Jump to content

Talk:History of the Philippines (1565–1898)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this

[edit]

is it all cut and paste —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.126.145.247 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

[edit]

What is this page? It seems to be a cut-and-paste job from something else. 128.214.133.2 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "first mass" in the Philippines was at Mazaua

[edit]

Not Limasawa. Not Butuan. Not Cebu, as also claimed.

The isle where an Easter mass was celebrated was Mazaua. This is the isle's name that comes from from the various eyewitness accounts of Antonio Pigafetta, Francisco Albo, Ginés de Mafra, The Genoese Pilot, Martín de Ayamonte.

Limasawa is the name invented by Fr. Francisco Combés pointing to an isle that is named Gatighan in Antonio Pigafetta's map and text. Combés wrote a three-paragraph epitome of the Mazaua incident based on three sources, Giovanni Battista Ramusio, Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, and Fr. Francisco Colín. Herrera wrote the isle where Magellan anchored was Mazagua (phonetically identical or equal to "masawa", a word found only in Butuanon and Tausog (a derivative of Butuanon) and in no other among the over 100 languages of the Philippines. Combés rejected Herrera claiming the port was Butuan. He also rejected the idea of a mass; his source did not narrate a mass on March 31, 1521. He also rejected the name given by Colín for the southern Leyte isle, "Dimasaua" which meant "this isle is not Herrera's 'Mazagua' because the Sunday Easter mass was celebrated as I relate in my story at Butuan." Since Combés's story mentions no mass, he did not have to negate or deny something that did not occur.

Limasawa therefore has no connection, no link, no reference to a mass!

Here is the story of Combes on Limasawa from the translation by Fr. Miguel Bernad, S.J.:

"The first time that the royal standards of the Faith were seen to fly in this island [of Mindanao] was when the Archipelago was first discovered by the Admiral Alonso de Magallanes. He followed a new and difficult route [across the Pacific], entering by the Strait of Siargao, formed by that island and that of Leyte, and landing at the island of Limasaua which is at the entrance of that Strait. Amazed by the novelty and strangeness of the [Spanish] nation and the ships, the barbarians of that island welcomed them and gave them good refreshments.

"While at Limasaua, enjoying rest and good treatment, they heard of the River of Butuan, whose chieftain was more powerful. His reputation attracted our men thither to see for themselves or be disillusioned, their curiosity sharpened by the fact that the place was nearby. The barbarian [chief] lived up to our men's expectations, providing them with the food they needed...Magellan contented himself with having them do reverence to the cross which is erected upon a hillock as a sign to future generations of their alliance...The solemnity with which the cross was erected and the deep piety shown by the Spaniards, and by the natives following the example of the Spaniards, engendered great respect for the cross.

"Not finding in Butuan the facilities required by the ships, they returned to Limasaua to seek further advice in planning their future route. The Prince of Limasaua told them of the three most powerful nations among the Pintados [Visayans], namely those of Caraga, Samar, and Zebu. The nearness of Zebu, the facilities of its port, and the more developed social structure (being more monarchical) aroused everyone's desire to go thither. Thus, guided by the chief of Limasaua, passing between Bool and Leyte and close to the Camotes Islands, they entered the harbor of Cebu by the Mandawe entrance on the 7th of April 1521, having departed from Limasaua on the first day of that month."

Translation by Fr. Miguel Bernad, S.J., "Butuan or Limasawa?" in: Kinaadman, Vol. III, 1981, pages 4-5. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Moro derogatory for Filipinos?

[edit]

Moro maybe derogartory for Spaniards but I don't think it is used in a derogative way by Filipinos.--Jondel (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

social transformation

[edit]

d URL /index.html was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.39 Server at www.partnershipsforchange.com Port 80 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.217.30 (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan and Mactan

[edit]

The article says, in part

Magellan invaded Mactan Island with only 48 armored men (less than half his crew) against Lapu-Lapu's army of some 1,500 warriors. Several hours later, Magellan lay dead without having reached the shores of Mactan. See Battle of Mactan

I haven't checked further, but it seems counterintuative to me that Magellan could have taken part in the the Battle of Mactan (described in that article as close hand-to-hand combat) without having reached the shores of Mactan. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main article quotes an eyewitness:-
Recognizing the captain, so many turned upon him that they knocked his helmet off his head twice... An Indian hurled a bamboo spear into the captain's face, but the latter immediately killed him with his lance, which he left in the Indian's body. Then, trying to lay hand on sword, he could draw it out but halfway, because he had been wounded in the arm with a bamboo spear. When the natives saw that, they all hurled themselves upon him. One of them wounded him on the left leg with a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger. That caused the captain to fall face downward, when immediately they rushed upon him with iron and bamboo spears and with their cutlasses, until they killed our mirror, our light, our comfort, and our true guide. When they wounded him, he turned back many times to see whether we were all in the boats. Thereupon, beholding him dead, we, wounded, retreated, as best we could, to the boats, which were already pulling off... "[1]

I'll change this article to match the quote. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference dom was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Title needs to be changed

[edit]

I think that the current title of this article, Spanish conquest in the Philippines (1521–1898) is not good. The Spanish conquests of the Philippines are only a small part of the story of the 377 year period this article covers but the title suggests otherwise. It should really be titled something like "The Philippines under Spanish Rule", which is about a period of time in which Spanish rule dominated but also implies that much else was happening. I'll wait a month for a response. If none comes I'll change it. Provocateur (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I say the article should be renamed back to History of the Philippines (1521–1898), in line with other similar articles (such as History of the Philippines (1898–1946). ༆ (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This section should really have been placed at the bottom of the talk page, but other than that, I concur. This article really should be at History of the Philippines (1521–1898). - Alternativity (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History of the Philippines (1521–1898) makes sense. I concur. Provocateur (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Provocateur, do the honors already :D - Alternativity (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Months are going by rather quickly these days. Title is now consistent with related articles and reflects the breadth of the subject. Adios Provocateur (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Spanish rule on women and caste system

[edit]

http://aboutphilippines.ph/filer/Spanish-Colonial-Caste-System-in-the-Philippines.pdf

http://kardo.tripod.com/machismo.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=-jsLtMfDDekC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=machismo+philippines+spanish&source=bl&ots=mmROI_tgZ2&sig=fGDYtOKmrvpNr-lFUVR7tL_BslM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aC0WU9PKAsqU0gGM54C4Bw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=machismo%20philippines%20spanish&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=-jsLtMfDDekC&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=zN7-s84jAkoC&pg=PT44#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=zN7-s84jAkoC&pg=PT123#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=1pNCM_p-NuQC&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3rCTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=skr0rkNxlCEC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=machismo+philippines+spanish&source=bl&ots=3YNg7nICpv&sig=kwGFeC9IGX4gIgIGhmRWb8IXeCE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ky0WU_WBJMrX0QGDw4HwBg&ved=0CCYQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=machismo%20philippines%20spanish&f=false

http://www.univie.ac.at/ksa/apsis/aufi/wstat/mujer.htm

20:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Philippine referendum of 1599

[edit]

The Filipinos consented to be governed by Spain in 1599. Your reference should from a book written by those who were alive during the time the event was taking place.IsaLang (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Philippines (1521–1898). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Philippines (1521–1898). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Philippines (1521–1898). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Day of the week of March 16, 1521

[edit]

What day of the week was March 16, 1521? Was it Saturday (Julian calendar) or Wednesday (proleptic Gregorian calendar)? —Jencie Nasino (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, March 16, 1521, fell on Saturday, not on Wednesday. —Jencie Nasino (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What A Mess!

[edit]

It seems like around October 11th 2019 someone seriously messed up this article with all this nonsense about Japan in 1237 and lots more. I can't see how to revert it easily, and I really don't know the true history anyway. Somebody more knowledgeable ought to fix all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B930:7B90:256E:21E3:D71A:D3B6 (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

questioning the revert

[edit]

With this edit, Editor Wtmitchell reverted me. The accompanying edit summary reads:

Restore accurate quotation -- see https://books.google.com.mm/books?id=h1Y2DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA240. Perhaps {{sic}} is called for.

That precise google books url is not used in the article though a similar google books url is used in this {{cite book}} template:

{{cite book |quote=The military organization of Manila might have depended to some degree on non-European groups, but colonial authorities measured a successful imperial policy of defense on the amount of European and American recruits that could be accounted for in the military forces.~CSIC ser. Consultas riel 301 leg.8 (1794) |chapter=Chapter 1 – Intertwined Histories in the Pacific |last=Mehl |first=Eva Maria |title=Forced Migration in the Spanish Pacific World From Mexico to the Philippines, 1765–1811 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |date=2016 |pages=246 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=h1Y2DAAAQBAJ&q=CSIC+ser.+Consultas+riel+301+leg.8&pg=PA256 |doi=10.1017/CBO9781316480120.007 |isbn=9781316480120}}
Mehl, Eva Maria (2016). "Chapter 1 – Intertwined Histories in the Pacific". Forced Migration in the Spanish Pacific World From Mexico to the Philippines, 1765–1811. Cambridge University Press. p. 246. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316480120.007. ISBN 9781316480120. The military organization of Manila might have depended to some degree on non-European groups, but colonial authorities measured a successful imperial policy of defense on the amount of European and American recruits that could be accounted for in the military forces.~CSIC ser. Consultas riel 301 leg.8 (1794)

When I search for h1Y2DAAAQBAJ in the diff of Editor Wtmitchell's revert, it is clear that I did not touch that {{cite book}} template.

What I did touch was ref 73 and ref 72; both of them because they were malformed and the former because of the red asin-tld error message (line 187ish in the diff). Because of the revert, these are both now broken again. The last thing that I did was replace curly quotes (“” ‘’) with their straight equivalents per WP:CURLY.

How was any of this wrong?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was my error and I've undone the revert here -- thanks for questioning it. I totally mis-read the diff of your revert -- I saw the change ot Salazar's name highlighted in the diff and my faulty vision picked up a change in the spelling of his name that wasn't there; I checked my faulty reading of the name against the text in the source, saw what I thought was an error, and reverted. Compounding that error, I stopped checking at the highlighted change in the name (I think that was a change in the apostrophe style) and didn't look at the other changes my revert undid. I apologize for the error. Bad dog! Bad dog! Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content division between this article and Captaincy General of the Philippines

[edit]

Currently, the structure of this article seems a bit ad-hoc, and the article seems to be trying to do too much at once. Sections are perhaps vaguely chronological, but they are more based on topics, leading to the article moving backwards and forwards through time as it goes on, which seems suboptimal for a history-style article. Some sections, such as "Spanish Government", seem very out of place. On the other hand, the article Captaincy General of the Philippines is currently barely a start-class, and has a "History" section which doesn't even link back to this article!

To better manage content from this time period, I would suggest that Captaincy General of the Philippines take on more fully the role of a country-style article, while this article serves as the main History article for that country-style article, similar to how History of the Philippines serves as a main article for Philippines. Broadly, this would mean moving the "Spanish government" section from this article to the Captaincy article, and perhaps moving other sections that focus on a topic that spans throughout the period, such as "Early resistance" (part of the current "Resistance against Spanish rule", which is quite an odd collection of sub-topics). Meanwhile, the various sections of this article can be reshaped to flow more chronologically, and the currently quite jumbled and unfocused sections like "Spanish settlers" and the whole "Resistance against Spanish rule" can be broken up and restructured to reduce odd redundancies (both currently cover the Galleon trade for example, in addition to the Galleon trade subsection under "Spanish Government"). CMD (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have shifted the most obvious text, there's no doubt smaller refinements that can continue to be made both ways. CMD (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sosial

[edit]

The district officer in Tanganyika were assisted by headmen known as 105.160.83.217 (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits re effect of Spanish/Mexican immigration of societal class system

[edit]

This edit caught my eye -- it changed "Immigration blurred the racial caste system" to "The lack of constant immigration blurred the racial caste system", completely reversing the meaning of that article assertion. None of the cited supporting sources were changed. I took a quick look at some of the sources, and it is not clear to me that the now-reversed thrust of the assertion is any better supported than was the earlier assertion saying the opposite -- there may be some suggestions on both sides of that in different sources -- I didn't look closely, but if it is not clearly on one of these two opposed sides then WP:DUE comes into play and supported clarification is needed -- clarification may be needed in any case here.

The edit which caught my eye is part of this series of six consecutive edits, some of which make changes seemingly along the sane theme as above. I'm under the weather this morning and not up to looking more deeply at all this, but I think it needs a look. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I've made a WP:Bold change in the article assertion mentioned above to better reflect the sense of the sources cited as I read the relevant content there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Philippines (1521-1898)

[edit]

What is in this rule? I need to know but i can't find it it's one of the periods but when i search it,the article is not specific, it's general as in "Spanish Colonial Periods" like that what am i gonna do???? 119.95.231.129 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Philippines (1565–1898) is a redirect to the History of the Philippines (1565–1898) article. I'm on my way out the door at the moment right now and don't have the time to try to figure out why that was done. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

[edit]

SLAVERY was abolished in the Spanish Empire? The New Laws, I believe, covered the indigenes...not imported Africans. This should be clarified.Gnuwhirled (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Philippines_(1565–1898)&oldid=1239883028"