My brother says that there is nothing wrong with letting our Hispanic roots die out since most of us do not have a close Spanish ancestor. We as a people (or in my opinion individuals) can choose and it may seem to some "stupid" but its not like without our Spanish roots we are nothing. If anything else we should reforge our identity. You could whether or not to accept it but one side should not ridicule the other. Ultimately don't each individual has the final on how they view themselves?

mahalin ang sariling atin

I'm sorry I do not understand Tagalog (yes I know shame on my part). My brother just proposed this statement and I was trying to think of some argument against it. I know there is one but it is escaping me. He does have a point that we are not less of a person if we choose to ignore it but I know there is something to argue about here.

"cherish what is truly ours"

an argument someone could use.... that with these other influences.. makes our culture "richer & more diverse"

(You could whether or not to accept it but one side should not ridicule the other. Ultimately don't each individual has the final on how they view themselves? )
could be..
but then, if each individual claims this thing & the next person a whole different one.. there will be no unity as a people.. & our people would (esp. in the eyes of non-filipinos) just look "confused" or doesn't know themselves" or have "colonial mentality" & they notice this

reminds me of the famous jose rizal quote,
"Ang hindi magmahal sa sariling wika ay higit pa sa hayop at malansang isda" ("He who does not love his own language is worse than an animal and smelly fish.")
but he's talking about more that just language

[Without a common identity, there could be no real sense of nationhood. This is what Rizal meant by that famous quotation]
good analogy.. http://thefilipinomind.blogspot.com/2005/1...-malansang.html

so what is this common identity? in a country like the Philippines with its diversity what common identity do we have? I like our chats I find your opinions thought out.

every native filipino ethnic group have the same roots... same language family.. similar austronesian cultures.... common history ...fought the same oppressors... same struggle... things like that


we have more in common than we have differences

that was what I was going for very nice answer. I was just thinkin the same thing. So do you think we should use spanish as a lingua franca or just try to revise Pilipino to have less tagalog and more balance

i don't want the gods of our conquerors nor their language to be the lingua franca of the native Austronesian people of our islands

If Filipinos let their Hispanic roots die and simply ignore the Spanish language, they are being careless about their own history and culture.

Note that 90% of Filipino history is written in Spanish, and only a few percentage has been translated into English.

If you let your Hispanic roots die, the future generations of Filipinos will not know who the hell Jose Rizal was and that he wrote two Spanish novels, Noli Mi Tangere and El Filibusterismo, and that his last goodbye farewell before execution was written in Spanish.

You will forget the history of your national anthem, originally written in Spanish by Juan Palma, Filipinas.

You will forget the history of your own Declaration of Independence from the United States of America, which was originally written in Spanish.

Basically ignoring a certain aspect of one's culture and not acknowledging it and try to preserve it like every other aspect is being ignorant and reckless of one's own heritage.

Your brother, my dear, is not proud to be Filipino. You can't scream Filipino pride and say f*ck Hispanicism. Your saying f*ck to the Roman Catholicism of the Philippines which has Latin and Spanish roots. You're saying f*ck to Juan Luna who studied in the Royal Academy in Madrid, Spain.

Well he is only proud of the non-Western aspects of Filipino. He is not very fond of Western culture, and I don't think denying the Roman Catholicism aspect is denying Spain, the Catholic Church is its own culture to which I am very proud of.

Roman Catholicism in the Philippines is heavily dominated by Spanish culture. A ast majority of the churches in the Philippines for example, the ones built during the Spanish era, were all sponsored by the Spanish monarchy.

The Catholic Church itself is mainly Middle-Eastern and Latin culture.

French, Spanish and Italian culture evolved out of Latin culture.

Roman Catholicism was spread mainly by the Spanish Catholic Monarchs, Queen Isabel and King Philip (where Philippines got its name). If the Spanish monarchy had not converted South America, the Philippines and Africa I think Anglican and Prontestantism would be more dominent by now since the British were also great colonizers and spread the Church of England (Anglicanism).

well if we are to acknowledge our Spanish roots then shouldn't they stop trying to deny they have Arabic roots. Ironically even though they were under the rule of a foreign power for some 800 years once they reclaimed their peninsula they kicked out Jews and Arabs unless they converted. They used religion as some ways to justify their actions.

The Spaniards acknowledge their Arabian roots, where the hell did you get the idea of denying them?

There's even a Spanish creole language that's mixed with Middle-Eastern languages, called Ladino.

If you go to Spain, the people and government have preserved numerous Arabic heritage sites, such as Alhambra.

Just because Spain is predominantly Catholic doesn't mean they are denying their Arabic roots. The Spanish language itself contains Arabic words.

Also it was the war of religions back in those days. You're talking about the Crusades and all that.

If you look at it as a whole, both Muslims and Christians are stupid since they used their religion to justfiy their actions.

Sure the Kingdom of Leon and Castille expelled that Arabians and Islam in the Iberian peninsula.

But what have you got to say of the Islam Turks invading the Christian Greeks and enslaving them.

Better yet, about the invasion of Turkey and Istanbul by the Islamic Persians, where numerous Christians were massacred during the siege of Istanbul, once a Christian city, now is an Islamic city, with little traces of its Christian roots.

Ironically the star you see in the flag of Turkey used to represent the Virgin Mary.

This is my issue with people, they look everything on one point of view, they never bother to learn the whole story.

Now the Islams don't sound so nice now are they. Christians weren't nice either.

hmm, maybe not.. former parts of the british empire in Asia .. India, Bahrain, Palestine, Malaysia, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Singapore, Bangladesh, Brunei, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Nepal, Myanmar, Hong Kong.. they pretty much all kept their religions

I think Protestantism is much much more "culture friendly" than the "religion" they call catholicism.

im not sure about it being 'much much more' culture friendly. theyre wernt that friendly to the natives of the US, i can tell you that

well, if you have to say something good about the former British Empire, it's that beside killing the American Indians, pillaging India and pimping & drugging China it did abolish slavery in Africa and the Transatlantic slave trade, at least after earning some money after capturing the Portuguese and Spanish slave monopoly. That's also where most the Anglican missionaries went, although they have some major difference of opinions today.

its more like whose lesser of the two evils

He still watches our every step, the baroque Castilian bureaucrat...too bad that noone, Indio, Moro or Kastila really cared for his opinion in Spain's westernmost colony.

mali po ang sinabi nyo! ang iglesia catolica ay western christianity po. dahil nung taon 1054 po, nagkaroon ng tawag na "east-west schism". yung eastern christianity ng mg mga arabo, greco, mga russo ay eastern orthodox christians. ang mga roman catholics po ay mga western christians.

sa hurisdiksyon ng iglesia tomana catolica ay nag bigay bunga ang mga iba't ibang denominations na kristyano tulad ng mga protestante, mormon, evagelical, iglesia ni kristo, aglipay, ect.

yun lang po.

What I meant to say was that Roman Catholicism has Middle-Eastern and Latin Culture roots.

Christianity was born in the Middle-East, so did Islam and Judaism.

That automatically makes any form of Christianity infused with Middle-Eastern influence and roots.

It doesn't matter whether it's Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholicism, they both have Middle-Eastern roots which stems from Jerusalem.

It was all because of the Nicene Council that Christianity was split into Eastern and Western.

When I said Latin Culture I meant the Roman Empire. It was through the expansion of the Roman Empire that Christianity was spread througout Europe.

Along with Christianity, the Latin Language also spread throughout Europe, and many European regions began adopting Roman culture.

Many European countries such as Spain, Britain and France are examples of the product of the Roman Empire.

Spain and France retained much of its Latin/Roman influence, while Britain struggled to retain it after the Roman Empire declined.

^thats right Christianity, Judaism & Islam are all Abrahamic religions

There is also the Baha'í and Rastafari which are also Abrahamic religions.

There are also Christianty sects which were formed earlier than the Roman Catholicism.

It depends what you call a Filipino. If your conceptualisation of national identity is based on race or ethnicity, then you would of course, address this mater along the lines of what others have already stated; about 'austronesian' ethnic identity and perceived things one may consider as 'true' Filipino culture.

However, this definition is the same one which has driven empires, bred blinding nationalism, encouraged hate and conflict and as some have stated, ignores the diversity and complexity of Filipino culture. Do you exclude people from 'Filipino' status? Are the Moro Filipino? Are migrants Filipino? The Tsinoy? Insulares?

Whilst I am not ethnically Austronesian, I nonetheless share a connection to the through my father and other descendants. Whilst they were Spanish though-and-through, their culture and their identity is far closer to their adopted homeland than their ethnic 'origin' of Spain. Living in a multi-ethnic society like Australia,one's ethnic identity is far less important than one's cultural identity. Are not all citizens brought together by their citizenship?

For good or ill, the Spanish colonial history - like the American colonial period, had a clear impact upon Filipino culture and on the Philippines itself. I accept the horrors that such colonialism wrought alongside the minor 'positives'; which arguably do not overcome the lasting impacts of that history. Like any other person of non-pinoy ethnic identity living or who once lived in the Philippines, it is still special in my eyes, not because I have ethnic connections lasting thousands of years, but because of the shared cultural and historical connections I share.

For me, a Pinoy is a Filipino, but not all Filipino are Pinoy. My ancestors helped the Philippines gain its independence, fought for it against the Japanese and contributed to it in numerous ways. Ethnicity should have no bearing in my mind on what constitutes a Filipino. Nor should religion, the colour of your skin, your language, your name or what you ate last Thursday. No-one can tell you how to be Filipino and those that do simply don't understand that culture is as personal as it is collective. If you have a more or less Hispanic understanding of what constitutes a 'Filipino' and be just as Filipino as anyone else.

TL;DR - Understanding hispanic culture is important to understand Filipino culture overall and may be worth maintaining for reasons stated previously, but it is not a necessity for being 'Filipino', just as disavowing Hispanic culture will not make you more 'Filipino'.

This is my personal opinion and just as I say that national identity is more about personal attachment via shared history/culture, you can by all means have a different understanding of what is 'Filipino'. Just don't judge anyone based on their own understandings.

Spain should take pride in their Arabic heritage/language(Andalusian Arabic) since they were colonized by Moros & became a province of muslim dynasties for nearly 800 years. basically all of the literary works at the time were written in Arabic

With such an intelligent response I am proud that you call yourself Filipino. Indeed I think that was the answer I was looking for. Yes having an understanding of Hispanic culture can help you understand the "Filipino" culture but knowing about it or now caring doesn't make you less. Since it is a nationality just being born their and shared heritage/culture makes you a Filipino. We live in a culture that is very easy to look at one thing and just that. Some will identify more with other aspects that others, Hispanic aspect (those with Hispanic blood possibly), the Chinese aspect (those who Chinese blood), some a combo of both along with the Austronesian or just Austronesian for some. Your ancestors may have screwed mines over but that's is in the past so whatever, I am proud to call you a brother.

To put it simply, a cultured Filipino is someone who acknowledges their own history rather than choose to forget or ignore "ceratin parts."

If I should add, Filipino history as it is thought in the Philippines tells only 50% of the whole story. It focuses too much on the "Revolution" - not enough on things like Ancient History (i.e. Malayasian and Chinese contact, the old Rajah's and Sultans, etc.) or Colonial Culture (invasion of Chinese pirates in Intramuros, Governor-Generals, etc.)

I live in Canada, we had to learn everything about the Aboriginals in History class (there's so many tribes, from the French-Aboriginal "Métis", sounds like Mestizo doesn't it? To the Northern Inuits. Creation stories, etc.), and we had to memorize a lot about the Governor-Generals, battles, etc. during the British and French colonial eras.

Philip II mother was the daughter of Queen Isabella. But his father was not Spanish. He was from Flanders in what is today Belgium. His father became Philip I of Spain. He brought Spain under the control of the House of Habsburg.
Queen Isabella always wanted to have a connection to the important royal houses of Europe. She got her wish but in return Spain ended up with rulers who were connected to foreign Royal Houses. Some say, not all, that because of this royal foreign house connection that some of Spains rulers just used Spains Empires richess to support there main Royal House in Central Europe. Could explain why Spains was involved in financing wars in many parts of Europe. In other words they used Spain has a cash cow and could careless if she went dry since there main interests were in Central Europe.

Many of Spains separate realms did not care for Philip II.

In time the House of Hapsburg managed to bring the realms under there control. After the House of Habsburg was tossed out the House of Bourbon, another foreign house, took over.

The native royal house in Spain was the House of Trastámara which ended in 1555.



Read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Trastámara

So would Spain have ended up different under the House_of_Trastámara since it seems under the Habsburg and Bourbon Spain in time lost it all, went into economic decline and then had a Civil War which devastated there nation.

Interesting discussion.

I have to agree that although Spanish colonization was a horrific time in Philippine history, it's important that we know and understand the whole story, not just skewed snippets to further American idealism. Filipinos don't even seem to understand their own history because we've shut out large parts of it. To understand Filipino history, we need to understand the language and as someone mentioned earlier, many historical books are in the Spanish language. Meaning gets lost in translation.

We also need to understand the indigenous cultures and the differences among them. Yes, we're all human and often, there are more similarities than differences, but Filipinos are painted with the same brush. We forget that they are much more complex than that...with so many individual islands, of course there will be differences. "Filipino" is simply a way of trying to unite people but in the process, we sweep certain cultures under the rug as we try to make one particular culture the dominant one.

I'd also like to see more research done in other cultures' (ie. Indian, Arabic, Chinese, and Mexican) influence on the Philippines. We see the influence (by our religion, loan words, foods, etc.) but we don't exactly know the story behind it. For instance, for the longest time...I had no idea that the Philippines had been trading with Mexico and that later influenced what foods the inhabitants of each country ate. Instead, we get a Reader's Digest that seems to only start with the Spanish colonization and later American colonization (although the Americans, for some reason, are painted in a more positive, heroic light).

My autosome (23andme) revealed that I have some sort of european ancestry from filipino side.. I think that could also mean indian or arabic. that being said

I think philipines should have all elements from spain erased from our culture. The Philippines is an Important place in austronesian History. While filipinos largely descend from the negritos, the Austronesian culture i think is our most important historical heritage. It shows that many of us WERE NOT the savage tribals that westerners and even East Asians make our Pre-1500 AD history out to be.

We come from a great civilization of Hindus, Muslims and buddhists. Our people were the first to sail to Sub-sarahan africa, and maybe even the Americans. Focusing on this spainish BS, makes us forget about our true history.

Don't lump us together with those Latinos.
We're not Latinos. We're not Hispanics.

Spain barely touched us. Spanish blood is negligible. Almost zero.
We're distinct.

It also can also be Arabic Andalucians who converted to Christianity the Cristiano nuevo and many of them became crews and sailors in the Galleons. Example of Andalucians are Antonio Banderas and Penolope Cruz and they can sometimes be mistaken as Pinoy.

It can also be Marranos or Cryto Jews which many of them also landed in the Philippines to seek refuge and assylum.

It seems the Philippines had more a Mexican connection then a Spanish connection. Not until Mexico became independent did Spain take full charge of directly running the Phillipines. Before it was done via Mexico.

Watch this really good video on "Mexico and The Philippines: History". Seems Mexico tried to help in the Philippines Independence decades before the Spanish American war.

Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILwDrdM2XD4&NR=1

Who knows, but if the relationship between the Philippines and Mexico had not ended maybe both nations would today be controlling much of the Pacific trade.

Thanks for posting that youtube video up, it was very interesting and informative, along with your other post about the Hapsburg family in Spain. It's interesting how people across the globe fought for their independence from Spain, and that they tried to help one another.

Another video. This one is full of old historical photos of the Philippines. Seems a Spaniard made it. Seems some Spaniards are still sore about being defeated by the US during the Spanish American war. Its a miracle Spain did not collapse any sooner. They had major internal political problems around that time.

Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f3nKj46HQs


Found out the Spaniards who were asked for help by the French, sent a fleet to attack Annam which is today Vietnam. It all had to do with the massacre of some Catholics in Annam. The Spanish fleet gathered at Manila before joining up with the French fleet off the coast of Annam. They say many of the Spanish soldiers were Filipino.



French and Spanish first attacked the Amman port of Tourane but since it was heavily defended they attacked another city.

After capturing the city they managed to withstand a seige by the forces of Annam that wanted to recapture the city. Saigon was controlled by 900 French and 100 Spaniards. But the French and Spanish were also contained in the city. Outside the city they controlled nothing. In the end the French sent a large fleet and troops and won. During the dividing of the spoils Spain got played by the French. Spain wanted a port on the coast of Amman from which to ship off indenture chinese workers to the few remaining Spanish territories. But the French managed to get them to accept some minor trade concessions instead of a port.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Saig...7_February_1859

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship

Disagree completely. What about Chinese-Filipino-Spanish people? We do exist. That's not exactly fair to say that "Filipino identity" comprises of only Hindus, Muslims, and Bhuddists, and only they comprise of the greater "true history".