Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.