A
formal education is an essential part of not only identity formation but also
creating a successful economic and social life. The ability to think critically
and communicate effectively makes one more likely to acquire a job that is both
emotionally and financially fulfilling. The education system in the Philippines
comes from a legacy of colonial domination from America, which supplanted an
education system designed in the U.S. to suppress a sense of indigenous
sovereignty among the people now known as Native Americans in order to make
them dependent on the American state through assimilation into American
culture. This unchanged system in the Philippines has created issues
surrounding Filipino identity and economic competitiveness on the international
scene. A more Filipino-centric
curriculum, which focuses on the accomplishments of the peoples, now termed
Filipinos framed outside of the narrative of owing America gratitude for
bringing civilization and education to the Philippines is essential for creating
a more viable Filipino state
In
Paulet’s “The American Indian Education in the Philippines” Paulet describes the
history of Philippine-American relations in terms of education. The Americans claimed that both Native
Americans and Filipinos were savages unfit for self-governance and needed to be
educated in order to gain independence, thus justifying the American occupation
of the Philippines as beneficial to both America and the Philippines (Paulet
174). America viewed itself not as a brutal imperial power like the Europeans
but as an educator. To America, the many languages and tribes of the
Philippines, like among the Native Americans, showed that Filipinos could not
successfully form a nation (Paulet 175). They needed to be united through a common
language, English and a common culture through education: “By altering the
lifestyles of these two people to more closely resemble that of Americans, the
United States could maintain control without the use of force and could achieve
economic success without the appearance of exploitation” (Paulet 201). Through
educating the Filipinos in this way, Filipinos gained what David and Okazaki
refer to as “colonial mentality.” Filipinos were taught to think of themselves
as indebted to America and inferior to Americans. Colonial mentality creates a feeling of
inferiority about Filipino identity, culture, and body, to be white,
Americanized, and Western thinking is to be good (David and Okazaki 241).
Anything that differs from this is discriminated against by people who have a
high placement on the colonial mentality scale and therefore accept historical
and contemporary oppression as necessary for the civilizing and modernizing
processes that come along with them (David and Okazaki 241). Due to identity
being spread through socializing and education, the need to fit in causes
colonial mentality to be spread: “We also predict that covert aspects of CM
will positively correlate with socialization and oppression, providing support
to the notion that CM may be passed on through generations” (David and Okazaki
243). Constantino’s article deals with the continued manifestations of colonial
mentality and its effects of the Philippine state. Filipinos are taught in the English language
in school but do not communicate in it in public or at home. This creates an
issue where Filipinos do not have a full
grasp of either English or their native tongue.
“This is a
barrier to Democracy. People don’t even think it is their duty to know, or that
they are capable of understanding national problems. Because of the language
barrier, therefore, they are content to leave everything to their leaders. This
is one of the root causes of their apathy, their regionalism or parochialism.
Thus, English which was supposedly envisioned as the language of democracy is
in our country a barrier to the full flowering of democracy” (Constantino 188).
By having a public that does not fully understand the
language that is spoken in government and feels it unimportant to participate
in politics, this creates a governing body that does not feel accountable for
the public. When a government is not accountable to its people it become
corrupt and does not properly allocate funds to the places they need to go.
Constantino draws a connection between this lack of a true national language
with the economic situation in the Philippines (Constantino 191). In order to
have a strong economy and a government that works for the people, ultimately
leading to the betterment of Filipino lives, there needs to be a curriculum
that focuses on a national language and gives a positive view of Filipino
culture. Filipinos need to feel that they can compete on a global scale.
However, how does one create a national culture and language out of such a
diverse set of people drawn together under the term Filipino through
colonialism without following the path laid down by the colonizers? In order to
create a national culture, the regional and local cultures must be marginalized
and suppressed as described in the Paulet reading. How much does Constantino’s
call for a national culture fall into these same patterns and show an
acceptance of the necessity of the suppression of indigenous culture in order
to compete with the U.S. on a global scale?
Bibliography
Constantino, R. (1982). Miseducation Of Filipinos. 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.
Paulet, A. (2007). To change the world: The use of American
Indian education in the Philippines. History of Educational Quarterly, 47
(2), 173-202.
No comments:
Post a Comment