gigantic step made by the son of the country along
the path of Progress and Civilization; the eight rays, signifying the eight provinces
- Manila, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bataan, Laguna, and Batangas
- which declares themselves in a state of war as soon as the first revolt was
initiated; and the colors of Blue, Red, and White, commemorating the flag of the
United States of America, as a manifestation of our profound gratitude towards
this Great Nation for its disinterested protection which it lent us and continues
lending us.

And holding up this flag of ours, I present it to the gentlemen here assembled:

Don Segundo Arellano Don Ramon Gana

Don Tiburcio del Rosario Don Marcelino Gomez
Sergio Matias Don Valentin Politan
Don Agapito Zialcita Don Felix Politan
Don Flaviano Alonzo Don Evaristo Dimalanta
Don Mariano Legazpi Don Gregorio Alvarez
Don Jose Turiano Santiago y Acosta Don Sabas de Guzman
Don Aurelio Tolentino Don Esteban Francisco
Don Felix Ferrer Don Guido Yaptinchay
Don Felipe Buencamino Don Mariano Rianzares Bautista
Don Fernando Canon Faustino Don Francisco Arambulo
Don Anastacio Pinzun Don Antonio Gonzales
Don Timoteo Bernabe Don Juan Antonio Gonzales
Don Flaviano Rodriguez Don Juan Arevalo
Don Gavino (?) Masancay Don Ramon Delfino
Don Narciso Mayuga Don Honorio Tiongco
Don Gregorio Villa Don Francisco del Rosario
Don Luis Perez Tagle Don Epifanio Saguil
Don Canuto Celestino Don Ladislao Afable Jose
Don Marcos Jocson Don Sixto Roldan
Don Martin de los Reyes Don Luis de Lara
Don Ciriaco Bausa Don Marcelo Basa
Don Manuel Santos Don Jose Medina
Don Mariano Toribio Don Efipanio Crisia(?)
Don Gabriel de los Reyes Don Pastor Lopez de Leon
Don Hugo Lim Don Mariano de los Santos
Don Emiliano Lim Don Santiago Garcia
Don Faustino Tinorio(?) Don Andres Tria Tirona
Don Rosendo Simon Don Estanislao Tria Tirona
Don Leon Tanjanque(?) Don Daniel Tria Tirona
Don Gregorio Bonifacio Don Andres Tria Tirona
Don Manuel Salafranca Don Carlos Tria Tirona
Don Simon Villareal Don Sulpicio P. Antony
Don Calixto Lara Don Epitacio Asuncion
Don Buenaventura Toribio Don Catalino Ramon
Don Gabriel Reyes Don Juan Bordador
Don Hugo Lim Don Jose del Rosario
Don Emiliano Lim Don Proceso Pulido
Don Fausto Tinorio(?) Don Jose Maria del Rosario
Don Rosendo Simon Don Ramon Magcamco(?)
Don Leon Tanjanque(?) Don Antonio Calingo
Don Gregorio Bonifacio Don Pedro Mendiola
Don Manuel Salafranca Don Estanislao Galinco
Don Simon Villareal Don Numeriano Castillo
Don Calixto Lara Don Federico Tomacruz
Don Buenaventura Toribio Don Teodoro Yatco
Don Zacarias Fajardo Don Ladislao Diwa(?).
Don Florencio Manalo

Who solemnly swear to recognize and defend it unto the last drop of their blood.

In witness thereof, I certify that this Act of Declaration of Independence was

signed by me and by all those here assembled including the only stranger who
attended those proceedings, a citizen of the U.S.A., Mr. L.M. Johnson, a Colonel
of Artillery.
Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista
War Counsellor and Special Delegate-Designate