Ok torete posted some things that can be a good subject to talk about....

Do you think its wrong to have any of these as monuments in the philippines???. Do you consider them a hero? Why/Why not?.

MacArthur
Magellan
Marcos

There are monuments to Marcos? I had no idea.

Somebody blew up his face though...

^he commissioned it himself. just like he commissioned his false heroic career.

Marcos is not Included

Ferdinand Magellan (Portuguese: Fernão de Magalhães, pronounced [fɨɾˈnɐ̃ũ dɨ mɐgɐˈʎɐ̃ĩʃ]/; Spanish: Fernando or Hernando de Magallanes); (Spring 1480 – April 27, 1521, Mactan Island, Cebu, Philippines) was a Portuguese maritime explorer who while in the service of the Spanish crown, tried to find a westward route to the Spice Islands of Indonesia. This was the first known successful attempt to circumnavigate the Earth. He did not complete his final westward voyage; he was killed during the Battle of Mactan in the Philippines. As he died farther west than the Spice Islands, which he had visited on earlier voyages from the west, he became one of the first individuals to cross all the meridians of the globe. He was the first person to lead an expedition sailing westward from Europe to Asia and to cross the Pacific Ocean.

Magellan should also be recognized as the first European explorer to enter the Pacific from the Strait of Magellan, which he discovered. He is also remembered as the first European to reach the archipelago of what is now known as the Philippines, which was unknown to the western world before his landing. Arab traders had established commerce within the archipelago centuries earlier.

Of the 270 crew members who set out with Magellan to circumnavigate the earth, only 18 completed the circumnavigation of the globe and managed to return to Spain.[1][2] They were led by Spaniard Juan Sebastián Elcano, who took over command of the expedition after Magellan's death.



A monument built in 1866 and dedicated to the great explorer Ferdinand Magellan. Nearby is a statue of Lapu-Lapu,CEBU the chieftain of Mactan who killed Magellan in a battle dubbed as the “Battle of Mactan.”

^^^That muthafuka got defaced... lol....

MacArthur
Magellan
Marcos

Out of the three I'd say MacArthur deserves the title of hero more than the rest ... only if I had to choose out of the three. But, I don't think he should be considered a Filipino hero

Magellan dicovered the Philippines.
MacArthur was famous for his strong words 'I Shall Return'
Marcos is a muthafuka.

Only MacArthur qualifies for a heroic treatment. Whatever we say against him today, we can never erase the fact that the general was well loved by many Filipinos during those trying times. he was an inspiration to the sons and daughters of freedom.

Leonardo Manecio

LMAOOO... that muthafuka singlehandedly fuked philippines up....

MacArthur risked his life to come back and fight, he deserves the recognition.

Why Magellan? How many Filipinos died or were exploited after his coming? Definitely not a hero.

Definitely not Marcos. Sad to say that his posterity have supporters that are still convinced by his "greatness"

Im giving him credit for finding philippines and putting her into the world map...

If it werent for him
Most of us would have been muslims and would likely be part of our neighboring countries China,Malaysia,Indonesia etc...
there would be no Philippines....

If magellan didnt come, there would be no philippines.... he was the one who opened the path for the spanish colonizers that consolidated all these islands and called it philippines. We owe philippines to him. If thats not a hero, i dont know what is.

a hero inspires. if you were inspired by magellan's discovery of the philippines, then he is your hero (and maybe others too). i don't consider him, and the other colonizers who followed, a hero.

Individually of course people would have their differences. But a country as a whole has to define a hero by its actions when building or protecting the people or the land. Just like George Washington, he is a hero to american(as a country) because he helped build it yet he is considered a colonizer because of the destruction of the native indians culture. He is not a hero to them but he is a hero to alot of americans. Same thing goes for Magellan.

just because he was vital to the foundation of the country as it is today (very indirectly) it don't mean he's a hero or has to be known as a hero. it just means he's a person in history.

washington is a hero to americans because he directly commanded an organized and goal oriented struggle for independence. magellan was a portuguese navigator who had accidentally came to the western pacific (with help from malayan slave).

The Philippines were not consolidated but these islands existed and tolerated others who came before Magellan. Magellan claimed the islands for Spain but we don't owe him any honor because everyone who came after him destroyed the structure, beliefs and way of life that had existed long before they came.

Would you call someone a hero if, out of nowhere, they came and forced their will on you and your family?

Washingto was a hero to white Americans but he was the one who ruined the many tribes that existed in the Americas. Same thing with Magellan, a villain to ruined tribes and families but a hero to Spanish mestizos because they inherited a system where they can own alot of land and still, to this day, enjoy the bounties of war and exploitation.

excellent justifications there flipcombatmedic and sitataymo! kudos to both of you. sana naman maliwanagan na ang mga nagpupumilit na dapat tratuhing bayani ng pilipinas si magellan. kase hindi talaga! hindee. as in hindeee!

Of course he should be a hero. The very same thing that you represent, the culture that is in your blood, he is the one who sparked its creation. That is like saying jesus is not hero for creating christianity.

So you are saying that you can only be called a hero if you fight oppression?. What about the people who created healthcare?, what about the people who invented things that saves lives?, what about people who simply have peaceful teachings and change peoples lives for the better?. As a country we should acknowledge the people who created it, protected it as our heroes. Individually? then that is for you and yours. What if the people right after magellan actually didnt oppress us yet they help us become better people would he be a hero then?????. You see just because the spaniards oppressed us doesnt mean none of them are heroes, remember magellan was an EXPLORER. Whatever people do that came after him is not his responsibility.

Bottom line, if it werent for him. You wouldnt be calling yourself filpino. THATS A FACT.





Existed and tolerated just like every part in south east asia. If it werent for him, these islands could have been a country of their own or invaded by one of these countries that existed now. Yes they destroyed the culture there, but filipino-mayans pushed off the aetas too. So what are you saying that we are better than the spanish colonizers?. Oh please.

Of course not, I wouldnt call that a hero. But that is twisting the situation... jose rizal, andres bonifacia, emilio aguinaldo is considered our hero because they fought for "filipinos". Umm, have you forgotten the aetas???. They are not really "filipinos" before because they had their own culture that filipino-malays destroyed. So with your logic, we shouldnt consider these guys heroes because they represent the people that destroyed the aetas way of life.

If you consider yourself an american, washington SHOULD be your hero. Whether you are black, white, native indian. If you dont then thats like saying, im a catholic yet I dont believe in jesus. Its a contradiction.

First, I never said that you have to be a soldier or somebody who has political struggle. But definitely there's a delineating reason and distinction for the term "hero". The term 'hero' is a term thrown so liberally its almost like a free samples at Costco.

Second, just because his accidental discovery of an archipelago which was the start in fact of the colonization of my people REGARDLESS of how it shaped me today (it's like an African American today would say thanks to the Arab and Portuguese slave trader for what they are today esp. glorifying the violent history and subjugation of his people), it don't make him a hero or my hero. Why do people gotta make such passive historical characters 'heroes' or not? Just simply people that had indirect consequential effects, they're historical actors that we have managed to document. That guy who suggested my dad my first name makes him a hero I suppose, because I won't be I am who I recognize myself today. You can worship Magellan if you want as your hero, I could never see the legacy of my people's subjugation as heroic legacy.

Third, just because I wouldn't be Filipino today don't mean I chose or it is necessarily good to be one that I owe it to this "hero" of yours. Perhaps if I or others can point out the bad things that had come from being Filipino (alot of which were indeed cultural and political consequence of the colonialism that succeeded Mr. Magelhaes' arrival) and by grace of a Providence (if He exist) allowed to chose our own destiny, then I wouldn't be tied to calling this a hero by virtue of weak argument and technicality? It's like if a rapist raped my mother, I should call this bastard a hero because I wouldn't be here today (and if that was true I should be inclined to say "THAT'S A FACT"). But hey thanks for try at optimism.

Hero this hero that, it's just one way people tend to outsource their feelings into worship of the personality. Lemme spice this post for cynicism "I am convinced that a light supper, a good night's sleep, and a fine morning, have sometimes made a hero of the same man, who, by an indigestion, a restless night, and rainy morning, would have proved a coward." Lord Chesterfield

you're making simple things complicated. you're making life difficult.

Your definition of a hero is someone who rapes someone that eventually gives birth and that offspring should honor his/her father for giving them life.
From what i understand, people who are of African-American descent that can trace their roots from the slave era should be thankful because they have a better standard of living than their African cousins and that all Filipinos should give credit to Magellan for giving civilization to the islands we now call Philippines even when we both know that there were numbers of tribes or groups that no longer exist due to Magellan's "discovery".
The result of all this "discovery" is a displacement of native peoples where, to this day, they no longer prosper, like the Aetas. Native peoples are villified for their dark skin, flat noses, devil worship and "uncivilized" practices.

You should ask yourself, are or were the native and original way of life that the pre-Spanish Filipinos enjoyed so offensive that they needed to be replaced with the Spanish way of life?

It's ridiculous how you can justify the means to an end.

The Aetas were in far bigger numbers before the Spanish and they actually had whole islands to themselves without the discrimination they have today. Why do you think it was named Negros? What do you think Ati-Atihan is about? Have you ever been to a festival where Aetas are villified? Are the Aetas a people who are homeless in their homeland?

Our Asian and Arab neighbors who came to the Philippines for trade before the Spanish were accepting of the natives and the different alliances that was formed and they respected them by not claiming the islands for themselves.

The Spanish came with different intentions.

Your energies are better spent trying to justify some other issue than arguing for Magellan as a hero.

MacArthur - sure he's a hero, because he basically returned to the Philippines to expel the Japanese. I guess he's okay. However, his dad did do a lot of bad sht.
One thing I don't like was his decision to bomb Intramuros, basically the Dresden of the Philippines.

Magellan - Well, the monument was made by the Spaniards, so its a historical thing. It is funny to me however, that both the Lapu-lapu monument and the
Magellan monument are side by side. Kinda shows the confusing aspect of Philippine History. On one hand, we were oppressed, on the other we were
given catholisism and much of the culture that distinguishes us from our neighbors.

Marcos - Although, I revile this person the most, I don't the monument should have been bombed, but rather left to rot. It should have just been left alone.

Aguinaldo - A very controversial guy. On one hand he was the most successful General of the Katipunan who basically kicked the Spanish off the Philippines.
However, it was his ambition that led to the down fall of Bonifacio, Antonio Luna, and my favorite hero - Gregorio del Pilar.
It was also Aguinaldo's fault that America invaded the Philippines. If he had just taken Intramuros before the Americans came, the second half of
the war wouldn't have happened. Also, he collaborated with the Japanese when they came.

Rizal - Controversial too in that he didn't support the Revolution in its beginning. He believed in non-violence, turn-the-other-cheek strategy. He was a
true visionary, philantropist, and mentor. Ironically, it was his downfall that ignited the revolution he wasn't optomistic about.

Lapu-Lapu - He wasn't fighting for Freedom against Spain, he was fighting for independence from Rajah Humabon who controlled all the Rajah's and Datu's of
the island of Cebu. Humabon tricked Magellan to fight Lapu-lapu for him, so that Mactan island will be part of Humabon's Empire. Humabon in turn
promised his alliegance to Spain, probably to back out on that word after the battle, which he did when Magellan's men lost. Magellan was just
overconfident thinking he could whip a bunch of natives carrying bows, sticks, and swords. Humabon was a snake however, after learning these
people were mortal after all, he tried to have them killed.

What's crazy is that in Western Textbooks, the Mactan story is very different. Magellan was killed, not because he got involved into an intra-tribal conflict, but rather he and his men were lured by savages with food and artifacts, and massacred for the sake of - well, they were savages.

Another thing that pissed me of is that the Philippine-American war is known as the Philippine Insurrection here in the West. Insurrection as in "insurgents", no not freedom fighters, but rather "insurgents, terrorists, rebels, guerillas" not revolutionaries. By calling it the Philippine Insurrection, they assume that the Katipunan were not the legitimate Government, but rather the American Military Governorship was the legitimate government.
The truth is, they were the invaders, we were not insurrectionists, and we earned our sovereignty.

It doesnt matter if its by accident. That is insignificant to the whole argument. The point is if it wasnt for him, there would be NOOOOOO philippines. NONE. NADA. So you can try to twist it however you want but fact is fact. Give credit to where its due. If anything, its YOU who should have your own individual heroes, but as far as the filipino banner goes(WHICH HE PRETTY MUCH FOUNDED), magellan has to be one. I dont even see how he cant, what is the reason why he cant be?. Its because its accidental?, that is not a good enough reason. What else?. some malay guy helped him?. Thats shouldnt even be discussed because it is so unimportant.

I dont think its being thrown liberally, its you who is saying that. How is acknowledging the founder of the island of the philippines and labelling it as is cannot be considered a hero?. The buddha not a hero?. I mean he was literally an explorer of life and found buddhism. He is a hero and considered an icon by buddhists. How can you not say the same to magellan???. It really doesnt make sense. Just because he is spanish doesnt mean he is not to be called a hero of the country he founded.

But see, the same $hit that the spanish colonizers did to filipino-malays was the same $hit that filipino-malays did with aetas. Are you saying that all these filipino heros cant be heros because they are not the native in that land?. I mean since aetas were the only real natives there. Besides, how can you hold magellan responsible for the actions of OTHER people?. And also if you are catholic, it is HIM who brought christianity to the philippines which is a HUGE part of our culture.

haha that's sick

Unlike foreign peoples that came to pre-Spanish Philippines before Magellan's coming, Magellan was the beginning of the end for most (not just Philippines)native cultures that he came in contact with and that's the bottom line.
Know your history.

I guess your kind would pay homage to kamikaze pilots in Mabalacat because the Japanese were good pilots, have discipline, money and technology that Filipinos should honor and if it wasn't for WW2's outcome, we would have a better standard of living just like the Japanese.
Would this fall within your category of a hero?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...5/ixportal.html

LOLLLLLL THIS KID IS SO LOST..

That's all you got?

And i waited for something better...i could've taken a $hit.

it doesn't matter if it's accidental? it's like if a accidentally pressed a button that saved your life, am I a hero or you were just lucky? Plus how does one who simply created a beginning of something which you don't necessarily have chosen owed to him 'credit'. Yes credit for European and colonization of Southeast Asia, but a 'hero'? Once again the terminology massacre.

And why the Malay or other people who helped Magellan unimportant subject? Why? The only reason Magellan is even a name is the feat of crossing the Pacific. That's where the credit is due. But given that he had much help, even that is lessened as a personal victory. I am not 'discrediting' this achievement nor his "discovery" of the islands for Europeans nor the beginning of the subjugation and craft of 300 years of persecution and undermining of culture and sovereignty. Nor am I 'twisting facts'. None of that here, in fact you can read any of my previous post and see if I said anything unhistorical or unfactual.

Here and now (not that I refute it in any of my previous statements) there's Magelhaes' credit. He's still not a 'hero', he's a historical person, but not a hero nor should be claimed by anyone even with the most restricted scrutiny unless they swallow the weak argument and the technicality of being born a Filipino.

Me liberalizing the use of the word hero? First it's you who has made this man your own personal hero, not I. I have very few personal heroes, none of them are named here. In fact now its you who want every Filipino to be this guy's admirer. You can claim him if you want, I do not refute his role in Philippine history, but that doesn't necessitate a plaque or admiration of heroics from me, given that maybe I have a little more restraint in who I call heroes. It has nothing to do with his race, his job, his achievement (well that is not absolute)...but what exactly did he do that made him a hero? It made him a discoverer for Spain, it made him the leader of the first European voyage across the Pacific and the Westward route to Asia, the begginning of the colonization of the rest of East Asia...but how does that make him a necessary hero to the Filipino nation? In fact some of that connotes why he shouldn't.

I think the fault is not only on your weak argument why he is, but rather simultaneously your low category for heroic becoming. Your argument of "I am Filipino therefore I owe him what I am now" is simply vague and generously disastrous. yeah I indirectly owe him Filipino, but how does that make him a hero. I am regurgitating the same analogy "If my father is a rapist who raped my mother, do I owe him any admiration by simple technical fact that he is my father?" By simple fact of that weak argument, perhaps we can name all the soldiers that coerced the natives, thus becoming vital to the formation of the "philippines" and therefore me, heroes as well? No.

Second, why do you say "It's not his fault what happened afterwards" negating the negative aspect of his very achievement, yet you say that it is his legacy that CAME AFTER his arrival and his death (...the colonization of the Spanish that gave way to the creation of Philippines etc etc) that I owe him admiration (according to you) in the first place?

And as far as I am concerned the Aeta vs. Malay argument is one offtopic and two exaggerated. Simply going the ways of that argument connotes that Spanish colonization isn't bad but rather rationalized (because if Malays did it to the Aetas) that the 300 years of Spanish rule is all good. Man you go that far to stand a monument for Magellan? Nonetheless let us delve on that. The Malays did not subjugate the Aetas in the same ferocious and goal oriented drive as the Spanish. In fact majority of the Malays have little interaction (proven genetically and culturally) compare with Spanish. In fact what Malays did to Aetas are similar to what they did to other Malay tribes (proto-Malay etc.), but that doesn't make sense that Malays were colonizing themselves. But the sheer exaggeration, if you study the system created by the Spanish and fit it with the more passive (when it is applied) and almost 'natural' displacement of power between the Malayan settlers, it's almost like comparing agricultural production of the modern United States with the hunter gathering methods of Papua New Guineans. The Malays had very crude means of subjugation, not like the almost persistent colonization of the Philippines and the rest of the world by Europeans (best example is British in Africa), that by 1898 300 years of domination was not done merely by the force, but by virtue of cultural (religious) supremacy instilled in people's heads. Now if that is not the product of supreme tactical methods, well calculated and well methodically used, that what thousands of year of Malayan interaction with Aetas still do not mirror the change that 300 years of Spanish occupation did, I do not know what is.

Lastly I'm not Catholic nor do I particularly enjoy such theistic heritage of any form anymore...(personally perhaps) haha. So in laymens terms that really don't fly with me. Nor does that make him a hero, simply he facilitated indirectly the coming of a new religion via the supremacy of colonial powers. that's it and that's that.

Much like thousands of book named figures, Magelhaes/Magellan is just Magellan. Let's not attach some subjective emotional label to him, maybe that's giving historiography and him some respect...maybe then he'll get his true credit.

as i was saying, you're making simple things complicated. you're the one who's lost here. magellan is definitely part of history. but absolutely not a hero. my golly, you compared him to buddha? buddha inspired people to do good in their lives. did magellan do the same to you?

how can someone seek a hero anyway? to me that shows a desparate ego that seeks relief from the outside. or revolution, for that matter. but will a "hero" have mercy with you or me?

I respect religion. It is legit when one calls the founder of his religion a hero.
but it is an all emotionál thing, and a bit too much intertwined with identity.
IMHO even a non-individualist society may consider to avoid an inflation and abundance of heroes.
half of the myspace members mention their parents in the "heroes" box. this is personal and honors them. one is blessed when his parents were able to inspire him/her.

globally, there is a vast corruption happening in the notion of HERO.
power-hungry politicians even called the victims of 9/11 heroes, though workers killed in the building did not know or want anything but their regular work. a fire-guard who rescued someone may be a hero to the concerned family and receive a high award from the community. that's something different than a political hero.

so what I question is the political aspect of the hero thing. most time there is bloodshed involved..
it is our imperfection that makes us resolve to violence.
we'll have to accept our history but should seek to do better ourselves, not merely objecting others about their flaws.

the death of magellan, or crew of columbus, by indigenous people was used to justify a hard way of colonization.
escalation is never far when killling has once begun.
OTOH the death of dr.rizal eventually brought about a successful fight for integrity and freedom.


from my observation (in many discussions in totally different places),
there is a danger of a destructive local proxy conflict (in many countries!) between the dynamics coming from arab and american/spanish cultures and religions and their worldly powers that be.
knowingly, or unconsciously, some discutants may find themselves as soldiers or "heroes" of these global forces.

please, OWN YOUR CULTURES!
OWN your flavors of religion! OWN your arguments and conflicts!
defy the influence by mecca, jerusalem, rome, new york, madrid, london, whatever foreign (sic!!!) centers of power there are, in contemporary context.
but I don't mean isolationism by that. be cooperative on the base of your own integrity, that you develop every day and permanently. and integrity is not the absence of diversity. I may call it a coherent and balanced geometry in all groups and interests that belong to a country.


a result of the british endeavours in africa is contemporary zimbabwe and the regime. in a sad backblow they became stubborn and merciless but the only way to get rid of external domination. so I will never join the chorus about how bad mugabe is. nor chavez, in a similar case.

history is not over.
the choice of the particular heroes is also a matter of how positive one sees the fact and circumstances of his/her own existance (including the family)!
don't forget about positive trends and achievements already in place. there may be unseen and slow but deep improvements.

the hero thing is also about wanting to be superior. eventually this is childish, and a grown-up who wants to be on top of others from a "natural" attribute (which was sadly a historic trait or rather obsession of european peoples) may better be called a chauvinist, and retaliation does not make it any better...

Am i the only one who feels like i missed something here?

Why do i have that funny feeling that i am more dumber than when i first started reading this

I am up to your mercy

sorry if it is confusing,
I just would like to throw in some snippets and ideas.
I don't "want" anything like assuming a position with a coherent political goal, because I am not part of the filipino world.

but I am fascinated with it, and I would like to learn always more,
and I have an impression that we have a potential of improving synergy between the philippines and europe.
if this is political at all.

one example,
germany is culturally "colonized" by the americans, and a remarkable group is in opposition to that.
they even don't have their own music TV channels, they are owned by viacom.
they don't talk about "heroes" but still they value their historical politicians in a similar way, e.g. helmut kohl for the fall of the berlin wall and re-uniting the country.


here I try to be critical about emotion in political matters, because in my experience people are often emotionalized by demagogic preachers who may be pundits of foreign interest groups, like US thinktanks or russian oil oligarch cliques.
they support particular politicians all over the world..

in the same way, pro- or anti-magellan "hero" positions may have a connection to the favor of another country or culture, and reflects also current positions, friendships and enmities. though it is old history and could be seen purely academic.
so, what is beneath the metaphor, what is actually possible in maintainig positive relations between philippines and european or latin american countries? these should be relations that are aimed at a mutually good future, not about the past.


ok to stay on topic,
is there a paragraph that can't be understood at all, then I ask for a detail question.
the posting as a whole is a half-baked bunch if ideas thrown into the pool of sharks.
just tear it apart and find some gems - or not

kudos to all the serious posters here!

What do people have against MacArthur? He grew up in the Philippines when his father was governor general of the Philippines. He also tried to help modernize and create the Philippine army prior to WWII. And he did lead the troops in Bataan when the Japanese invaded and only left on orders from Roosevelt. And btw if it were not for General MacArthur the US would have bypassed liberating the Philippines and went instead directly to Formosa aka Taiwan. It was his direct advocacy in favor of liberating the Philippines against the view of Admiral Nimitz and the Joint Chief of staff that made Roosevelt decide to liberate the Philippines:



http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-...M-AvPhil-1.html

Jeez...

But i'm still adamant making Ninoy a hero...

I think it's Ninoy's idea to have himself killed because she so love her daughter and he knows there's no chance that he's daughter Kris will ever get to showbiz unless he becomes a hero, thus...

weeeheehee! AGREEEEE!