Submitted by d4rk in d4rk (edited )

Introduction: As a vehemently Anti-Imperialist person, I was initially against showing the movie but it became more apparent the more I watched the trailer and it's Historical context. It comes with the threat of whitewashing the story the same way with Christopher Columbus and de Balboa. In order to properly give myself a proper heading I actually took the time to read the entire article, however I will focus on the many points in the article without giving much into some other things in the article. However, he does make good points within the article about the current status of our education system, he does in actually understand the main problem of the movie which he does not get without understanding the idea of what message that it sends. The whole problem with the movie is the perspective and the Imperialist narratives attributed to the movie. The movie although should not contain the idea of fact but instead, since it is a children's movie it is more focused on the message than the actual facts. If it wasn't, Christmas Carol would not be a thing. Now, to get into the article.

I will go right to the point: the film is not about the Philippines, its about Imperialism. It is about the Narrative and the story by which we represent the Imperial peoples than the actual facts. The film is not just about the first circumnavigation of the world. And given that this is a film for children and teenagers, there are several stereotypes in order to create an engaging plot, he says, not acknowledging the problematic subtext that it will bring among them, the typical division of characters between heroes and villains. Needless to say, the circumnavigators had to be necessarily the heroes according to the Imperialist perspective. Which is why it is so problematic.

In connection with the historical events recreated in this film, there are 3 issues that people seem to forget:

One: The plan was not to circumnavigate the planet. The Treaty of Tordesillas was signed between Portugal and Spain in 1494. Ridiculous as it must sound today, both nations agreed to divide the new territories and waters of the planet according to an imaginary line situated a few hundred leagues at the East of the Cape Verde islands in the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, they did not plan to circumnavigate the planet.

Magellan started their journey very long after people knew the earth was round or what was on the other side of it. Marco Polo knew what the Pacific Ocean was and had access to ancient maps knowing there were Islands beyond China, even the Philippines. Columbus and other subsequent Conquistadors have already known a whole continent exists beyond the Atlantic and even then they already knew a whole Ocean divided their worlds. So, there was no real need to "explore" the islands. But why they did can be explained in the next point.

Two: The seamen who took part in the expedition were not mandated to conquer any land. Therefore, they were not colonizers. They were looking to exploit the spice trade. They wanted to trade, and actually they did. Once they arrived in the Moluccas, they did not attempt to conquer. They negotiated and paid the inhabitants of Tidore the right price of a few hundred kilos of cloves. This is how it all starts.

But ever since Christopher Columbus and Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, the definition of exploration on those times was really more brutal than what it seemed. The legends of the Taino people being Barbarians and thus so the idea of the Chammoros and other Filipino people's have followed the same Barbarian narrative to which justified the "White Man's Burden". This is the narrative we wish to call out when such movies or literature as this is still popular in this era. It increases the wholesale popularity of the Imperialist ideology. That by which is what as Post-Colonial theory (a primer is here: https://youtu.be/jbLyd0mQwIk) and all Anti-Imperialists in general are against.

Certainly, the expedition spent too many weeks in the Philippines, and the reasons seem open to speculation. Pigafetta talks about the Catholic devotion of Magellan,this is where I can also draw the Post-Colonial sword. Catholicism weighed greatly in the creation of the imperial ideology. The Spaniard imperial ideology was never trade centered although it was originally trade for the sake of people warming up to the pendejos. It was ultimately conservative, it was more interested with trading gold for souls any day.

Another source is the account of Ginés de Mafra, who suggested that people were really fed up with Magellan because they knew the cloves they were looking for were not in Cebu or its surroundings, and they thought they were wasting time in Cebu.

The Battle of Mactan, therefore, was not aimed at conquering anything. Magellan wanted to gain the trust and friendship of Rajah Humabon of Cebu, who had – falsely – converted to Catholicism, by helping in a fight against Humabon's enemy. So, I need to insist again: Magellan and his crew were not colonizers. They wanted to trade spices.

Third: Lapu-Lapu was not fighting for the Philippines because, in the first place, Filipino people, as we understand it today, did not exist. He was protecting his own barangay. His fight against Imperialism was more a skirmish to him than an important drive against Imperialism but he also had to contend with their own version of Imperialism specifically under Humabon himself.Prehispanic Philippines was populated by dozens of chiefdoms who engaged in tribal wars quite often. This precursor idea of Imperialism made him cautious of his own kind and kin. Raja Humabon was an Imperialist himself. Understanding that the Spaniards may be a threat to his own independence as a barangay. He had no choice but to defend whatever semblance he had of a Motherland which he defended fiercely. Philippines as a nation is the result of an accident of history: early European imperialism. And the process of becoming Filipino was a long one.

Lapu-Lapu was fighting against a foreign intruder to protect his Motherland, and he did it very rightfully, since Lapu-Lapu and the people of Mactan did not do anything to deserve an attack from the European intruders. Therefore, considering Lapu-Lapu a national hero is as anachronistic and senseless as the Italians considering Marcus Aurelius – from the Roman Empire – a national hero. There was no Italy there, not yet. It would be more rightful, I believe, to consider Lapu-Lapu as a symbol of resistance against foreign intrusions and interferences.

I am not surprised that Lapu-Lapu is depicted as the villain: this is a necessary and probably unfair counterpoint of the narrative. But I have to confess that I would be extremely dissapointed if Cebuanos were portrayed in a bad way. I will wait until I watch the whole film to confirm this. Spoiler alert, Lapu-Lapu was a Slave trader. He and the Moros at the time were great partners and it stabilized the powers in the region under Humabon. So he was not free of fault.

Lastly, I would like to remind the ones offended by this Spanish cartoon how the Chamorro people of the Mariana Islands were portrayed in the Filipino film Pedro Calungsod: Batang Martir (2013). I remember perfectly that the natives of the Marianas were, according to this film, uncivilized and cruel barbarians who mercilessly killed a Visayan missionary and a Jesuit Priest who wanted to bring them the light of faith, a tool often used under imperialism. Chamorros looked and behave as deeply evil and unthankful people. Unsurprisingly, the film was immediately and unanimously praised in his native land as “a valiant effort to dramatize the life of our second Filipino saint,” but very, very unwelcomed in Guam.

On this note, may I refer you to another movie, "Silence". Which shows the same narrative, wherein it is flipped on its head. Instead of seeing the main actors, being the Jesuit priests as the rightful ones, it shows the use of treason, or apostasy, as a means to end an ideological self-righteousness. Such self-righteousness compelled the persecutions of the Imperial era.(the link to that video is here if you want a good deconstruction since I don't have time to explain)

Conclusion: It is important, if not the most important to understand the view of context not just in fact but within how we are to view the facts. Just because the raw facts speak against your view doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. This is the main problem of today's society. The disjunction between what is signified and the sign has brought about an atomic chain reaction in literary, film, aesthetic and many other theories and wholefully undermines the powers that be. That is if it is being signified in the right context. The more we understand the ideological subtext of facts the more we can undermine the main system by which we can overcome the imperial ideological holdouts we still have to this day.

1

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

There's nothing here…