This week, our experiences in the
Philippines again focused on the concept of Filipino identity, and how it has
come to be what it is today after centuries of foreign colonization in the
Philippines. One of the biggest factors that led to the dissolution of the
native Filipino identity was the introduction of the American education system,
and how it has since manipulated and transformed the Filipino identity that
existed prior to its introduction. This week, my discussion question was why
have Filipinos maintained such a close relationship with the United States
after gaining their independence, specifically, why have they continued to
remain so dependent on America despite their own mistreatment and
discrimination by this same American social system?
As
Renato Constantino discusses in his article “The Miseducation of the Filipino,”
the educational system introduced by the Americans had to correspond, and was
designed to correspond, to the economic and political reality of American
conquest (Constantino 178). Through
their colonization of the Philippines, the Americans never had any intentions
of implementing their systems throughout the islands for the sake of Filipinos.
Their goal was to colonize the Philippines for their own advantage, while
falsely stating that it was for the sake of the Filipinos rather than for their
American imperialistic ideals.
Our
trip to Ayala museum this week was stimulating because it really illustrated
many different aspects of Filipino history, through the use of dialogue and dioramas. One connecting point that was exciting to experience was our visit to Aguinaldo
Shrine in Kawit, Cavite. As outlined in the explanation of one of the dioramas
at Ayala Museum, Emilio Aguinaldo’s return to Cavite from his exile in Hong
Kong was a turning point in the revolution of the Philippines. It was after his
return, at his residence in Cavite, that Philippine independence from Spain was
proclaimed, although unbeknownst to Filipinos at the time, this independence
would be short lived, and without any true merit to the Americans.
Similar
to early American treatment of Natives Americans, Americans viewed Filipinos as
‘others’ from the beginning. In Anne Paulet’s article “To change the World: The
Use of American Indian Education in the Philippines,” Euro-Americans labeled
Native Americans and Filipinos, among other words, “savages,’ furthering
distancing these people from their own societies. As Carisle president Richard
H. Pratt stated, their aim was to “kill the Indian in him, and save the man” (Paulet
173). A major component of the decimation of Native Americans was the
educational restructuring of Native American lifestyles. In her article, Paulet
writes,
“These educational
efforts at restructuring Native American lifestyles were more than the culmination
of the battle over definitional control; they were precedents for future
American imperial expansion as the United States discovered, at the turn of the
century, that “Indians” also lived overseas and that, just like those at home,
they needed to be properly educated in the American way of life’ (Paulet 173).
This mindset set
the precedent for American imperial expansion elsewhere, specifically the
Philippines. A major component of the implementation of an American system was the
reeducation of the Philippines. Constantino discusses how effective capturing
one’s mind can be, stating, “The molding of men's minds is the best means of
conquest.” As a result, education “serves as a weapon in wars of colonial
conquest” (Constantino 178).
One
main way that America hoped to restructure the lifestyle of Filipinos was
through the implementation of their own language, English. In our discussion at
Ateneo, Dr. Oscar Compamanes stated that even today, debate is raging because
education has done away with Filipino language courses. He told us that one
major question around identity has to do with language choice within the
Philippines. By replacing native Filipino languages with English, America
helped to dissolve Filipino identity and maneuverability by limiting their
ability to interact with, and counteract American colonization. In addition to
this, by setting English as a standard within the educational system, America
created a new generation of Filipino-Americans, one that “had already come of
age thinking and acting like little Americans” (Constantino 180). Constantino
explains that the decision to use English as the medium of instruction was the
wedge that separated the Filipinos from their past, and “later was to separate
educated Filipinos from the masses of their countrymen” Constantino 181).
In our discussion at the Philippines
Women’s University, Dr. Angel Shaw elaborated on what Filipino identity has
come to be following colonization of the Philippines. She said that a trait of
the Filipino identity that she has personally recognized is the fact that
Filipinos have always struggled for independence and social identity, and that
“this feels authentically Filipino, it’s something I see every day. It feels
very Filipino.” In a later lecture at PWU, Kawayan Tahimik mirrored this
sentiment, telling us that historically there hasn’t been any dialogue or
platform within the Philippines for one to express his or herself. He went on
to state that one thing that is a big problem in the Philippines are the walls,
the social walls, that exist, blocking all different kinds platforms. One point
that resonated with me that ties all of this together was in Claudette’s
statement that Filipinos take what they believe more intensely than those who
gave it to them. This can be seen in “The Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS) for
Filipino Americans: Scale Construction and Psychological Implications,” by E.
J. R. David and Sumie Okazaki.
In
this piece, David and Okazaki discuss colonial mentality, or internalized
colonialism, as an after effect of colonization. This mentality adopted by
Filipinos is
multidimensional and is best conceptualized and measured as five correlated
factors that reflect five distinct ways that colonial mentality has been manifested
by Filipino Americans. They identified these manifestations as “internalized
cultural and ethnic inferiority, cultural shame and embarrassment, within-group
discrimination, physical characteristics, and colonial debt” (David 248).
Without a doubt, this mentality has come about as a result of the dissemination
of what it means to be a Filipino following American colonization. As Dr. Shaw
stated, “colonization affects
every body; Filipinos are the way we are because of history.”
In reflection of my discussion question,
focusing on why Filipinos have maintained such a close relationship with the
United States after gaining their independence, as well as why they have continued
to remain so dependent on America despite their own mistreatment and
discrimination by this same American social system, it becomes apparent that
this dependence has manifested itself over the last century as a direct result
of how America implemented their own
system of ideals into this nation. The history of the treatment of the islands
and natives of the Philippines has perpetuated itself through an Americanized
Filipino identity over the years. As a result of this Americanization of the
Philippines, Filipinos have essentially come to view the Philippines’
relationship with America as a part of their own identity, whether or not they
agree with the politics that exist behind it.
Works Cited
Constantino, R. (1982).
Miseducation of Filipinos. In I In A.V. Shaw & L.H Francia, Vestiges
of war. (pp. 177-192). New York: New York Press.
David, E.J.R.,
& Okazaki, S. (2006). The Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS) for Filipino
Americans: Scale construction and psychological implications: A review and
recommendation.
Journal of Counseling Psychology 53 (1), pp. 1–16.
No comments:
Post a Comment