Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
A slave to one's self.
There are people who stand up for themselves. There are people who stand up for others. And still, there are people who refuse to stand at all. Who among them is right, and who among them is wrong?
After careful consideration, I find myself still at a loss for answers. And really, I began wondering, is the fault of the consideration in the lack of an answer, or in the intrinsic nature of the question?
Surely, if at least one among them is right, then the answer would've already come out through the thousands of years of philosophizing and psychologizing. That, obviously, is not the case. The soft sciences and the soft areas of introspective study are still at a loss of answers on almost everything we might want answers to. We still don't know if religion is the answer, if fighting back is proper, or if at the end of it all, there really is no reason why we exist, aside from what seems to be coincidence.
But then again, how can the intrinsic nature of the question be wrong? If the question were wrong, then the same thorough process of thought that has enveloped (and some might say, even characterized) human history must have discredited them already. If they were wrong, and consequently answerless, then they should be as silly to consider as "whether or not the sky smells purple".
And further still, (on the third alien hand, if you will), there seems to be the religious acquiescence of knowledge. It's not our place to learn; we are (after all), not God. Or maybe, we can quote the scientific quest of ever-expanding knowledge. We will learn... eventually.
Faced with this overwhelming amount of uncertainty, no one can really concretely give any answer to anything (philosophical, at least. don't take it too literally). The wise man therefore knows that he knows nothing, the passionate reasons only his reason to be, and the philosopher questions his questions.
Indeed, at the end of it all, there are no conclusions to arrive at. There is, at least in the immediate period of time, no answers to the great questions. All that we might want to say and state are merely a report of our observations, biased by the great questions we think them to be answers to. The paradox is that there are no great questions except the questions which question themselves.
After careful consideration, I find myself still at a loss for answers. And really, I began wondering, is the fault of the consideration in the lack of an answer, or in the intrinsic nature of the question?
Surely, if at least one among them is right, then the answer would've already come out through the thousands of years of philosophizing and psychologizing. That, obviously, is not the case. The soft sciences and the soft areas of introspective study are still at a loss of answers on almost everything we might want answers to. We still don't know if religion is the answer, if fighting back is proper, or if at the end of it all, there really is no reason why we exist, aside from what seems to be coincidence.
But then again, how can the intrinsic nature of the question be wrong? If the question were wrong, then the same thorough process of thought that has enveloped (and some might say, even characterized) human history must have discredited them already. If they were wrong, and consequently answerless, then they should be as silly to consider as "whether or not the sky smells purple".
And further still, (on the third alien hand, if you will), there seems to be the religious acquiescence of knowledge. It's not our place to learn; we are (after all), not God. Or maybe, we can quote the scientific quest of ever-expanding knowledge. We will learn... eventually.
Faced with this overwhelming amount of uncertainty, no one can really concretely give any answer to anything (philosophical, at least. don't take it too literally). The wise man therefore knows that he knows nothing, the passionate reasons only his reason to be, and the philosopher questions his questions.
Indeed, at the end of it all, there are no conclusions to arrive at. There is, at least in the immediate period of time, no answers to the great questions. All that we might want to say and state are merely a report of our observations, biased by the great questions we think them to be answers to. The paradox is that there are no great questions except the questions which question themselves.
Friday, April 10, 2009
The War at Home
Excellent article and commentary by James Soriano on his own note, and I do suggest that people read it, since the introspection and reflection it offers really is worth thinking about.
http://james.soriano-ph.com/2009/04/the-real-war-at-home/
you've read it? ok, great. now here's my take on it.
I'm not sure I agree with the article. inasmuch as I agree with almost everyone's comments on his note, and definitely wish the FIlipino people more power, I don't think we're feeling bad for our OFW's (overseas Filipino workers) in the sense that we don't believe in them. I mean, just look at examples from our movies (the one Vilma Santos was in, for example), to even the general comments on this post! Filipinos have always loved their countrymen and respected those who have sacrificed for it. Empathy and recognition for their efforts have not been lacking - from Sharon Cuneta in "Caregiver", to Mayor V. in "Anak", even to the Mboys who made that documentary some years ago! I feel that this guy was working from a wrong assumption. He got the "it is as if" and made it into a definite statement with definite weight. In fact, by postulating that "being defensive means internally feeling hurt/admitting it to be true", he ignored any other possibility as to why we come to our defenses so fast - that it just might be because of profound love and respect for our people.
I mean, c'mon, let's be honest here. The Filipino demographic is so small, especially when compared to the audience of such big things like desperate housewives. A good number of people who will see the show will really look at that and will have that as one of few entries about the Philippines in their consciousness. And who else will defend us, if not ourselves? We don't have the "luxury" (so to speak) of a booming economy like China, or the massive in-house (again, so to speak) demographic of Negroes to come to our defense, and show the world that "you know what, I'm better than that!" Even suffragettes rallied en masse to stand up for their rights. Are you going to assume that those actions were borne out of insecurity? or are you more likely to believe that they were borne of some inner conviction of worth?
Remember that before the civil rights movement, negroes were hurt at the widespread oppression against them. They DID try to exert their excellence- I don't know his name, but there's a story-turned-movie about this guy who excelled in football but wasn't given the credit he deserved. Smart negroes were denied entry into prestigious colleges despite their effort because of their skin color. Jesse Owens, who won a record number of gold medals at the olympics in 1936 was thrown a celebratory party in the Waldorf Astoria hotel... but had to use the service elevator because he was "colored"! These true to life examples should show us that it's not enough to go "look at what I've done and respect me!" You also have to thwart the powers that, no matter how casually, opress you.
As for the other side of it, remember that we are trying really hard to project ourselves as a competent people. We are not mad that we are domestic helpers, nurses, caregivers or (for the lucky few) doctors in other nations. We are mad at the negative stigma being attached to that. It is as if we are being greenlighted, but red-flagged. You know what I mean. We weren't mad that a white woman was being treated by a Filipino doctor, and that she doubted him. We were mad that his character was shown to be substandard... and that he wasn't given a chance to defend himself (as he wasn't Filipino)! Foreman on House is always given the 'black man' image, but he repeatedly proves that he is a competent doctor. Izzie, on Grey's anatomy, is shown to be a blonde woman whose emotions get a hold of her (even cutting an LVAD wire) - but her colleagues always refer to her good bedside manner and sweet attitude in general. We are so easy to accuse, but are not given a chance to defend ourselves. That's where we take offense.
I offer you the alternative, though. Would you have taken it so lightly if jokes about the Filipino people were thrown around so easily and carelessly? By then, you'd be going up in arms about how we, as a people, are so easily subservient! You'd say that we're "proving their point" by simply bowing our heads and accepting what reproaches (justified or not) are shouted at us. You'd say "hindi pa tayo nasawa sa 300++ years of oppression".
You see, it is a case of going the two ways. We come here to study, work, or live and be better representations of ourselves. But when somebody comes up to us and tells us "oh, hi Filipino, come, clean my toilet", we will surely protest - especially if that person does not say "omg, joke!" no more than 2 seconds after. Elevate both sides to media-worthy proportions, and you get a joke on a show, and a demand for an apology from the Philippines.
Is this insecurity? Of course not! Insecurity would be to take what they say, bow our heads, and accept it as truth. This is where I have an issue with what that assumption that the "it is as if" literally translates to a definite statement with definite weight. Again, by postulating that "being defensive means internally feeling hurt/admitting it to be true", he (whoever wrote that) ignored any other possibility as to why we come to our defenses so fast. It is as childish as saying "everybody who bullies homosexuals is homosexual deep inside". A good psychological introspection if you're being bullied (especially if you're 10 years old), but a bad generalization on every other level. I will not deny that some people are insecure, but is that the case for all of us? NO! I am writing this now not because I am insecure, and am translating those feelings as hatred. I am writing this because I AM secure, because I won't just take any old generalization/explanation and apply it to myself. I am writing this because I refuse to demean my huge investment of self on my country as "insecurity". I am writing this because I feel that sometimes, taking insults in silence is not the mature thing to do. I am writing this because I'm proud to be a Filipino!
But, you know what, let's be direct and focus on what was wrong with Chip Tsao's article.
Firstly, it wasn't a good satire. James, in his note, refered to a long-ago written article about cannibalism in Ireland - satire, I assure you. But I would like to ask you, how common do you think it was for people to eat children in Ireland then? Surely not that common, right?
Well, let me tell remind you of a few things. Remember Flor Contemplacion? Yeah, that's right. The Filipina domestic helper who was tried for murder and killed, even though new evidence which could've turned her case around surfaced. She is definitely not the only OFW who's had to deal with employer strains in other countries. my point? You don't make jokes about a point that is so already tender in the hearts of your audience (regardless of whether they're your main, or incidental audience). This is the base code of decency that prevents columnists from referring to 9/11 with reckless abandon, or to children's rights with "satire".
Secondly, if anything, this Spratly debate has existed for a LONG time. In fact, I even remember doing a grade four Gawaing Pananaliksik (research project) on it. The mere fact that it's been in contention for so long means that there is no clear answer - and, unlike great works of satire, he doesn't poke fun at the answer-less-ness of it. He tries to make a clear and concise point of his "superiority", and tried to pass off insults as satire, using the Spratly Islands as a jumping board, and no more. He failed though, in that he did not make an example of "eating babies". He made an example of "beating the poor babies up and eating them because they're worth less". He didn't offer a ridiculous answer to a problem - he illustrated a REAL and CURRENT problem, and tried to lower it down to a mere joke.
at the end of it all, it wasn't funny because it wasnt a funny joke to start with. He may have meant it as a joke, but we (and especially he) should know better, right? There still exist, despite what he may think, boundaries even in the realms of (what could be) humor.
No, and you know, that's my problem with freedom of speech. It allows people to write ignorant/demeaning/below-the-belt stuff, and forcefully put it under the umbrella of some fancy term and call it legit.
To all my friends who are defending the Philippines and are striving to be better: keep it up, and more power to Filipinos!
http://james.soriano-ph.com/2009/04/the-real-war-at-home/
you've read it? ok, great. now here's my take on it.
I'm not sure I agree with the article. inasmuch as I agree with almost everyone's comments on his note, and definitely wish the FIlipino people more power, I don't think we're feeling bad for our OFW's (overseas Filipino workers) in the sense that we don't believe in them. I mean, just look at examples from our movies (the one Vilma Santos was in, for example), to even the general comments on this post! Filipinos have always loved their countrymen and respected those who have sacrificed for it. Empathy and recognition for their efforts have not been lacking - from Sharon Cuneta in "Caregiver", to Mayor V. in "Anak", even to the Mboys who made that documentary some years ago! I feel that this guy was working from a wrong assumption. He got the "it is as if" and made it into a definite statement with definite weight. In fact, by postulating that "being defensive means internally feeling hurt/admitting it to be true", he ignored any other possibility as to why we come to our defenses so fast - that it just might be because of profound love and respect for our people.
I mean, c'mon, let's be honest here. The Filipino demographic is so small, especially when compared to the audience of such big things like desperate housewives. A good number of people who will see the show will really look at that and will have that as one of few entries about the Philippines in their consciousness. And who else will defend us, if not ourselves? We don't have the "luxury" (so to speak) of a booming economy like China, or the massive in-house (again, so to speak) demographic of Negroes to come to our defense, and show the world that "you know what, I'm better than that!" Even suffragettes rallied en masse to stand up for their rights. Are you going to assume that those actions were borne out of insecurity? or are you more likely to believe that they were borne of some inner conviction of worth?
Remember that before the civil rights movement, negroes were hurt at the widespread oppression against them. They DID try to exert their excellence- I don't know his name, but there's a story-turned-movie about this guy who excelled in football but wasn't given the credit he deserved. Smart negroes were denied entry into prestigious colleges despite their effort because of their skin color. Jesse Owens, who won a record number of gold medals at the olympics in 1936 was thrown a celebratory party in the Waldorf Astoria hotel... but had to use the service elevator because he was "colored"! These true to life examples should show us that it's not enough to go "look at what I've done and respect me!" You also have to thwart the powers that, no matter how casually, opress you.
As for the other side of it, remember that we are trying really hard to project ourselves as a competent people. We are not mad that we are domestic helpers, nurses, caregivers or (for the lucky few) doctors in other nations. We are mad at the negative stigma being attached to that. It is as if we are being greenlighted, but red-flagged. You know what I mean. We weren't mad that a white woman was being treated by a Filipino doctor, and that she doubted him. We were mad that his character was shown to be substandard... and that he wasn't given a chance to defend himself (as he wasn't Filipino)! Foreman on House is always given the 'black man' image, but he repeatedly proves that he is a competent doctor. Izzie, on Grey's anatomy, is shown to be a blonde woman whose emotions get a hold of her (even cutting an LVAD wire) - but her colleagues always refer to her good bedside manner and sweet attitude in general. We are so easy to accuse, but are not given a chance to defend ourselves. That's where we take offense.
I offer you the alternative, though. Would you have taken it so lightly if jokes about the Filipino people were thrown around so easily and carelessly? By then, you'd be going up in arms about how we, as a people, are so easily subservient! You'd say that we're "proving their point" by simply bowing our heads and accepting what reproaches (justified or not) are shouted at us. You'd say "hindi pa tayo nasawa sa 300++ years of oppression".
You see, it is a case of going the two ways. We come here to study, work, or live and be better representations of ourselves. But when somebody comes up to us and tells us "oh, hi Filipino, come, clean my toilet", we will surely protest - especially if that person does not say "omg, joke!" no more than 2 seconds after. Elevate both sides to media-worthy proportions, and you get a joke on a show, and a demand for an apology from the Philippines.
Is this insecurity? Of course not! Insecurity would be to take what they say, bow our heads, and accept it as truth. This is where I have an issue with what that assumption that the "it is as if" literally translates to a definite statement with definite weight. Again, by postulating that "being defensive means internally feeling hurt/admitting it to be true", he (whoever wrote that) ignored any other possibility as to why we come to our defenses so fast. It is as childish as saying "everybody who bullies homosexuals is homosexual deep inside". A good psychological introspection if you're being bullied (especially if you're 10 years old), but a bad generalization on every other level. I will not deny that some people are insecure, but is that the case for all of us? NO! I am writing this now not because I am insecure, and am translating those feelings as hatred. I am writing this because I AM secure, because I won't just take any old generalization/explanation
But, you know what, let's be direct and focus on what was wrong with Chip Tsao's article.
Firstly, it wasn't a good satire. James, in his note, refered to a long-ago written article about cannibalism in Ireland - satire, I assure you. But I would like to ask you, how common do you think it was for people to eat children in Ireland then? Surely not that common, right?
Well, let me tell remind you of a few things. Remember Flor Contemplacion? Yeah, that's right. The Filipina domestic helper who was tried for murder and killed, even though new evidence which could've turned her case around surfaced. She is definitely not the only OFW who's had to deal with employer strains in other countries. my point? You don't make jokes about a point that is so already tender in the hearts of your audience (regardless of whether they're your main, or incidental audience). This is the base code of decency that prevents columnists from referring to 9/11 with reckless abandon, or to children's rights with "satire".
Secondly, if anything, this Spratly debate has existed for a LONG time. In fact, I even remember doing a grade four Gawaing Pananaliksik (research project) on it. The mere fact that it's been in contention for so long means that there is no clear answer - and, unlike great works of satire, he doesn't poke fun at the answer-less-ness of it. He tries to make a clear and concise point of his "superiority", and tried to pass off insults as satire, using the Spratly Islands as a jumping board, and no more. He failed though, in that he did not make an example of "eating babies". He made an example of "beating the poor babies up and eating them because they're worth less". He didn't offer a ridiculous answer to a problem - he illustrated a REAL and CURRENT problem, and tried to lower it down to a mere joke.
at the end of it all, it wasn't funny because it wasnt a funny joke to start with. He may have meant it as a joke, but we (and especially he) should know better, right? There still exist, despite what he may think, boundaries even in the realms of (what could be) humor.
No, and you know, that's my problem with freedom of speech. It allows people to write ignorant/demeaning/below-t
To all my friends who are defending the Philippines and are striving to be better: keep it up, and more power to Filipinos!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
