Do you consider the letter of Andres Bonifacio an eyewitness account of a firsthand account of the Philippine Revolution?

Andres Bonifacio's explosive letter to Emilio Jacinto was the firsthand account of the events which transpired at the Tejeros Convention.

As a firsthand account, the letter comes from the person who is involved or is at the center of the controversy that the convention tried to reconcile. Bonifacio's letter was not an eyewitness account because he did not just witness, he was involved directly in the controversy.

Andres Bonifacio founded the Katipunan society to secretly launch the Philippine Revolution of 1986 against Spanish misrule.

Andres Bonifacio wrote the explosive letter to recount the factitious struggle that erupted during the Tejeros reconciliation convention between the two factions of Katipunan society.

Thus, this firsthand account (letter) enabled his conspirators to expose Bonifacio to the Spanish authorities, who quickly put an end to his life together with his brothers'.

Learn more: link

Yes, the letter is an eyewitness account of some events that transpired during the Philippine revolution.

Explanation:

The letter of Andres Bonifacio to Emilio Jacinto was an eyewitness of the events that occurred in his own side of the country during the Philippine revolution. In that account, he explained to Emilio that most of their brothers were involved in the treachery of abandoning the course of the revolution and joining the Spaniards.

He narrated the account of when they were to be elected as officials of the Republic and how he was rejected by some people when he was chosen as Minister of Interior. They felt that he was not learned. The entire letter was an eyewitness account.

“the battle of stalingrad is not a turning point necessarily in strategic terms, because a lot more has to be done before the soviets can be certain of defeating germany,” says renowned world war ii historian richard overy. the germans had fought nearly a thousand miles across the soviet union to get to stalingrad.

atman means 'eternal self'. the atman refers to the real self beyond ego or false self. it is often referred to as 'spirit' or 'soul' and indicates our true self or essence which underlies our existence.

there are many interesting perspectives on the self in hinduism ranging from the self as eternal servant of god to the self as being identified with god. the understanding of the self as eternal supports the idea of reincarnation in that the same eternal being can inhabit temporary bodies.

the idea of atman entails the idea of the self as a spiritual rather than material being and thus there is a strong dimension of hinduism which emphasises detachment from the material world and promotes practices such as asceticism. thus it could be said that in this world, a spiritual being, the atman, has a human experience rather than a human being having a spiritual experience.

explanation: