Language in the Role of Nationalism and Regionalism

Louie Vital

Philippines Study Abroad

Week 3- Education

Language in the Role of Nationalism and Regionalism

Language is tied directly to identity, which is related to a person’s sense of nationalism. Because of the varying languages within the Philippines, a sense of nationalism can be difficult to create. Manila and Tagalogs as an ethno-linguistic group have a monopoly on the concept of nation. A local artist named Kawayan Deguia, described his work, saying Manila is the “plain that’s corrupting the rest of the country”. (De Guia, 2014) This quote describes how nationalism is based on Manila and Tagalogs, which ignores the provinces and linguistic minorities. At a lecture with Dr. Campomanes, one of his grad students mentioned how people in the Philippines relate more through linguistic communities rather than ethnic communities. (Campomanes, 2014) He discussed how national identity is difficult to achieve because of the many ethno-linguistic groups.

I was surprised to learn that Tagalog is only the 4^th most widely spoken language in the Philippines yet was declared the national language (Campomanes, 2014). Tagalog is the national language because Tagalog provinces led the resistance against Spain and America.

In Cavite, we visited the house of General Aguinaldo, one of the leading Filipino revolutionaries. On his dining room ceiling, there was a mural of the Philippines. Cebu was highlighted in red because people there believed Cebu was the heart of the revolution. If the language Cebuano is spoken more widely than Tagalog, why isn’t Cebuano the national language?

Aguinaldo Shrine

I found it interesting how some people prefer speaking English rather than Tagalog because it is a sign of resistance against the dominant culture. For example, the Ifugao people prefer speaking Tuwali and English rather than Tagalog. They’re fighting a colonizing culture with a different colonizer’s language.

Some Filipinos identify much more with their region than their country. My professor mentioned how some people identify only with their region and reject their country: i.e. “I’m Ilocano, Not Filipino.” This divide between languages is the root for the lack of solid nationalism (Constantino, 1982). Americans intended the instruction of English not only to ease the process of assimilation, but also to unify the Philippine islands. Through teaching English to civilize the Filipinos, the colonizers created a guise of non-imperialist “saving” (Paulet, 2007, p. 184). Yes, Filipinos are able to communicate with English and there is a sense of unity throughout the archipelago, however its instruction at such a young age hinders their ability to fully master their native language. (Constantino, 1982, p. 189)

From a display at the University of Santo Tomas

At the same time there is a movement to eradicate Tagalog classes at universities. There is an emphasis on English because it the “language of democracy” and the language of power (Constantino, 1982, p.186). The point is to increase the quality of Filipino education but they are doing so through American standards. Why is that? This can be explained by David and Ozaki’s Colonial Mentality Scale. David and Ozaki describe an “automatic and uncritical preference for anything American” (David and Okazaki, 2006, p. 241). Rather than judging Filipino education through Filipino standards, Filipinos measure themselves according to their colonizers.

Non-Tagalog speaking peoples have to fight two colonizers. They are fighting two battles so in a sense, they are double minorities. They are already othered as a Filipino by non-Filipinos, and are further othered as minority Filipinos by majority Filipinos. Sir Raymond, one of the instructors from The Philippine Women’s University inspired me to think about this concept. It’s difficult for the struggles of Tagalog-speaking Filipinos to be recognized, so how much more difficult for a non- Tagalog- speaking Filipinos?

English unifies and divides. It especially divides by class. People here are measured by their proficiency in English. For example, our Arnis instructor’s daughter does not know how to speak Tagalog. She attends an only English-speaking school. While she may be able to make better connections globally, her own culture is being sacrificed in the process. It is "death for the sake of prosperity" (Shaw, 2014). Constantino describes the disconnect between upper class politicians and the rest of the populace. Since the two parties do not communicate in the same language, the majority often leave issues to the English-speaking minority thus becoming disengaged in the democratic process. The language of democracy hinders the very process. (Constantino, 1982, p. 188)

Daughter of our Arnis instructor

The divide between nationalism and regionalism is a lot to internalize. It can be difficult to understand since I am already struggling trying to understand the oppressions of the Filipinos as a whole so to suddenly learn of Filipinos oppressing less dominant groups is saddening.

Millennia Ago

During our trip to the Ayala museum, I learned that globalization, colonization and religious conversions are as old as time. The museum had a diorama display showing how trade with the Chinese dated back to circa 1000 AD. This surprised me because I often think of globalization as a relatively new concept. The rate of globalization has increased nowadays due to our new technology, but trade has been widely practiced for thousands of years. Six millennia ago, Filipinos had flourishing culture and commerce. Globalization is normalized and perhaps its increasing visibility contributes to the misconception of it as a rising concept.

After watching a short film at the museum regarding Austronesian migration, I learned the Austronesian spread was a result of colonization by Austronesian speakers from Neolithic times. I wondered why colonization in that context is accepted and normalized. Why is it not demonized similar to the way we discuss colonization today?

During the discussion after showing her film, “Nailed”, Dr. Shaw was referencing questioning the colonizer’s religion. Shaw made the comment, “We can’t go back that far. We are the way we are because of history.”

Well why can’t we? Why can’t we go back that far? Why should we dismiss the past? It happened, and it is still colonization. Why is that excused and justified? Is it because it occurred so long ago and there is no longer a single recognizable entity to blame? I find that contradicting because in her credits for her movie “Vestiges of War” Shaw thanks Ileto for “teaching us to resist historical amnesia”. Forgetting the past and not allowing ourselves to think “back that far” is practicing historical amnesia, is it not?

Works Cited:

Campomanes, O. (2014). Languages of the Philippines. [PowerPoint Slideshow]. Retrieved from Ateneo University.

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.

De Guia, Kawayan. (2014). Art Gallery. [PowerPoint Slideshow]. Retrieved from the Philippine Women’s University.

Paulet, A. (2007). To change the world: The use of American Indian education in the Philippines. History of Educational Quarterly, 47 (2), 173- 202.

Shaw, A. (2014). Nailed. [PowerPoint Slideshow]. Retrieved from the Philippine Women’s University.