Click the Link for the HB4244

http://www.likhaan.org/sites/default/files/pdf/15th_congress_hb4244.pdf

CRITICAL ANALYSIS 2: Power in the Dining Table

The typical family has roles in it. In our family, the play of power is very evident most especially when the time comes for us to make decisions. Here is how it works:

My father is the one whom I think is the most respected decision maker amongst us. Although it is unspoken, the rule is somewhat to ask him for permission before asking our mother because he would ask for the specifics that are necessary. He is the one who seems to be the most balanced between him and my mother that he is able to earn a great degree of our respect. He struggles with making decisions with us during the times that we have “mixed up” schedules.

My mother is the one who seems to fill the typical roles of a mother. She tries to be able to give tips at times. They end up being helpful often, though the method she brings them to us is sometimes uncalled for. Most of the time she is the one whom convincing is hardest when it comes to permissions. I think this was brought about by her lack of experience in the events we ask her for permission to. She often states we should not do so because of the dangers and hazards these could bring us.  Though she s hard to convince, once all the necessary arrangements are given to her, she will allow us. But the problem is that often, there is the hesitation in her to actually give us the permission. Why there is is still beyond my understanding.

My sister is the one whom I am able to discuss my decisions with regard to any matters. I think this is because there is a more open relationship between us than between me and my parents. She is also the one I know the family considers to be the image of responsibility since often most of us are unable to fill some roles that she is able to.

The juxtaposition of power here comes in the dining area when we are able to sit down and discuss issues we see at the time. Often they are political and social issues. The manner of debating arises when my mother and father talk. My father wins most of the time. Although, there are times that my mother wins, but mostly it is because my father does not wish to go further into the discussion. A wise move, I think. My sister and I often join in the debate, but we withdraw on the account that my mother is already starting to raise her voice.

Power and respect here, as I see it, comes into play in familial relations whenever it is possible that the family member is unable to relate much with the other or when issues arise that differing ideas about them are perceived. It is difficult yes, but it is stimulating at the same time. I think that in this manner, such conflicts are ones that are able to strengthen our bonds and are able to boost our respect for one another.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1: In the Name of Culture

What is it with our names that people say it tells a lot about who we will be and who we are? Perhaps it is a true assumption that in a way the names we have manifest parts of who we come to be.

In my inquiry, I say that the names we, as a people, say something about how our culture is. To be specific, we Filipinos somehow embody our personality and culture as a people in our names. But what do the names we have mean for our culture? This inquiry is what this entry is all about. The main question I asked branches further into these:

Do the names we have manifest the diversity and adaptability of our culture? Or do they embody the colonialist mentality of the Filipino people? What does it implicate on the culture of the Filipino people?

One assumption here is that Filipinos were mostly and are often named after the reigning influences of the time. Most often than not, these influences are foreign influences. Why? Because it is the deemed dominant culture or how we politely imply as “better culture” at that time. This then highlights the submissive and subordinate trait of Filipinos. Another hypothesis though is that this adapting of foreign names was one way on how Filipinos in the past and at present try to “survive” with the times while trying to persist their culture. To see which it is that is truer, I tried to make a scientific study of it.

I went around asking my peers and older relatives how their names came to be. I found out that from generations before, most of them have their names patterned after a character from either the Bible, history, or a famous celebrity. The latter and most recent generations are often named after their grandparents or influential characters of the Bible or history as well. A very significant commonality though was that most of the influencing characters are of foreign origin. One of the peers that I interviewed was named Ivan. His name was based on the name of his grandparents. His grandparent’s name “Ivan”, on the other hand, was taken from the historical figure Ivan the terrible. The reason for naming he says is “I think it’s because my grandparent’s parents wanted him to be sturdy when he grew up.”

Common names of older generations are also mostly influenced by the Spanish background where most are named Maria, Eduardo, Andres, Juan, Felipe, Corazon, and the like. The latter generations, I found were more influenced by American and other European origin. Names such as Martin, Jessica, Camille, Irene, Erin, Patricia, and Czarina are just some. Of course those from the bible are also persistent like Ruth, Daniel, John, Paul, Peter and such.

How does this then implicate over the Filipino culture? Is it submissiveness of the people that they accept the other culture already? In part it is because it is the embedded colonial mentality upon the Filipino people that persists in such preferential conditions. The preference for foreign material is then no doubt a product. But what about adaptability? It could also be an answer but the strength of which could not be given much justification. But the great possibility of it is this: that the adapting of foreign names by our ancestors could have been one of their means to try and protect their children from the cruelty of the ruling foreign entities, mainly the Spanish reign. Such masking then came to be a habit that the real Filipino names have been forgotten. As time passed, it has become a form of coping for Filipinos in order to try to “fit in” with the society dictated by the “other”. So to speak, it is not much that fanaticism is in play, but is appears that the origin of Filipinos coming to have foreign names is because of the desire to survive the times in the context of the social construct they were living in.

"We Built Our Nation on Mediocrity"

I felt a sense of unease yet agreement as I heard our professor utter this statement. But even if it does hurt as a Filipino, as a critic I would have to agree with this. I do not know if this is for all the times that we have faltered or have had historical moments, but I do know that is is for the times at present that we are unable to stand up and save our country from the perils that faces each one of us. Perhaps that is the problem right there. Each one of us. Ako. Ikaw. Siya. Sila.

We have had this culture of not caring much about our meighbor for so long that if someone is actually able to do so out of kindness, it makes the evening news. How about that. And we say we are hospitable people when we could not even afford to make our own country hospitable for ourselves, our communities, our people, our nation. How is it even possible that we come to care about situations only when it involves our sake or the sake of people we care about? This is how I see it then. Our naiton is not mediocre because our people are lazy or anything of that matter. It is not that because if we were a culture of lazy people we would not have success stories overseas. Heck, we would not have Senators or House Representatives who came from nowhere to where they are now if you get my point.

What then is the issue here, the issue here has somehting to do with you, me, them, and all of us-- COLLECTIVELY. I quite enjoy that word and would like to hear it more often in this country. It is precisely I think because of the lack of collective efforts that we are unable to grow and develop as a nation. We have all these notions about what a leader is and who a great leader is but if do nothing to help the leader obtain his goals for development then we are just as much to blame for the situation of this country as he, and his cabinet secretaries are.

It hurts to hear the truth. But once we hear it, we think about it and once we do, we begin to have ideas. These ideas are once that, hopefully, will allow us too have a stronger sense of nationalism, and community.

COMMUNITY, and then IDENTITY.

CRITICAL COMMENTARY (3)

Dear Fellow Filipinos,

This will be my first address to you in this blog. I will be blunt as I do not enjoy sugarcoating much of the truth when it comes to matters of the nation because it affects me badly and because I know that it will affect future generations to come. It may appear a bit dictatorial, but I assure you I am merely expressing passion in my words.

I am deeply hurt that for countless years now our people are suffering from loss of cultural identity. When they are asked, "Who is the Filipino?" They can reply none but a stare, a smile and an attempt to an answer but then improbably give none. Why does this happen? Why?

I will tell you why. It is because we have allowed ourselves to be dominated that's why. But no more should this domination of the other beings take place in our country. Such submission to their presence only affirms their suspicious instincts that this country is one that they can easily invade through its culture. No more of this. In the written history of our country they have already taken the front seat when it is supposed to be us who is the subject of it and not them. How do I mean you say? Well, take for example the alleged "discovery of the Philippines". The Spaniards claim the fame for it when it is absolutely a figment of their imagination that they did. I take offense at this because they immediately did not recognize our native ancestors who have been residing over the islands for decades prior to their awareness of its existence. Another one? In our elementary schools when we are asked to memorize "our history", who's names are deemed significant? Majority of them are not our natives. Yes there are those who are Filipinos but they do not comprise a majority of the names. 

Why then did we accept this imposition of others upon us? Why? I believe that it is because of our people's kindheartedness and welcoming souls that lead to such taking advantage of the others. In sum, it is not purely our fault that we have been colonized. But i would like to make the stance and congratulate today;s generation for trying to impose a sense of nationalism among our lost-identity- generations. Though this may be a product of cultural fanaticism, I still commend it. It is one step toward the Indigenization of the Philippines.

Let me first state how I admire the Hawaiians for their assertiveness in preserving their culture. In the lecture class we had, the video clip showing the new generation of Hawaii natives trying to bring their culture to the tourists has brought me to the point of envy. Yes I envied them.  I envied them because even as they experienced a tragic fall in their indigenous population and a dramatic abusive past,  they were able to revive their past through the future generation. What they did was go within themselves and try to find who the Hawaiian is. It is for this reason that I think when they are asked "who is the Hawaiian", they are able to give a straight forward and confident answer accompanied with a strong sense of passion.

I would very much like to have this in the Philippines once more. Even if it is a far search into indigenizing from "within", it can work. Of course, I think that to be able to make that leap, the first step is to indigenize our country from "without" or using sources or works by the others in order to juxtapose our own. This step has already been taken by many of our historians such as Teodoro Agoncillo, Luis Dery and Virgilio Enriquez. The latter, Virgilio Enriquez has already taken the steps toward analyzing the Filipino psyche and come up with the commanding statement that "we should focus on our own voices and not the others' thoughts" as a way to make a propaganda against thecolonial mentality that has plagued this country.

I admire him for being blunt. He is the model from which I try to pattern out this address to you. And just as he challenges Filipinos to take history away from the hands of the others into their own, I challenge today's generation to make a stand. Do not make this found sense of nationalism a mere icon of popularr culture. It may have started out that way but it should not end that way. Take it to a higher and deeper level. Be the instrument of the Filipino culture and be the ones to bring the identity of the Filipino back. That way when you are asked by people of foreign culture, "Who is the Filipino?" Your answer will be a deep look to his eyes, a smile, and the words "I am the Filipino." accompanied by confidence and passion for your country.

Remember, A nation is only as strong as its roots are groounded to its heart.

If you wish to further strengthen your ideals of the Filipino, click on below and see how Virgilio Enriquez was able to do so.

Virgilio Enriquez- Ang Ama ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino

CRITICAL COMMENTARY (2)

Post-colonialism has often been pointed out as the main hindrance to the Philippines on why its people could not easily figure out their native past. Being a Filipino myself, I might have to agree with this statement on some parts. In today's Philippine society, everything is already modernized in the sense of the "Western" way. Everything is done and made to try  to have the country cope with the standards of the international setting. But along the way it seems that the country has tried to adopt modernity so much that in the process of doing so its cultural identity faded into the background.

Let us take a look back at the Filipinos prior to being colonized. Mainly, there was no Philippines. I guess form there we could already say that the country itself has become a colonial product. It is a hard truth but a truth nonetheless. But even in some truths, there are lies. In this example it would be that the Philippines existed because of the Spanish conquestors. True, they gave the country its "official" name-- by their standards-- which is used until today for the purpose of uniformity of knowledge, but it does nto mean that the country has not existede even before they came. In fact, during the pre-Hispanic period of the country, tribl leaders or the barangay leaders already formed pacts and alliances with one another that it is practically what made up the country's political system collectively. 

Speaking of political systems then, our present system is one that is a product of our colonial past. It was imposed on us by the Americans as a way for them to be easily able to colonize us. They gave the impression that it is best fr the country in order for it to easily grow into the times. We gladly accepted this constitution. But does it necessitate then that it would automatically not work for the country already? We go back to history where we see the fragmentation of the regions' leadership, yet there is a common understanding amongst them that they are united in some ways. In the recent years there have been debates regarding the change of the Philippine system into one that is most similar to the one we had before. Will it work now? The answer is still no. Because given the way that our officials have behaved, it has come to be part of our political culture that if such a system is implied, it will seem to be the best option as it best fits the description btu it will not be implemented as written. Just like many of our laws.

I do not blame colonialism in total for being the one to bring it upon our people to keep on accepting, adapting and adopting what is handed to us by these colonizers we had. In truth, I partially think that it is the weakness of our culture's persistence to surmount these others that are being given to us. At most, I sometimes think that these colonial products only persisted in our people because we allowed them to. I know that given the history we had that such searching could not be avoided. But because I know that our people are capable of great ideals, I frown at the thought of our historical submissiveness to the West. 

I am not implying that our people are weak. In part perhaps, but my argument is that if we had more persistence as a nation in the modern times as Andres Bonifiacio did in his leadership of the Katipunan, perhaps we would be the strongest nation in the South Eastern region of Asia.

My point? What I try to emphasize here is that even as the Philippines today is practically a product of the many colonial minds that came across it, it is not completely colonial in itself. It's people may have been slowly blinded for centuries but from what I see today, people are starting to take a new appreciation for the sense of nationalism. If this could only persist through the years, then I have the assurance that the  country I love will have its own chapter to be written in the mainstream of world HisStory.

RH Bill revisited... again and again

"Tayo na lang po ang bansa sa buong mundo na lumalaban 

pa sa pagpapatupad ng batas na ito."

This was the statement uttered by our parish priest two Sundays in a row. I cannot help but feel the guilt inside as he continues to insinuate that supporting the bill no longer makes us Christians for God. He then talks on to say that those in favor of the bill are spawns of the devil himself and that if we support it, it means that the devil has gotten to us. His arguments basically make is seem that the RH bill is one for destroying the humanity of the Filipino people. He goes on to ask of us parishioners for our support to fight against the approval of the bill with the given statements above. My argument to him then is, instead of making us feel guilty of choosing to support the bill by blinding our conscience, why not let the parish goers see for themselves what is in the bill and let them, us, make the choice whether or not we would like to support it?


It gives me heartache to think that even today as we speak of ourselves as a free nation, such power for objectification is still in control through the Church. Don't get me wrong, I am a Catholic. I just think that a manner of gaining followers leads me to think that perhaps it is this that is, as our priest would like to call it, "a spawn of the devil". Why? Because it is blind leadership on his behalf. He goes on to state that the bill is very harmful but does not give enough justifications as to why it is harmful. Targeting the conscience of the people to support the bill, in my opinion is one of the reasons why many have stopped going to church. It is not because they have stopped believing in God or what, but it seems that it is because it is their Church itself that has made them to believe that they can no longer believe in their God.


Why would the Church go to the extent of exercising their power? In my take, I see a Church that is not purely of Catholic in nature but is more of political. From what history our country has, it is the Spanish Church that has dominated the people's living thus their culture of subordination and their beliefs. More often than not, they were made to believe that going against the Catholic Church would bring them to their doom. From what I see today, this method is still being employed by the Church. And from what I have just experienced a few weeks now, it feels more like the Church is trying to keep their stronghold influence over the people as a means of keeping their existence. It has been, since then, in the culture of the Filipino to be submissive to bigger powers that it appears to be impossible to overcome them. In the case of the Church, it appears that they are merely subordinating the minds of their followers to "try to retain their identity" in this country. Why? I believe that the answer lies in the history of the Philippines.


The fear of God is imbibed within us Catholics by nature. It is the fear that God would punish us if we do an act that is against his commandments of love. I then direct this question to the parish priest of ours and to all other priests with similar approaches, why then will you not allow this bill to be approved if it's main purpose is to help the people be able to support their lives? Is that not more of a show of love for your countrymen? Or if letting them go about with the activity of sex without the choice of protection is a better show of it then I suppose I have the concept of love for others all wrong. 


Such a voluntary subordination on the part of most Filipinos stems way back into what has been said as part of history. But given the lapse in time, shouldn't we have been able to overcome it already? It is a sad thought because it feels like the people I would like to be proud of are being easily drawn into following with blindfolds on. I then make this suggestion to all Filipinos who have yet to make their personal stance on the RH Bill. Ignore the opinion of the Catholic Church. Ignore the opinion of the government. Ignore the opinion of your family and friends. Ignore the opinion of your school. Most especially ignore the opinion of others unknown to you. But make this your stance, do not ignore your own. Educate yourself. Never make decisions based on other's analyses or take only. Sure, take theirs into consideration as well, but make your own informed decision on it.


Personally I cannot give my full stance on the bill because I have not yet fully read it, but if it does offer the choice of better health and higher possibility of development for the betterment of the people of this country, then why not?


If you want to make the informed choice over following blindly, click the link below and read up. If you choose to follow others, I respect you for making your decision on your own. If you make a choice based on nothing, then I dare you to challenge your choice. 

Read up and make your own choice.

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL- FULL TEXT

CRITICAL COMMENTARY (1)

Western ideology has dominated Asia for quite some time that even the mere acceptance of this notion could be considered as being submissive to this claim. Ideologies are hard to battle especially ones that have been instilled in the minds of more than a few generations ago. But accept it we shall or not, ideals from the West have come to take their place in the formation of what we see as the "Modern of Contemporary Asia". Before we go on to see how Asia today has come to be, let us see first the origin of having such conditions.


First let us identify what is the West and what is Asia. The immediate answer to this would be the west is comprised of the Americas and the European continent and the East would be of Africa and Asia. But what is Asia? Have you ever wondered why this continent has been called as such? To put it bluntly, the name Asia is already a manifestation of the West imposing their "mandated power over the world because the term Asia was a European word for everything across the Eastern borders. We then see here that the identity of the Asian continent has become a minor entity to that of the West. It is here in this global manifestation that we see the societal impact of subordination of having the "other being" as it is called. The other being is one that is identified as being unable to exist without the presence of the subject. This is then called objectification. What such a name then tells us is that Asia would not exist without the presence of the West. But is this an absolute truth? It would be a truth in partial ways such as the names, but it is not true that the existence of the West is what makes Asia as it is for this part of the world has been able to bring about rich cultures and civilizations even before being given such a collective term, even before the rise of the West.
But as strong as the cultures it has brought out may be, there are some that sprung from it as products of the Western effort of "civilizing" the world. This then produced nations caught in an identity crisis as part of their history. A very strong manifestation of such a case could be seen in the Philippines where there is not much a sense of identification within the peoples of the nation. But given the strength that the other nations in the region have exuded, it might be a mistake to generalize on the Western term of "oriental" as the main identity of Asia.
Today, Asia-- the term continually being used out of lack of other appropriate terms-- is slowly catching up with the Western motif of development with its integration of ideas: liberal front and culture mixed into one. In many contemporary Asian nations, this proves to be an effective method for fostering development such as the case of Singapore, Japan, and South Korea. But for many as well, it is hard to find the balance between the cultural and the developmental constructs that they need. Such, I think is the case of the Philippines where its historical essence tries to meet with its cultural and developmental identity.
From how I see it, such a balance is not a impossible task. The only thing that makes it impossible is the idea of not knowing how to find the delicate mixture of which liberal ideas from the west to accept and which to reject. In short, there needs to be a critical analysis of what the nation's socio-political and economic culture and environments are in order to be able to correctly identify what Western ideas might be helpful in improving the country's state. But as such, if this step is not achieved, then the balance might prove to be difficult for a nation to achieve. It is not to say that the Western ideology is the answer to the developmental problems of the Asian nations. This is only to say that because the ideas of the old Asia are not applicable to the current times of the West's domination, that an integration or adaption of their ideas is needed in order for the nations to survive.


As such acceptance integration occurs, the liberation of ideas from the enlightenment brings us the age of Modernity. we mainly think of modernity as having something new or something updated. This is quite correct because the term does imply new ideas. Modernity has brought to us, as a product of the age of enlightenment, breakthroughs in the realms of science, social ideas,  and economic thrusts. On these three levels, modernity has proved to be of useful existence. One characteristic of this age is that there has come to be a fancy on the ideas presented by science and capitalism as modes of development. These two combined together have brought a new mode of production to societies that have helped increase their capacities for development.
A personal comment I have on this ideology would be the fact that its basic tenets or bases are mainly or purely that of Western thinkers. simply put, it focuses more on the developmental ideas of the west and little or none at all on what was occurring in the "Eastern" nations at that time. What does this then say about the ideology? It brings to the table the argument that the theories or ideas arising from this school of thought are not of universal application. Perhaps this is one reason why it is hard for many Asian nations to find the balance with the integration given their histories and all.
A good example of this would be the implementation of democracy and capitalist and Marxist ideologies in Asian nations. I think that we will find in current settings that democracy has not always proven to be the best for there exists much diversity in the realm of political and cultural history. Likewise, the ideals of capitalism and Marxism would work or not work for certain nations. For example, the socialist/Marxist ideal would work for countries such as China or Russia given their culture, but not for the experience of Singapore of Japan. It is then here that we see that the patterns of development presented by the Western image of society are predictive of their own development, but it does not say much on that of the East.


One ideology though, that has managed to make a breakthrough on all levels I think is that of Feminism as it tries to take on the societal and historical significance of women. But the problem that persists in this edition of the ideology is that it has not yet made relevance to women of other races other than the "White women". In the latter movement of the ideology though, we see how Feminism has tried to expand itself on the appropriations of the scope of its perspective. It later included in its advocacies fighting for equal rights of men and women across all nations, radical thinking among women, fighting against oppression of women of color, and many others.
From how I see it then, this particular Western ideology could be one that could be easily embraced by Asian nations into their culture as a common identification they share is the oppression of women on differing grounds. this proves to me to be one avenue wherein a universal ideal has been shared, thus a portal wherein globalization may have taken place as well. 


Globalization, the product of modernity otherwise known as the borderless state of the world, takes place in the socio-political and economic sphere. In perspective, this situation is one that has for the most part brought the integration of ideas into a productive one especially in the conditions of globality and locality. This interconnectedness effect on nations has been made easier by the modes of communication. But what seems to be the problem with this is that as the globality of ideas increases the implication they have on localities increases as well in that the global ideals replace that of the local ones-- even the traditional ones that give these said locals their identities. Such is then that we see another side-effect that is endo-colonialism.
As it is, colonial mentality is thriving enough that it has succumbed many nations into the mentality of the "object". This is much evident in the case of the Philippines where the fascination for foreign identity still thrives as a product of the colonial world it has lived in. With such a supplementary mentality then, how else could the  identity of the indigenous be preserved? I think that in this case, it would take the part of the media manipulation to be done given the power it has over the masses in this country.


In effect, the challenges of modernity and globalization have given birth to a new ideology called post-modernity. It is here then that we see a more complex figure of what is the identity of a nation or a person as defined by his society . In this ideology, there has come to be the rise of pop culture and media power as communication has replaced production as the mode of development. It is also here where the aforementioned "new feminism" has taken place. 
On pop-culture or formally known as "Popular Culture", it seems that there has come to be a discriminating outcome of society internally where this form of culture has come to be considered as a "low" form of culture given that it is the masses who has defined what it is. It is also being termed as inappropriate culture for identifying a nation in that it does not embody the essence of the past. In the defense of this arising culture, such criticism could only be taken with rebuttals that it can be considered as one that could be used to identify a nation for the simple reason that it is the masses that has given birth to it thus making it their identity and the majority of the nation's. A positive side to this arising culture would be that it could be a new mode for communication or transmitting ideas of the old or ideas of new generations so that more would be able to understand what situations are ongoing.
One method of communication for this new cultural brow today is the media. As mentioned before, the media can either be a tool for disaster or development depending on what kind of political culture or value they have. In the case of the Philippines I think it has the potential to do both. But with its current state, I am hoping that it lean toward the side of communal development and slowly shed its stronghold on its destructive path in political play. Another main tenet of post-modernism is the decline of old public ideologies where these are replaced by the rise of the said pop culture.


With all the new ideas it has presented, still I wonder how would these be applicable to the state of the Philippines in this country's venture to development? Is it in a complete state of post-modernity or are parcels of it left behind in the state of colonial mentality? Or perhaps, it is in a complete state of post-colonialism.

"The Evil Demon of Images"

"What else does the media dream of if not raising up events by its very presence?"

-Jean Baudrillard

A simple question I ask, what is the role of media, truly? In its birth it was meant to foster more efficient communication, but what has become of it today? Media has evolved itself from trying to bring the reality of one place to another into creating its own reality that it has distorted the consumers' sense of which is reality and imagery. It has practically become the walking definition of what reality should be.

Let us take for example the evening news in the Philippines. The news that appears on the television seems to be an exaggerated form of what the real news is. In the television, we often see a dramatic introduction by the anchor with his voice modulation and everything followed by some sound effects that open up to a video clip of the scene of action mostly about death or an accident in a familiar setting to the viewer. Such a climactic set-up of presentation then brings to the viewer emotions that would formulate in the mind the idea of threat in similar places even though the imagery brought by the news is not really embodying the reality of it-- at least not fully. 

But how come, in other countries the news is not brought this way to the people? To this, I then dare say that the form of media presentation in a country is able to affect the impression that a people has on themselves and that others have of them because it is through this form of technology that information regarding the social construct of a nation is spread. It is then with this medium that media is able to conjure up a reality of its own that is transmitted to the masses. And because such seeming "transparency" is appreciated by the people, this mentality of a "truthful media" is what they see. The media then feed off of this image they are able to build and in more than one way control the mindset of the people towards ideologies of controversy.

In the case of the television in the Philippines, the programs ran in the country especially the news are able to create a new world wherein the imagery they present becomes the accepted reality, even though it is only a projection/ representation of it. This "imagery" is then so widely accepted that it becomes the accepted reality among the people. It is then here where the switch between the imagery and reality is made in the minds of the people.

To answer Baudrillard's question then, the evil demon of images is what media brings up in its presence. What it is able to give and gain simply is a show of control and power towards the people and the legal authorities. It is a frightening sight because to have the media control legitimate power of the masses would mean that they are given authority to manipulate the ideas that flow into the minds of the people. And with such authority, they could bring about negative connotations to others most especially the government. In the case of the Philippines, the media is the one who controls the peoples' perceptions of the image of politicians and other public figures. It is then we see how such a power, when abused or used to the extreme, can completely blind people of reality and forever produce a new reality of images based on what projection is given to them.

Unless, I believe, there is then a strong mindset on the part of the people in determining if what is presented to them is reality or just a projection of it, the media will continue to become the hoarding ideological monster that it is. But on a lighter note, I see on the part of Filipinos that the manner programs are presented are starting to change in the way that there is more complexity in the plot of television drama. The news however, I think has taken a step backward as it still has not taken a change for the growing minds of the newly enlightened.

In the article, Baurillard presents the following questions to an unsuspecting media consumer:

"But where did you get this image from? Can you separate it from the various identities you are sold daily in advertising, fashion/ lifestyle/ interior decoration magazines, sex technique videos, shop window displays, fitness programmes, pop records? Do you have any reason to suppose that the kind of person you are, or could become, is not a fulfillment of preexisting models of thought and behaviour? Are you really anything more than a type?"

In sum, he asks if you think you are your own identity and not a product of what you have been presented to have as parts of who you should be from what entities such as the media have given you. Well?
From what I see, I think that these questions are what contemporary Filipinos should ask their selves or need to look at as they watch shows, see advertisements, and scan shops or listen to the radio because it is when we are able to find the answer here that we can say we are able to go beyond what media presents us and see the true reality, the absolute reality.

Who is your favorite Princess? :)

Beauty and the Beast! :)

It is strange how even such a choice of favorite could tell much about how a person was taught or was reared to think like. The discussion we had on subordination and post-colonial mentalities has been a few weeks back, but I would like to state in this entry how much I have thought about that particular example on fairy tales. It struck me so much because I did not think back then that a child could easily be subordinated through such stories.


I then remembered my favorite Disney Princess in the discussion. I was actually surprised to hear my professor praise the movie. What I was not surprised about was his criticism on the Little Mermaid, which so happened to be my third favorite of the classics since it did somehow lead to a thinking of "If you want something go get it even if it means undermining yourself". i appreciated that lecture very much because it actually lead me to understand more of myself.


Unknowingly so, it also lead me to think of why Filipinos act in certain ways in the contemporary setting and in the past. From what I see, it is through the values that we are taught to put forth that we create a mentality for ourselves of what should be or what should not be. Such coloring of perception then blocks us from further allowing other ideas to enter.


I guess I never knew this as a child, but I was attracted to the film Beauty and the Beats more than the others because I liked that it had complexity in its plot. I liked that it taught me to see beyond what could be given by the eye. But after that lecture, I realized why i liked it then and why i liked it even more as I grew up. I appreciated the film because it was not like the other princesses who acted out as damsels in distress or who were trying to make a breakthrough in the realm of feminism. I liked it because the protagonist, cleverly named Belle--meaning beauty-- had a strong sense of what she wanted, what she desired, and what she knew she had to do.




Tell me then, who was your favorite princess/ prince growing up?

Democracy and Football

After watching the Philippine Football Team beat it out with the Mongolian Blue Wolves a couple of weeks ago I would have to admit that my desire to cheer for a football team has begun. but in the course of this, I could not help but wonder why it was only now that this sport has come to take its popularity among Filipinos in the motherland. Being the fan that I have become of the Azkals, I came across this interesting video on the internet which tried to explain the rising phenomenon that is the Philippine Azkals. Much to my surprise that the video actually contained much more insight than I thought it would.

Seeing this video actually reminded me of what one of our school's varsity football players said just a year ago: "The Philippines is a football giant waiting to be awakened..." I could not agree more to his statement. It seemed that this sport was the perfect fit for what the Filipino is-- rather than basketball, which is a giant person's sport. And in a very interesting analogy, this choice of sport of the Filipino was compared to its people's political structure. In the video, it criticized the Filipino politics as it is without any pretenses. It compared the Filipino's impression of basketball with politics in that it forces what it knows to be democracy into a system that clearly needs another structure to develop itself.

Football and Democracy in the Philippines

Nationalism: Virus of Subjugation

This is a very interesting turn of perspective to me. As I was reading an article on the conflict between US and China's trade policies, I came across this statement "American and Chinese workers must reject the political poison of protectionism and nationalism that subordinates them to the ruling class in each country." Such a strong statement hit practically hit me on my ideas of how nationalism works for a country.

Ideally, it would be the driving force for the nationals to work hard for their country's sake. Protectionism, on the same note, would come about as one of the economic policies from the desire to have a nationalistic social construct. It would ideally allow for the said country to develop internally. But a downside to such a policy would be its feasibility because of the fact that a country's political-economy is always tied to that of another. This is not to say that it cannot exist without the other. Of course it can, but it cannot continue with its desired progression without the aid of the others. As could then be seen here, such manifestation of nationalism could bring more detrimental effects to a nation rather than developmental ones.

The statement given by the article on nationalism as with the case of the Americans in the US and the Chinese points out that because of their nationalist perspectives, they are actually the ones bringing on the so-called "trade war" upon themselves. From what I have learned in our International Relations courses, such effects are what could be called as extreme forms of nationalism. Yes, it can right up there with the Nazi anti-semitism and the Rwanda genocide.

The nationalist perspectives of both states are what could be said to have brought them to want to bring the best to their nation at the expense of the other power. It is because of the hegemonic desire of both (one trying to retain its position and the other trying to claim it) that implicated threats are being made by one toward the other. Very scrupulous about this are the recent moves by the US in trying to subjugate the expansion attempts of China in its concessions and influences. In other related articles, it is implied by the authors that they fear that if such a likely trade war would occur, it is not only these two that will have to deal with the outcome but also the nations tied to both of them, most especially the growing economies in the Asian region.

If such an predicted effect would take place, then it is most likely that the world is about to witness a war of another kind that can most definitely have destructive capacities. It may not be in the way that conventional wars do it, but it will.

From this simple statement then we see how a familiar strand of history can take itself back into our midst and present itself in another form much like the mutation of a virus. Strength in nationalism is always an admirable trait of a country. But when placed in a diagram such as this one, it is scary to think of what it could do.

What's in a Name?

Dear Reader,

I dedicate this letter to you. Yes you who have stumbled upon this post trying to find out about the empress of Russia. With this entry, I welcome you to the thoughts that I stumble upon in the last term I spend as a student of politics.

To first clear up any confusion, my name resonates with the title of the Russian Empress, meaning I am not the Empress herself nor am I a royal of any monarch. Why then is the blog named as such? As I have said earlier, my name is the title of the Empress. "Czarina Danielle" is my name where the first means the empress and the second is a variation of the name of Daniel from the Christian Bible. It's very odd don't you think that the words from which my name was taken from is quite contradictory? Well, it is not directly contradictory but the origins seem to me that they collide in more than one way-- but most of all, they collide in their political and cultural implications.

Now I don't wish to bore you with the history of both names, buy I think that a better understanding of me and my writings would show when these are laid out.

They say that we are named for certain reasons such as to hold the memory of a loved one, to be like that person you were named after, or to hold certain characteristics of the ones your name was taken from. In that idea, we are often named after great icons of history and religion or after people whom we see have such greatness in our perspectives.

I am not really sure why I was given such a first name, but from the way I see it I was named Czarina so that i may embody the strenght and subtleness of the empress. Danielle was a choice so that I would have the same courage and foresight that Daniel of the bible had. But even with that the question of why I was given such a first name still is in my head. The second name I can understand because many are being given Christtian names in the hope of having us be closer to the Lord.

Reflecting on this I realize something. Perhaps it may not be important why my first name is as such, but what I should be looking at is the bigger picture of why I am named after characters of foreign background. I begin to wonder then why it is that many of the people around my most especially my peers are named according to foreign narratives. Going to my own name, I find that the year I was born was the year that the Cold War had ended. I say to myself perhaps this is one link why I was  given this first name. Because even as the Russian monarch had ended, they reign in their legacy. That was one perspective I kept my hopes on. I hoped that someday I would be able to leave a legacy to my country. But to the questions of having such foreign names  be so rampant, I found a different answer.

Endocolonialism is a term that I have now just learned about. I found that one reason for having such a culture on names is a producct of having a nation subject itself to the dictates of a colonial culture therefore letting the latter dominate the ethnic culture that should be thriving in the said nation. Take for example that of the Philippines, it is no question that endocolonialism seems to be one that dominates its culture of social preference. I will not attempt to discuss anymore how this is in everyway. Let us just take the example of our country's obsession over whitening products. We obsess over white because we tell ourselves that it is better than our native skin color because it has been dictated upon us by our colonizers that what we are is less than what they are. To this extent then we degrade our culture and think that what we have is not to be had. Instead we think that what they have is what should be.

In that note, we see then a culture engulfed by the possession of colonial mentality in their midst. I understand that we are given names for the reason that our parents may have wanted us to be like who we were named after. But why is it that even with such a simple matter of choice, endocolonialism persists? Is it because when we give these foreign names, we also have this underlying desire to be what they are-- foreign and not native? Another answer is highly appreciated.

Respectfully yours,

Czarina

Identity Crisis: The Other Being

"Who is your other being? Have you ever been the object of domination or marginalization? How about the other way around? How did these happen?" I was left somehow dumbfounded after that lecture assignment. It made me try to think more clearly how such things have been in my own context.

Two days ago the class lecture spoke of mistaken identities. These identities are not ones that would mean to have a person ask who they are on the context of census and statistics, rather it is on the level of looking into the standing of one's self in the context of society. In many instances, people act or move in the manner that they have been "trained" to be by what norms they grew up with. Because of these the person's real identity is lost within the norms. Such suppression is one that can have an impact so immense that it shapes not only the person, but the community the person is in as well. Shortness in all, it seems to be one that can create the structural context in which a society operates itself through the individual level.

The idea of such dominance creates then the "other" being in every individual that comes to be their identity rather than their real identity. Let's take for example in the context of a typical high school where there is the dominance of a bully and a stereotypical nerd or geek. The nerd comes to be the one who is the other in the scenario. Because of the incessant picking by the bully, he is forced to retreat himself and just go with how the bully and his peers want him to be.

With that logic, let us take the context of suppression and of the other to the level of politics. As mentioned before, it is a tremendous social contributor as to how a society is shaped. If a society is then formed through strict norms of conduct, we then see its people operating life as abiding by norms in order to survive. It is then here that the culture of politics enters the context of the other. Culture being a social rule to a society, it naturally follows that these unspoken rules are to be followed in order to survive. Survival then becomes  the central idea of such a logic. We can then relate this to how colonizers have been able to successfully obtain many colonies in the past, particularly during the period of imperialism. A good example would be the manner that European states were able to colonize Asian countries. The reading "The Idea of Asia" provides a more thorough description of this. But thinking about it, it then seems evident that one reason why some countries in the region have yet to improve is because of such a suppression that has been passed on for decades that then lead to having a loss of identity perception.

To then answer then the question of who the other is in my context, I would have to say on the outer levels of the term "other" I have some of the friends I have. But dissecting it more clearly, I would have to say that I have made myself the other by often being the one to yield. All the while I have thought I was being dominant over certain individuals. Perhaps yes, it is true, I do but only in with the intention of them obeying me. But often, as I have realized, I have been both the dominant and the marginalized myself by letting norms get the best of me. Realizing this I then make a motion to relieve myself of such suppression and take my lost identity back. How then does it feel? It is the same feeling that the Filipinos felt when they at least thought they had freed themselves from the Spanish rule. It is the same feeling that nations had when they no longer had to submit to the demands of governments for arms at the end of the Second World War. It is a very liberating feeling. But of course every freedom has its limitations. At times then I still do submit to norms, but in these instances now I make the move not because I have been made to believe I have to, but because I will myself to.