[OPINION] Was the outrage (not anger) over ‘Elcano & Magellan’ unjustified? I think not

This is in response to Jorge Mojarro’s article, “The anger toward the ‘Elcano and Magellan’ film is unjustified.“

Mojarro’s three points in the article are accurate, and they are actually the correct reading of the Magellan trip. But he failed to mention that while indeed Magellan’s original destination was the Spice Islands, this will also lead to the discovery of the Pacific Ocean (Magellan gave the unknown body of water the name Pacifico because the waters were calm when he first saw it). Therefore, they were literally sailing blind when they crossed this large body of water, mapping and logging everything as they went.

Antonio Pigafetta, Magellan’s assistant and chronicler, kept a detailed account of the events of the 1519 expedition. It took them quite some time before they figured out the wind direction, ocean currents, and the best time of the year to start their journey – it was between October 1 to January 20, after which any voyage after January 20 should not proceed until March. (READ: Bringing home the Pigafetta manuscripts)

The fleet began its voyage to the largely unknown waters in November 1520, with no clue as to direction or length of travel. Three months later, food had deteriorated and morale was low. They were likewise unprepared for the storms, the scurvy that decimated the crew, and the length of time it took to find the first land sighting, which unfortunately were populated with hostile inhabitants (Ladrones Island, now Guam).

A little detail likewise overlooked by the author was that the circumnavigation was also an accidental but calculated necessity, as they were aware that they will be travelling through Portuguese territory. But this was only because Elcano’s 1521 journey could not possibly go back the same way through the Pacific because the tornaviaje (return voyage) had not been discovered. Sure, they attempted several times, but like their first attempts to sail on the Pacific, they were bound to fail as the ocean current doesn’t flow back to Mexico the same way.

The Spaniards could not discover the return route until they had a good base at which to equip their ships, and they could not establish a base until they had not discovered a return route. Here was their dilemma. It would take Spain two more decades to figure this out. The tornaviaje will eventually be discovered by Fray Andres de Urdaneta after figuring out the monsoon winds of the region and discovering the Kuroshio current flowing off Japan and the North Pacific Current flowing towards California.

It was only after the discovery of this tornaviaje that will enable Miguel Lopez de Legazpi to return to the Philippines. The November 21, 1564 departure of Legazpi from Acapulco would have spelled disaster were it not for the assistance of Urdaneta who, by this time, had been the foremost expert in navigation. Needless to say, the voyage proceeded without any incident and Legazpi reached Guam on January 26, 1565 and Samar on February 13, 1565. The galleon trade will likewise be operating using this circular route until 1815.

This information is known to only a handful of academics who have studied sixteenth-century history and maritime navigation. Now imagine showing the Elcano and Magellan animation film to children who – absent this delightful background – will just see Lapu-Lapu depicted as a villain and that the colonizers were a superior race who successfully circumnavigated the world. The optics would just be too glaring. (READ: CrystalSky Multimedia to ‘reevaluate’ the release of ‘Elcano and Magellan’ film in PH)

I have not seen the film, but I shudder at the message it may bring to our youth. This may be a cartoon for kids and teenagers and meant for light entertainment, but after watching the film, who is going to explain to them what really happened? – Rappler.com 

Ma. Luisa De Leon-Bolinao, PhD is currently professor and former chair of the History Department, UP Diliman. Her research interests are Philippine and Asian environmental and disaster history, and Contemporary Philippine and Asian history. She has co-authored several history textbooks for the primary and secondary levels, and has served as referee for various local and international journals. She occasionally serves as a content evaluator of history textbooks for the Department of Education.