A brief historical context is needed: The Philippines was named after Prince Philip II of Spain otherwise known as the "Spider of the Escorial" (he was given this nickname for it was said that he never left his palace). He was reputed to be an extreme introvert, austere, humorless, and unpopular. Philip II reigned over the vast Spanish empire handed down by his father, Charles V, and was a leading patron of Catholicism. His reign however marked the decline of Spain as a world power leading one historian to describe him as mediocre and as a man paralyzed by indecision.

Since the death of Prince Philip II and after the revolution and founding of the Republic of the Philippines, as a people have had the priviledge of carrying 'his' name for more than 3 centuries.

But do the Filipino wish to continue this?

Do Filipinos as a people wish to be forever linked with a Prince who in the history books was said that his first order as Prince was to do an "auto-da-fe" (wherein thousands upon thousands of the Arab-speaking Muslims who inhabited the Spanish province of Andalucia were all burned at the stake); that he and his father were said to have looted Rome and were eventually excommunicated by the Catholic Church under Pope Paul IV in 1552; who died of a disease (then called euphemistically a "social disease") now known as venereal disease, due to his 'way with women' (he was known to have had several wives and mistresses)? Don't you think My country and My compatriots deserve something better than that???

Years ago, the 'Philippines' name was proposed to be changed to Maharlika (the name is based on the values of nobility and spirituality). They say it was rejected due to its identification with a then deposed and now deceased dictator (aka Marcos). Some have proposed the name Katagalugan which was the name chosen by Bonifacio (the name highlighted our country's tropical archipelago). Other names mentioned were Kapatiran (emphasizing the nation as family) and Katipunan (the word itself means unification).

Many countries around the World have already reverted to their pre-colonial names (Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, etc.) Why must Filipinos be named not only after a Spanish monarch, but a dispicable one at that?

I for one would like nothing better than to change the name since Me and my Compatriots identity as a people will no longer be linked with a inept ruler but more importantly, our name won't be connected with our conlonial past (besides, I kinda like the name Maharlika, it does have a nice sound to it)!

Like the discussions on the the question of national language, discussions in my country's name can become emotional and even nasty. We need to consider this change since the succeeding generations of this country deseves a name we can be proud to call our own.

Best of luck.

A person, group of people, or nation can ask to be called whatever they wish.

Decide amongst yourselves and get back to us with consensus.

I suggest West West South Dakota.

good luck with that.

Frazzled wrote:I suggest West West South Dakota.

Wait for it folks




Wait for it.....


Hold.....



I agree with Frazzled

How about New New Hampshire?

Nuevo New Hamshire?

I think Filipinos are happy with the name, I've never met one that was upset or annoyed by it. What would you change the name to?

Also why is it spelled Filipinos when they come from the Philippines? Shouldn't they be Philpinos or Philippians (oh wait that is someone else) .

My vote is for one of those bizarre Japanese type names that roughly translates to complete nonsense like "Happy toad sheep pile revolution pagoda place"

My vote is to change the name to '51st State' (possibly going to have to settle for '52nd State' if Puerto Rico votes for statehood this November)

I would gladly welcome Hat Land into the world of nations ;D

Change it to Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.

Well played, but I think összetettszóhosszúságvilágrekorddöntéskényszerneurózistünetegyüttes-megnyilvánulásfejleszthetőségvizsgálatszervezésellenőrzésiügyosztály-létszámleépítésellenesakciócsoporttagságiigazolványmegújításikérelem-elutasítóhatározatgyűjteményértékesítőnagyvállalatátalakításutó-finanszírozáspályázatelbírálóalapítványkuratóriumelnökhelyettesellenes-merényletkivizsgálóbizottságiüléselnapolásindítványbenyújtásiforma-nyomtatványkitöltögetésellenőrizhetőség-próba is more appropriate

Maybe apple can buy it and call it I-land!

I'd support it. I have lots of filipino friends, and I've always felt a certain kinship to them over other asian races (for some reason).

Maharlika sounds neat, if I'm imagining it as "Muh- HAR- lika
(MUscle, HARd, LICKer. Sounds obscene, but they were the first words I could think of).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:I think Filipinos are happy with the name, I've never met one that was upset or annoyed by it. What would you change the name to?

Also why is it spelled Filipinos when they come from the Philippines? Shouldn't they be Philpinos or Philippians (oh wait that is someone else) .

My vote is for one of those bizarre Japanese type names that roughly translates to complete nonsense like "Happy toad sheep pile revolution pagoda place"

Shiawasena hikigaeru no hitsujiyama kakumei-tō no basho

That's too long. I was thinking about something shorter. Like that old coke myth about Coke meaning bite the wax tadpole, mixed with the Japanese fascination with super happy fun time show.

This has never come up in my family or circle of fil-ams. But then
again, we've never really discussed homeland issues other than
"Ha! the president is corrupt! And she's accusing her cabinet
of corruption! This is like that time with the shoes..."

Or just spell it with an F instead, that why everyone will still remember what it is called, but they can say they are different from Prince Phillip or whatever...

Well thank you

But here in the Philippines or Luzvuzminda or Maharlika or Rizalandia

The thing is stuff like Spanish words in our language must be severed the last names well that's allot of effort for latter.

With me I'm deeply bothered by still having this connection with the Spanish who Butchered and Enslaved my nation so that they can power trip to there hearts desire,
And the name of the country itself is colonial mentality which lags the country behind due to filipinos seeing others as automatically superior to them, this stops progress which is bad for the Nation no matter how small.

Plus we should purge the language of Impurities (not saying Spanish is dirty it just dose not sound right with Austronesian languages)

(most people who are named Philip here become Felipe so even spelling with an F is synonymous with Philip of Spain)

Huh... you're sounding like quite a xenophobe man, purging the language of impurities, forcing people to change their names to become more 'Maharlikan' and less Filipino, etc... Where have I heard this before...

/ looks at long list of xenophobic genocidal regimes...

How about you call it the McKinley Islands, in honor of the US President that began the process by which your country gained its independence? (simultaneously flamebaiting and being serious)

F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5
Nope... im still on dakka... thought I was on 4chan for a bit...

honestly, I'm not convinced as to why being named the phillipines is so bad. please explain.

remilia_scarlet wrote:

Spoiler:

honestly, I'm not convinced as to why being named the phillipines is so bad. please explain.

OP did, because the name was from someone evil.

Its like would americans like it if USA was named Nazirica

LunaHound wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:

Spoiler:

honestly, I'm not convinced as to why being named the phillipines is so bad. please explain.

OP did, because the name was from someone evil.

Its like would americans like it if USA was named Nazirica

I see, perhaps they should name it after a filipino leader who did something good or something?

remilia_scarlet wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:

Spoiler:

honestly, I'm not convinced as to why being named the phillipines is so bad. please explain.

OP did, because the name was from someone evil.

Its like would americans like it if USA was named Nazirica

I see, perhaps they should name it after a filipino leader who did something good or something?

Dont ask me, I'll just name it New Lunar Republic :3 ( see the color are identical to OP's flag )

Wrong. Original flag has yellow.

Honestly, no support here, the reason you have for changing the name of your country is imo, quite a pathetically trivial one, that would be the same as me saying that we should change the name of my country because its name was given by the British who used it as a penal colony and slaughtered thousands of people (just on this continent) in the name of progress.

Krellnus wrote:Honestly, no support here, the reason you have for changing the name of your country is imo, quite a pathetically trivial one, that would be the same as me saying that we should change the name of my country because its name was given by the British who used it as a penal colony and slaughtered thousands of people (just on this continent) in the name of progress.

Not really, the only reason Australia doesnt seem to be effected as much is you guys already have a worse name branded ........

Sorry for the Xenophobe sounding-ness

Maharlika was actually proposed but is linked to a former dictator Marcos, so it is always rebuked since being linked to that dark past,
Plus I propose that the change of language not a instantaneous thing more like a 5-8 year thing where Spanish words will be gradually prohibited from being used in media not that bad. First names that are pretty much Spanish in origin should just be looked down upon and more Native names being preferred, Race has no say on this since the well for now Philippine Islands being made up of mostly Austronesian's and Chinese people plus we are not like Indonesia or Malaysia who discriminate there Chinese populations which is one beauty of my country.

We are nation who's whole cultural past was destroyed by Spanish friar's (nothing against the church) and Dutch Pirates.

Plus it wouldn't be that hard Changing the name Countries like Thailand did it and they are whole lot better of ergonomically and socially than the Philippines.

And for the language it cant be that hard to remove just 5,000 words of kastilla from the language.

and doing all these can be done in a friendly manner using media as a tool.


(Plus on Australia the majority of your'e population is Imported)

Most Filipinos lived on the land for thousands of years before the Iberian s came led by an Italian.

LunaHound wrote:

Krellnus wrote:Honestly, no support here, the reason you have for changing the name of your country is imo, quite a pathetically trivial one, that would be the same as me saying that we should change the name of my country because its name was given by the British who used it as a penal colony and slaughtered thousands of people (just on this continent) in the name of progress.

Not really, the only reason Australia doesnt seem to be effected as much is you guys already have a worse name branded ........

Probably doesn't help the Queen of England is still technically our head of state.

To be perfectly honest, if the Philipines want to change their name, then they don't our support. We'll call you by whatever you want to be called.

It does seem like you've got a reasonable case, though, so I wish you good luck with that.

Krellnus wrote:Honestly, no support here, the reason you have for changing the name of your country is imo, quite a pathetically trivial one, that would be the same as me saying that we should change the name of my country because its name was given by the British who used it as a penal colony and slaughtered thousands of people (just on this continent) in the name of progress.

Yeah, because the Australian colonial experience was just as destructive to us, who are almost entirely immigrants, as it was to the native populations. Come on.

As a member of an indigenous population that has had similar issues i am with you for the name change.

The rest of the proposals I disagree with. The suppression of speech is something we Americans have strong feelings about (If you read the OT section you may have noticed.) and I will not support any form of discrimination especially when based on ethnic factors (like language use of or naming). This form of discrimination already happens, just google " name discrimination" it is pretty well covered. To impose a law that reinforces discrimination of other cultures is a scary step for a nation.

I guess you did preface it by saying "Sorry for the Xenophobe sounding-ness ".

You may find it hard to change the name actually, there are plenty of people that are proud of the name and it's history. You are probably going to be in for a fight especially from older groups. Not to mention that people do associate good things with the name. Your tourist board may not like it either. What you are talking about is a rebranding of a country that really does not have an image problem. I understand your concern, and yes others have done it, I just don't really think it's warranted and this is the first I have ever heard of it. The Filipinos that I know are pretty proud of their heritage, my sister in laws whole family is very proud of being Filipino.

Yup yup.

Just because your name has a history doesn't mean you can't
make your own.

Andrew1975 wrote:You may find it hard to change the name actually, there are plenty of people that are proud of the name and it's history.

And some people might object for other reasons.

Burma/Myanmar being a good example.

sebster wrote:

Krellnus wrote:Honestly, no support here, the reason you have for changing the name of your country is imo, quite a pathetically trivial one, that would be the same as me saying that we should change the name of my country because its name was given by the British who used it as a penal colony and slaughtered thousands of people (just on this continent) in the name of progress.

Yeah, because the Australian colonial experience was just as destructive to us, who are almost entirely immigrants, as it was to the native populations. Come on.

Having a hard time trying tell if you are being sarcastic here, if you are infact being sarcastic, than you misinterpret my position, I am making out that the British at the time were bad.

I'm not for discrimination

I mean the press and tv shows can say whatever they want, the only thing is they use Filipino words instead of Spanish one's for example most people here count as Uno, Dos, Tres not Isa, Dalawa, Tatlo

some words like Cubeta, Madre, Mas que and Pwerta even though almost all of them have Tagalog variants Dumihan, Nanay, At pa and Pintuan that's all I wish to change to encourage less use of a foreign culture and embrace more of the local culture.

Plus no Filipino Citizen speaks Spanish anymore the only ones who speak Spanish in the Philippines are tourist from S.America and Spain, So no one is practically being discriminated here.
so

And on the Name

As I said as a Filipino I wish to be more in tune with my heritage of my land and see the culture that is being hidden behind the veil of colonial mentality.


(I'm trying this out here since I'm going to propose to one of the Orgs in my school and ask if we can have a petition and then bring that to local government and so on. And If I manage to convince you guy's then what problem would I have with a student org)

Oh, I don't think you will have a problem with the student organization, Just the real ones. People of student age are hip to change because they don't really know what change really entails. When you actually look at the bigger issues change brings, it becomes much more of an issue.

Here is just one example, Just a cursory look mind you, there are over 100 companies that have the word Philippines in there name, now all these companies will have to choose to change their names or not. Rebranding an established image is something most successful companies will not want to do as it costs money and can lead to brand confusion and in effect hurt business. Some of these companies will be small and can't afford to change. Most of these companies will not want to be bothered with changing their brand. Some will even put a great amount of effort into opposing the change. So now you have people with money and power opposing a student organization that wants to change the name pretty much just for changes sake. Now that is just a few companies. Imagine the cost involved with changing all the government buildings, plaques, maps, roadsigns, etc.

This is actually a very small issue in the spectrum of a national rebranding, but it's one most people can relate to.

Tradition is a bitch to overcome.

I think your reasons are fine for a student project, but if you are serious about this you will have to look at it from all the angles and be able to come up with real tangible reasons to overcome peoples objections. There are going to be people that have very good and rational reasons to not want change, You will have to do your homework and find out why it may be in their best interests. Then and only then can you target your strongest opposition, people who don't want change simply because the don't like change period.

Think about this. If you really wanted to change your personal name, how much work would it take. It's simple enough to file the paperwork, but that's really just the beginning. Everything that has your name on it has to be changed, every person place or thing that has your name needs to be notified. Now think of that on a global scale.

Brand an image are very tangible assets. This is one reason people buy established businesses with recognizable names, the name recognition alone can be very attractive and reason enough to buy a even a failing company. The Philippines have a pretty decent brand globally, people may not know much about it, or it's history, the internal politics and uprisings. I'm from the US, we look pretty favorably on the Philippines simply because we remember our alliance from WW2.

Krellnus wrote:Having a hard time trying tell if you are being sarcastic here, if you are infact being sarcastic, than you misinterpret my position, I am making out that the British at the time were bad.

Sure, but when you say the British here were bad, bare in mind the 'British' you're talking about people who were British at the time, but whose descendants are now Australian, for the most part. And that while Aboriginal populations were treated very poorly, it is nowhere near the scale of the treatment suffered by native populations in other countries, simply because there were never that many locals around. So instead you have an immigrant population brought over and put to work, and while it in turn wasn't treated very well, it was treated about as poorly as working people were treated anywhere in the world at that time.

Which really does make the situation, and therefore our relationship to the name given to our country, a wholly different situation to that of a country where the local population really was colonised.

I am a proud Filipino and will continue to identify as one

people have died while proudly declaring themselves as Filipinos

The sins and shame of the past mixes with the pride and victories that we've had through generations. And will continue to do so to the future. This is our history and is part of our cultural Identity. A name change will only underline a the real problem that Filipinos have:

We do not like who we are and how we are percieved.

and this is a shame because we have so much to be proud of. But with that pride we also have to own up to our faults and our realities as well. Yes we were colonized. Several times. But you cannot change that no more than you can change who your parents were. It's high time that Filipinos owned up.

we have a saying: "Ang hindi lumingon sa pinanggalingan ay hindi makakarating sa paroroonan"



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also like to note the irony here

We got the name "Philippines" from foreigners but now you're asking for support from...foreigners?

Can I convince you to support the Philippines to change it's name?

No, because then I would have to buy a new globe.

Could I convince you to support changing the name of the United States of America to something more appropriate? I don't like being associated with a 15th century Italian cartographer. Maybe Washingtonia?

biccat wrote:

Can I convince you to support the Philippines to change it's name?

No, because then I would have to buy a new globe.

Could I convince you to support changing the name of the United States of America to something more appropriate? I don't like being associated with a 15th century Italian cartographer. Maybe Washingtonia?

I've already proposed that. Greater Texas.

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

Can I convince you to support the Philippines to change it's name?

No, because then I would have to buy a new globe.

Could I convince you to support changing the name of the United States of America to something more appropriate? I don't like being associated with a 15th century Italian cartographer. Maybe Washingtonia?

I've already proposed that. Greater Texas.

No, no, no! Just Texas. What is currently called Texas will be Greater Texas. That is the only logical answer to the great question.

Dude I can understand the reasoning for wanting to change the name, however the language thing is a little off in my opinion, but then again i'm English and we have the most mongrel language in the world.

Just because your name has a history doesn't mean you can't
make your own.

I think this is a valid point though, make the name your own, just because Phillip was a dick does mean anyone think the phillipines are.

The very fact you had to explain at the begining of this thread that the Phillipines were named after Phillip, who Phillip was and why he was such and arse kind of points that (at least in your perception) the majority of us are unaware of the connection anyway. Now I accept this may be a lot more commonly known fact in your Home land it kind of suggests your putting too much empathises on the origin of the name.

RecutalThreat wrote: we are not like Indonesia or Malaysia who discriminate there Chinese populations which is one beauty of my country.

It's not that discriminatory to us Chinese in Malaysia. You're right about Indo though. Honestly, Malaysia tends to just discriminate against Jews, and that's cause most people here are Muslim.

But anyway, good luck with your mission. I wouldn't mind, but it would mean relearning my geography case studies about Pinatubo.

Spanish, indigenous culture AND English are all part of Filipino
culture. I think it would be a shame to let any of that go.
The clothing and folk dances have been influenced by Spain.

We should keep the name.

Democratic Republic of Tagolog.

When you're oppressive dictatorial government fails it'll probably go back the the Philippines.

RecutalThreat wrote:A brief historical context is needed: The Philippines was named after Prince Philip II of Spain otherwise known as the "Spider of the Escorial" (he was given this nickname for it was said that he never left his palace). He was reputed to be an extreme introvert, austere, humorless, and unpopular. Philip II reigned over the vast Spanish empire handed down by his father, Charles V, and was a leading patron of Catholicism. His reign however marked the decline of Spain as a world power leading one historian to describe him as mediocre and as a man paralyzed by indecision.

Since the death of Prince Philip II and after the revolution and founding of the Republic of the Philippines, as a people have had the priviledge of carrying 'his' name for more than 3 centuries.

But do the Filipino wish to continue this?

Do Filipinos as a people wish to be forever linked with a Prince who in the history books was said that his first order as Prince was to do an "auto-da-fe" (wherein thousands upon thousands of the Arab-speaking Muslims who inhabited the Spanish province of Andalucia were all burned at the stake); that he and his father were said to have looted Rome and were eventually excommunicated by the Catholic Church under Pope Paul IV in 1552; who died of a disease (then called euphemistically a "social disease") now known as venereal disease, due to his 'way with women' (he was known to have had several wives and mistresses)? Don't you think My country and My compatriots deserve something better than that???

Years ago, the 'Philippines' name was proposed to be changed to Maharlika (the name is based on the values of nobility and spirituality). They say it was rejected due to its identification with a then deposed and now deceased dictator (aka Marcos). Some have proposed the name Katagalugan which was the name chosen by Bonifacio (the name highlighted our country's tropical archipelago). Other names mentioned were Kapatiran (emphasizing the nation as family) and Katipunan (the word itself means unification).

Many countries around the World have already reverted to their pre-colonial names (Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, etc.) Why must Filipinos be named not only after a Spanish monarch, but a dispicable one at that?

I for one would like nothing better than to change the name since Me and my Compatriots identity as a people will no longer be linked with a inept ruler but more importantly, our name won't be connected with our conlonial past (besides, I kinda like the name Maharlika, it does have a nice sound to it)!

Like the discussions on the the question of national language, discussions in my country's name can become emotional and even nasty. We need to consider this change since the succeeding generations of this country deseves a name we can be proud to call our own.

If the name is to be changed. one document needed to be looked at.

Chinese chronicles regarding to this isle nations. whether was it belongs to Srivijaya Empire before?
I believe that the Chinese discovered (and at some point, settled this isle) several century before Magelan, or maybe even before Moors exodus (leaving Catholic atrocities, only to be ruled over by Pope's goons)
I believe that Neither Spanish nor Moors 'civilized' this remote isles, Indians or Chinese are likely to be the first two races to tame it. and they probably named it BEFORE magellan did.


Please be careful with regards to one's choice of words, especially with regards to ethnicity.
Thanks !

Bakerofish wrote:We do not like who we are and how we are percieved.

If I put something in bold I get to pretend that I speak for every single person of any given broad group? Is that what bold does? I would have that that some people falt that way, some the opposite, and probably a good deal more are apathetic, but it was in bold, so I guess the hive mind kicked in.

@ahtman

are you trolling? because I would assume that either you are trolling or that you have difficulty understanding a general statement.

a general statement and sentiment that has been discussed ever since the Philippines was established as a country and is supported by several socio-economic studies? A general statement that is the cause by which several political and social groups in my country actually raise their banners for or against?

Youre taking me to task for a blanket statement yet you casually ignore the ones made by others and the OP in the very thread?

Please.

Bakerofish wrote:@ahtman

are you trolling?

No. Do you know what trolling means? It wouldn't be a surprise considering it almost always just means "something I don't like", which isn't what trolling is.

Bakerofish wrote:because I would assume that either you are trolling or that you have difficulty understanding a general statement.

Then your failure is even greater becuase (a)you can't think of more than two possibilities and (b) also becuase neither of those are correct.

Bakerofish wrote:a general statement and sentiment

The nature of the sentence isn't the problem. I have no doubt that some people in the Philippines (or the soon to be Greater Texas Western Annex) feel that way, but that you phrase it in such a way as to pretend to speak for all Filipinos (or Greater Western Texans) when you do not, and that you pretend that all Filipinos (or Greater Western Texans) feel that way, when they all do not. There is nothing wrong with the sentiment, there is everything wrong with pretending to be the voice of a people when you are not.

@ahtman

you're the only one labeling me as "the voice of the people". I never claimed such.

as for the statement, please google "Filipino Identity Crisis" to see an inkling of what my statement is about. I assure you what you read on the web is just a tip of the iceberg.

While I may not have the mathematical data to show how many Filipinos feel this way, there is enough of the sentiment (and a couple of presidents to make a platform out of this) to warrant a general statement

a general statement that is equally as valid as "Filipinos are a hospitable people"

If Filipinos want to change the name of the Philippines, go right ahead. Plenty of former colonies have struggled to re-discover their identity. If changing the name of your country helps with that, more power to you.

And, I'd like to suggest the following name "Spain Sucks, go USA", because the US freed you from Spanish rule. And, because the US is awesome!

Bakerofish wrote:@ahtman

you're the only one labeling me as "the voice of the people". I never claimed such.

You don't have to say it explicitly, you just have to act that way. There is a huge difference between "I and some other Filipinos feel that we shouldn't be laughed at becuase of chronic masturbation" and "We feel that we shouldn't be laughed at becuase of chronic masturbation". One recognizes that you are not speaking for everyone, the other doesn't.

@ahtman
or maybe you're just putting too much weight on the word "We" I only meant to emphasize that I am including myself with my people as I was directing the statement to a fellow Filipino.

I don't know any Flilipinos who feel this way about the name. Hell, half my wife's family call each other "flip" and "fob" all the time.
I did get into a drunken fist fight after running my mouth off because I thought I knew some Filipino history (I was in fact was full of shiz.) But the impression I get from my "flip" friends is one of fierce pride and a strong identity. Granted NorCal has a large Filipino population.

That's it, just name the island "New San Jose."

I like this threat made me laugh, the OP managed to include so many historical failures about Spain and his own country that I hope he manages to bring it to the local government and then he tells us about the looks of complete incomprenhension he gets.
Just a question, with more than 7000 islands, 170 languages and one of the richest ethnicities of the world with which heritage and culture the OP wants to self identify?.
I´m sorry but your OP sounds just like the Life of Brian and the JPF scenes.

M.

Oh snap!

Yeah... even then there are plenty of nations who still have names from whoever settled the region. Sure America had its differences with England but that doesn't mean we didn't keep some of their names; Norfolk, Bath, Portsmouth, New London, New York, etc were all named for their English counterpart. Virginia was named after the Virgin Queen, Queen Elizabeth I. I think that the Philippines sounds nice, especially after what the Japanese did to the islanders.

RecutalThreat wrote:
some words like Cubeta, Madre, Mas que and Pwerta even though almost all of them have Tagalog variants Dumihan, Nanay, At pa and Pintuan that's all I wish to change to encourage less use of a foreign culture and embrace more of the local culture.

No offense, but its not a foreign culture at this point. The Spanish have influenced the Philippines, but they aren't much like Spain.

RecutalThreat wrote: all I wish to change to encourage less use of a foreign culture and embrace more of the local culture.

I think the point you're missing is that after centuries of foreign domination, Filipino culture and the 'foreign' culture you seek to eliminate are one and the same. A complete removal of all the foreign influences from Filipino culture will leave you with a culture that you are completely unaccustomed to and is completely different to what you have lived with thus far. Your food, language, cultural norms, attitudes, etc. have all been shaped by these foreign influences and integrated very deeply (its actually quite impressive, I've always thought the Phillipines to have been very unique in how well they've integrated outside influences into the traditional Polynesian culture).

I would also like to point out, that for all your claims of wanting to revert back to traditional culture and make Filipinos proud f who they are, etc. you're kind of missing the big point in that you would no longer be Filipino. That word in itself is a result of Spanish influence, etc. and yet you continue to use it.

We do not like who we are and how we are percieved.

Why? I've never really heard much of a negative perception of Filipinos in the US, aside from the fact that all the Filipino women I know are certifiably crazy and extremely fiery (if not also extremely intelligent).

Why? I've never really heard much of a negative perception of Filipinos in the US, aside from the fact that all the Filipino women I know are certifiably crazy and extremely fiery (if not also extremely intelligent).

So in other words, a nation of Selma Hayaks? YES!

Frazzled wrote:

Why? I've never really heard much of a negative perception of Filipinos in the US, aside from the fact that all the Filipino women I know are certifiably crazy and extremely fiery (if not also extremely intelligent).

So in other words, a nation of Selma Hayaks? YES!

Also, flat-chested*.





*That is a horrible rumor, and not true or important.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Why? I've never really heard much of a negative perception of Filipinos in the US, aside from the fact that all the Filipino women I know are certifiably crazy and extremely fiery (if not also extremely intelligent).

Well Im glad if thats the case. The story changes a lot though when you talk about Asia (HK and Singapore) and the Middle East.

Im reminded of the story my sister told me recently (she's in Canada) where while standing in line at the bank she noticed a woman who looked like she was Filipina. My sister (whos been away from the country for 3 years now) approached her, greeted her and politely asked if she was Filipina.

The woman was offended and indignantly declared that she was not Filipina, that she was Ilokano

an Ilokano is a person from Ilocos which is a region in the Philippines. Ilocos is not declaring itself separate from the Philippines just in case you're wondering

why the hell would the woman say that?

Because some people have a chip on their shoulder and think them superior to their fellow countrymen? Thankfully, its rare to hear Americans deny their national identity in place of their state identity, but it would be like calling a Texan a New Yorker.

Bakerofish wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Why? I've never really heard much of a negative perception of Filipinos in the US, aside from the fact that all the Filipino women I know are certifiably crazy and extremely fiery (if not also extremely intelligent).

Well Im glad if thats the case. The story changes a lot though when you talk about Asia (HK and Singapore) and the Middle East.

Im reminded of the story my sister told me recently (she's in Canada) where while standing in line at the bank she noticed a woman who looked like she was Filipina. My sister (whos been away from the country for 3 years now) approached her, greeted her and politely asked if she was Filipina.

The woman was offended and indignantly declared that she was not Filipina, that she was Ilokano

an Ilokano is a person from Ilocos which is a region in the Philippines. Ilocos is not declaring itself separate from the Philippines just in case you're wondering

why the hell would the woman say that?

'Cause she's a ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:Because some people have a chip on their shoulder and think them superior to their fellow countrymen? Thankfully, its rare to hear Americans deny their national identity in place of their state identity, but it would be like calling a Texan a New Yorker.

That bad huh?

@chaos

thats the thing, theres not really a "state-identity" for Filipinos beyond some stereo-types. heck Filipinos have stronger reactions to their religious identity(?) than to their state so I really cant say that she was damn proud she was Ilokano.

My buddy is Ilokano, and he has explained the difference as being rural/mountain people vs tagalog (sp?) the city people. But he's never claimed Ilokano as his nationality, simply a different region of the nation.
It's wierd that that lady would respond the way she did... Like if somebody asked me if I were American and I was all like "No way bra, I'm a Californian. You're hella trippin."
Although......

People's national identity can get really confusing. It's best to let every individual define their own nationality and leave it at that.

For example:
A Polish person, pre-WWI, living in Poland (owned by Germany) probably wouldn't agree if you called them German.
A Palestinian person living in Israel probably wouldn't agree if you called them Israeli.

If someone wants to define themselves as Ilokano rather than Filipina, that's there choice. I don't think they have a right to get upset, but if they calmly explain the difference, that's totally acceptable behavior.

chaos0xomega wrote:Because some people have a chip on their shoulder and think them superior to their fellow countrymen?

So, you're saying that you don't understand nationality?

What constitutes a "country"?

Well Im glad if thats the case. The story changes a lot though when you talk about Asia (HK and Singapore) and the Middle East.

Yeah but changing your name is not really going to change the perception that these people have of you anyway.

Frazzled wrote:
That bad huh?

Oh, you lover of bagels and corned beef. We should go down to Lombardi's and get a slice, maybe hit the East Village.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Because some people have a chip on their shoulder and think them superior to their fellow countrymen?

So, you're saying that you don't understand nationality?

What constitutes a "country"?

Putting words in my mouth, cool story bro!

Andrew1975 wrote:

Well Im glad if thats the case. The story changes a lot though when you talk about Asia (HK and Singapore) and the Middle East.

Yeah but changing your name is not really going to change the perception that these people have of you anyway.

My point exactly. Im not the OP

chaos0xomega wrote:
Putting words in my mouth, cool story bro!

No, pointing out that "countrymen" is far from an objective classification.

And, further, not necessarily meaningful, or a thing that precludes being better than a fellow.

Shockingly, you can say things that imply other things.

dogma wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Because some people have a chip on their shoulder and think them superior to their fellow countrymen?

So, you're saying that you don't understand nationality?

What constitutes a "country"?

Country is defined by political/geographical lines.
Nationality is totally different...
Nationality is a shared culture.
On-topic: Does the Philippines have some kind of self-esteem problem so they need other peoples' support for them to change their name? Even if it did matter (Which it doesn't that much IMO) why do you need someone else to support your decision to change name if the motivation to change name comes from trying to have a more native culture? Does that not seem a bit backwards?

sebster wrote:

Krellnus wrote:Having a hard time trying tell if you are being sarcastic here, if you are infact being sarcastic, than you misinterpret my position, I am making out that the British at the time were bad.

Sure, but when you say the British here were bad, bare in mind the 'British' you're talking about people who were British at the time, but whose descendants are now Australian, for the most part. And that while Aboriginal populations were treated very poorly, it is nowhere near the scale of the treatment suffered by native populations in other countries, simply because there were never that many locals around. So instead you have an immigrant population brought over and put to work, and while it in turn wasn't treated very well, it was treated about as poorly as working people were treated anywhere in the world at that time.

Which really does make the situation, and therefore our relationship to the name given to our country, a wholly different situation to that of a country where the local population really was colonised.

Fair enough, I can concede the point.

purplefood wrote:
Country is defined by political/geographical lines.
Nationality is totally different...
Nationality is a shared culture.

Well, it is different, but not totally. Nationality can mean many things, and several of them complicate the concept of "countrymen" even more than the division of territory is already complicated by multiple perspectives. Hence, separatists exist.

purplefood wrote:
Does the Philippines have some kind of self-esteem problem so they need other peoples' support for them to change their name? Even if it did matter (Which it doesn't that much IMO) why do you need someone else to support your decision to change name if the motivation to change name comes from trying to have a more native culture? Does that not seem a bit backwards?

You can call yourself Richard all you want, but I'm going to call you Dick.

Lone Cat wrote:I believe that the Chinese discovered (and at some point, settled this isle) several century before Magelan, or maybe even before Moors exodus (leaving Catholic atrocities, only to be ruled over by Pope's goons)
I believe that Neither Spanish nor Moors 'civilized' this remote isles, Indians or Chinese are likely to be the first two races to tame it. and they probably named it BEFORE magellan did.

The Chinese traded with the locals, but never attempted to form a colony.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Krellnus wrote:

sebster wrote:

Krellnus wrote:Having a hard time trying tell if you are being sarcastic here, if you are infact being sarcastic, than you misinterpret my position, I am making out that the British at the time were bad.

Sure, but when you say the British here were bad, bare in mind the 'British' you're talking about people who were British at the time, but whose descendants are now Australian, for the most part. And that while Aboriginal populations were treated very poorly, it is nowhere near the scale of the treatment suffered by native populations in other countries, simply because there were never that many locals around. So instead you have an immigrant population brought over and put to work, and while it in turn wasn't treated very well, it was treated about as poorly as working people were treated anywhere in the world at that time.

Which really does make the situation, and therefore our relationship to the name given to our country, a wholly different situation to that of a country where the local population really was colonised.

Fair enough, I can concede the point.

Cool

sebster wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:I believe that the Chinese discovered (and at some point, settled this isle) several century before Magelan, or maybe even before Moors exodus (leaving Catholic atrocities, only to be ruled over by Pope's goons)
I believe that Neither Spanish nor Moors 'civilized' this remote isles, Indians or Chinese are likely to be the first two races to tame it. and they probably named it BEFORE magellan did.

The Chinese traded with the locals, but never attempted to form a colony

Come on1 Don´t be like that Sebter it´s 2012, nowadays every discusion about colonialism (specially European) needs a dose of:

The Chinese arrived/discovered/did it first and probably three times and better than you "white" people.

The Metropolis never did anything for us (see my Life of Brian reference).

and of course a touch of the "Noble Savage" myth were every native culture was a paragon peace loving eden and more advanced that the European counterpads. As everybody knows Cortes sieged Tenochtlitan with 600 spaniards, 15 horses and 15 cannon yeah right

On the way to Tenochtitlan, Cortés made alliances with native American tribes such as the Nahuas of Tlaxcala, the Tlaxcaltec, who had surrounded the Spanish and about 2,000 porters on a hilltop and the Totonacs of Cempoala.

[end sarcasm]


M.

Wow < (lol not on purpose I'm not an agent from the Department of tourism)

Guys don't be jologs


Ask a Filipino American are you part-Spanish or part-Chinese, Most likely they will say yes, And say look at my last name it's Caramonte well that is true in super rare cases, Most Spanish last names came from a Spanish name book so they can extort people better (that was the past) kind of like people naming there pet's since you can't understand Animal language if that ever existed, So there you go Identity crisis nut shell

also is there a country in the world named after a mass murderer?

But how does it affect me in a personal way here.

I would rather wear western branding clothe's than bench or penshoppe, I would rather eat Western brand hot dogs than the local tender juicy hot-dogs, I would call Joliebee dirty and head to the nearest McDo even though they have the same hygiene and sanitation practices. Also to end the confusion on how to properly spell the name.

Would you want me to keep typing

And the tourist department actually pushed for a name change, And of course everyone I was like finally time to not be named after a Spanish despot and free our selves from the chains of Colonialisim forever more, and guess what was the name they were pushing for,,, The Philippine Islands


I prefer the name Bayanihan

RecutalThreat wrote:
also is there a country in the world named after a mass murderer?

That depends on what violence you view as legitimate. If we broaden the question to "What countries are name after people who have killed many other people." then the answer is: quite a few.

Bolivia, Venezuela, India, and Saudi Arabia stand out.

Miguelsan wrote:Come on1 Don´t be like that Sebter it´s 2012, nowadays every discusion about colonialism (specially European) needs a dose of:

The Chinese arrived/discovered/did it first and probably three times and better than you "white" people.

No kidding. Gavin Menzies is a lying liar who lies, and shame one whoever published that 1421 book.

The Metropolis never did anything for us (see my Life of Brian reference).

That's kind of where it gets more complicated. I mean, yeah, colonial powers did improve infrastructure, but most of it was dedicated to their own economic activity, and not necessarily of any benefit to the local people. And at the same time, what was inflicted on the local people, either to maintain order or as a negative consequence of the new economic activity (10 million people starved to death in India because of British 'free market' policies).

But on the other hand, it isn't at though things were any kind of utopia beforehand, as you quite rightly pointed out, and the other side has a tendency to think things were idyllic before wihte men came, when really it was just the ugly, boring, short lived life of the subsistance farmer.

So, you know, complicated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:That depends on what violence you view as legitimate. If we broaden the question to "What countries are name after people who have killed many other people." then the answer is: quite a few.

Bolivia, Venezuela, India, and Saudi Arabia stand out.

Really any leader that's powerful enough to hold an empire, and therefore have a country named after them, is inevitably going to have violence done in their name, else they wouldn't have an empire for very long.

If this is what the people want, go for it!

But you should name it Atlantis, or Pandora, or isla nublar.

Why is Philippines spelled with a Ph

But Filipino(a) spelled with an F

?

Can you send me some Lumpia? Pork Menudo?

Miss Filipino cookin' so much.

^
1. India never has a sense of 'national unity' or 'feels of indian people' until it was officially annexed to the British Empire.
2. Burma was a name of big five races living in Irrawady valley, but because they're the best warrior in that region the country was then named as such. the term 'Burma' in fact was spoken as far as Ayutthaya era and usually refers to a superpower located to the west of Ayutthaya (today Thailand). the troops (and maybe commander) however, (usually) hails from Mons people
3. Bolivia is named after the Liberator. by the time Southern america was freed. no folks there welcomed 'Royal Spaniards' until much recently
4. Saudi Arabia named after a clan of arabian warlords, now a monarch of the country. it will be renamed once the 'republican' movements (or other warlords) ousted the clansmen.
5. sometimes. political haze is a reason that affect the country's name. in the past. Thailand was called Siam, until 1930s. when the country's ruling power. the 'League of Peasantry' (the members aren't even hails from peasants caste. they're really a group of noblemen and military juntas) splitted apart (just like what happened after the French Revolution, where a group of revolutionary splitted into smaller factions and fighting against each other. Jacobin emerged victorious and slaughtered Jirondins first, then royalist, and then other rivals) there were at least 2 or 3 factions. one of them led by Field Marshal P. Piboonsongkram, chose the path of 'fascism' (which he himself mixed the ideology of royalist with the then emerging western fascism), by then he took power and renamed the country. givin' the reasons that "Siam was named by Khmere people and chinese took the name for the region. and not what 'Ours' called our land" this political haze had further reinforced by 'anti-chinese' mindset ,and the then-latest discovery of a missionary on a group of minor races living in the south of China, this race shares the same culture and speaking the same language as those in the northern region of Siam. The decision had upsetted other tribesmen living here. this country hoever, never 'officially' reverted its name back to Siam after the end of WW2 (P. Piboonsongkram sided with Axis, while his rivals sided with Allies).
Personally the country has to be renamed to Siam.

What I mean is mass murderer of Innocents

Lone Cat wrote:
1. India never has a sense of 'national unity' or 'feels of indian people' until it was officially annexed to the British Empire.

Sure, but they still named themselves after a mythical conqueror.

Lone Cat wrote:
3. Bolivia is named after the Liberator. by the time Southern america was freed. no folks there welcomed 'Royal Spaniards' until much recently

Simon Bolivar killed a lot of people.

Lone Cat wrote:
4. Saudi Arabia named after a clan of arabian warlords, now a monarch of the country. it will be renamed once the 'republican' movements (or other warlords) ousted the clansmen.

Maybe, maybe not. The Sauds are pretty popular, and widespread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RecutalThreat wrote:What I mean is mass murderer of Innocents

The problem is that "murder" and "innocent" are really flexible terms.

Despite myself I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just trying to explain some weird nonsense of the English language to someone I assume is not a native speaker.

The Sauds are pretty popular, and widespread.

I think the Sauds make up 50% of the population there. Or at least it seems that way.

^ so the 'Sauds' is really the name of tribe and not a name of family/clan ??

RecutalThreat wrote:Wow < (lol not on purpose I'm not an agent from the Department of tourism)
Guys don't be jologs

this is the moment where you lose my interest and respect.

Yeesh.

Lone Cat wrote:^ so the 'Sauds' is really the name of tribe and not a name of family/clan ??

It is the name of a family group. A very large one.

^ thanks meow

About Venezuela. and the Catholic VS Reformists conflicts duirng the Renaissance

Venezuela did changed its hands to German city state (Augsburg i think) by the time of Charles V (Spain as a part of Holy Roman Empire). it had a distinct german name 'Klien Venedig'. however the name wasn't recognized even by germans. by the time that Religious reforms had spreaded across europe. however. the colony reverted back to Spanish rule...
1. In the 30 years war. who did the Augsburg sided with? the Empire or the Reformists?
2. and even after the war was ended. why wasn't Venezuela returned to german hands? and what deals in the threaty of westphalia worths any exchange with the colony?
3. and why wasn't germanic name being recognized even by modern germans?

Are you talking about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonization_of_the_Americas ?

The germans never colonized Venezuela, some banking families close to the Ausburgs (Royal lineage of Spain and Austria) got a lease from Charles V to settle there founding a colony for Spain, when they got into trouble the lease was revoked and the territory went back to the spanish direct government, the ownership was never out of spanish hands.

M.

PS: Sebster I agree 100% with you points, colonization is a touchy issue but I blame Historical Materialism that at least in Hispanoamerica keeps identifying Spain with the "capital" and opression and promote the good savage myth.

Why not?


But I see it this way: The Philipines are much more famous than the King that gave them their name, which is a triumph itself.

LunaHound wrote:

Krellnus wrote:Honestly, no support here, the reason you have for changing the name of your country is imo, quite a pathetically trivial one, that would be the same as me saying that we should change the name of my country because its name was given by the British who used it as a penal colony and slaughtered thousands of people (just on this continent) in the name of progress.

Not really, the only reason Australia doesnt seem to be effected as much is you guys already have a worse name branded ........

disagree here, it would be like calling Scotland "longshanksland" no Scot on the planet would tolerate it, so why should the Phillipino's?

if they want to change their countries name, because it was named after a tyrannical ex leader, i say go for it

incidentally, im sure i read somewhere the first name given to Australia was "Van Diemans Land" so IF that is correct, your argument doesnt REALLY hold any weight

Dark Scipio wrote:Why not?


But I see it this way: The Philipines are much more famous than the King that gave them their name, which is a triumph itself.

Thank you.

Plus a Name change would not have to be an instant change, It can happen gradually and over time.

Like slowly starting out with new schoolbooks then after a while new maps then it goes on slowly until in hopefully something like 15 years it would phase out.

NO need to be instantaneous.

oooops, wrong thread lol

Wee_Tam wrote:
disagree here, it would be like calling Scotland "longshanksland" no Scot on the planet would tolerate it, so why should the Phillipino's?

if they want to change their countries name, because it was named after a tyrannical ex leader, i say go for it

incidentally, im sure i read somewhere the first name given to Australia was "Van Diemans Land" so IF that is correct, your argument doesnt REALLY hold any weight

Van Deiman's Land was Tasmania.
They can call themselves what they like. No one cares about history any more, anyway. May as well call themselves "Mmmmm Snickers".

Joey wrote:

Wee_Tam wrote:
disagree here, it would be like calling Scotland "longshanksland" no Scot on the planet would tolerate it, so why should the Phillipino's?

if they want to change their countries name, because it was named after a tyrannical ex leader, i say go for it

incidentally, im sure i read somewhere the first name given to Australia was "Van Diemans Land" so IF that is correct, your argument doesnt REALLY hold any weight

Van Deiman's Land was Tasmania.
They can call themselves what they like. No one cares about history any more, anyway. May as well call themselves "Mmmmm Snickers".

That sounds like a tasty country...

Joey wrote: No one cares about history any more

That is the saddest thing I've read all week.

Miguelsan wrote:PS: Sebster I agree 100% with you points, colonization is a touchy issue but I blame Historical Materialism that at least in Hispanoamerica keeps identifying Spain with the "capital" and opression and promote the good savage myth.

It's probably a bit broad to condemn the whole of Historical Materialism for the issue, but I do agree that the socialist wing falls into that trap way too often.

Hmm, I guess given it's that specific socialist wing that some people mean when they say "Historical Materialism" then I agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote: No one cares about history any more, anyway.

The extent to which people read and study history, it's diffusion amon the general population, and the importance of our historical understanding on policy is just as great, if not greater than it's ever been. You would know this if you'd read history. Although, I guess, given you don't care about history, asking that is a bit much.

^
the resons none cares of history might be because
1. there's TOO much to be remember. and much of fwhich aren't joyful ones.
2. an individual with this perceptions usually believes in the concepts of 'Knowledge utilization'. anything deemed useful worths remembering. anythings deemed useless is to be forgotten.

Lone Cat wrote:^
the resons none cares of history might be because
1. there's TOO much to be remember. and much of fwhich aren't joyful ones.
2. an individual with this perceptions usually believes in the concepts of 'Knowledge utilization'. anything deemed useful worths remembering. anythings deemed useless is to be forgotten.

There are no doubt lots of reasons why someone might not care about history. Just like there are lots of reasons that someone might not care about 40K. That doesn't mean that no-one cares about history. We know that isn't true.