Voyage #4: “Magellan discovered the Philippines.

” Is the term “discovery” appropriate to

describe the arrival of Magellan in our country? Why or why not?
- The term “discovery” is not appropriate to describe the arrival of Ferdinand
Magellan in the Philippines. The Philippines was “rediscovered” by Magellan
because first of all, Magellan is not the one who first discovered it. He is just one of
the people who discovered it, but some people arrived in the Philippines before him.
n As we travel back to early history, according to One World Nations Online, The
Philippine archipelago was settled at least 30,000 years ago, when migrations from
the Indonesian archipelago and elsewhere are believed to have occurred. Additional
migrations took place over the next millennia. Over time, social and political
organization developed and evolved in the widely scattered islands.. We can only say
that Ferdinand Magellan was the first European recorded to have landed in the
Philippines during the Spanish control which is stated by One World Nations Online.
The Philippine rediscovery of Magellan was also stated in Antonio Pigafetta’s journal.
-

References
Online, O. W. (1998-2020). History of the Philippines. Retrieved from
https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/History/Philippines-history.htm

Customs #4: Were there any biases made by Plasencia in describing the customs of the
Tagalogs?
- Juan de Plasencia is a Franciscan missionary in tagalog region since 1578 until 1590.
That means, he is not a native Tagalog and he did not grew up or was born in the
Philippines. He only live in the Philippines for about 12 years. He did not plan to
study the Customs of Tagalog in the first place because it was only a request of the
monarchy of Spain. Therefore, having biases in describing the customs of Tagalog is
possible. He is a colonial writer after all. As we tackle and read the whole context,
Placensia wrote about the Tagalogs whereabouts but those details is only according
to his observations. He wrote some unnecessary words about the Tagalogs like,
“Infidels”, “Natives” and “Indians”. According to Sherwin Altarez Mapanoo, “the
ritualistic and superstitious beliefs of the Tagalogs were mocked by de Placencia, by
coming up with various categories of devil-ish beliefs. The mangagauay and
 mangagayoma, for instance, were both regarded as “witches” who performed
deceitful healing procedures, a judgment made by an outsider who knew nothing
about the complexity of indigenous psyche. What he failed to realize is that in
traditional cultures, these so-called “evil” practices were an integral part of Filipino
folk beliefs; and the early Tagalogs, in reality, never considered them as acts of the
devil.” Base from Mapanoo, Plasencia did not asked or made the Tagalogs explain
their culture and tradition. Instead, he just carelessly wrote about what he saw
without digging more deeper. He ruined the reputation of Tagalogs at this part.
Plasencia claims that the Tagalogs promotes the practice of idolatry without hearing
their side. In summary, he claimed that the Tagalogs are are nearly an evils. The
entire context did not mostly lift the image of Tagalogs, instead he dragged the
Tagalogs down. He also said, “May the honor and Glory be God our Lord’s, that
among all the Tagalos not a trace of this is left; and that those who are marrying do
not even even know what is, thanks to the preaching of the holy gospel which has
banished it.”. He claims that Chatolicism was able to remove evil beliefs, regarding
gods, burials and superstitions. He totally is a biased colonial writer.

References
Mapanoo, S. A. (2015). Accustomed Othering in Colonial Writing A Review of “Customs of the Tagalogs”
(two relations) by Juan de Plasencia From The Philippine Islands 1493-1898. Retrieved October 8,
2020, from http://www.artesdelasfilipinas.com/archives/186/accustomed-othering-in-colonial-
writing