The Economist shows its prejudice again

I wonder if The Economist hired the BBC's old Philippines correspondent, John McClean. They both seem to hold an excessively low opinion of the Philippines and Filipinos. Or maybe James Fallows, though he's still working for The Atlantic. In any case, I hope that The Economist would fire the writer they have covering the Philippines.

I would disagree with Shinigami's two comments below about Filipinos being too emotional at the expense of being logical--and not only because it smells a little too much like white supremacists who throw up claims of hypersensitivity and irrational passion at blacks who dare decry racism against themselves.

One should take note of a few points:

1) The dumbed down writing style of this obit. "The WICKED President Ferdinand Marcos." Really, 'wicked' is entirely unnecessary, and wouldn't have been written in an obit about, say, Pinochet's death. Is this the author's attempt to write as he or she perceives Filipinos to write, "humming, hawing and after-youing," etc? That is not far removed from how I write in my comments, and how I've seen Filipinos write. But I'm not a writer for The Economist, I don't pretend to be, and I don't have an editor. If I was, I would use another diction, and--to some degree--even syntax, not one that seemed so simple or 'playful'.

2) Overlooking the "NEVER been easy to take seriously" theme (really, NEVER?) because that is a common motif linking all of The Economist's articles on the Philippines in the last decade it seems, why is 'Malay' distinguished from 'indigenous'. Indigenous Filipinos (barring Aetas) are 'Malay'. If the term is being used to describe culture from the Malay peninsula, then the Philippines has more Bornean and Javanese influence than Malay.

3) I doubt many Central Americans would consider a Filipino accent in American English remotely similar to their own.

4) Aquino's greatest achievement was reestablishing democracy, if that is viewed as desirable for a developing country (which is the trash The Economist likes to peddle).

5) "The woman in the yellow dress" reads like 'the man in the yellow hat'. Inasmuch as blacks may be prickly about chimps being shot in political cartoons, one could see this as a rib against 'Filipino monkeys', a term traceable back to at least the World War II era, when rumors were circulated that Filipinos were subhuman and had tails. In most cases I would dismiss this as a hypersensitive stretch; in The Economist's case, I would not.

6) Apparently the author believes his readers are abject morons. After spending the length of the piece ripping into Aquino and the Philippines, he or she ends with Aquino's "modesty, pluck and charm". Awwww, how NICE! I don't think even a monkey's short term memory is that short.

LINKS

Corazon Aquino ("The Economist")

7) Finally, I would suggest Shinigami and others like her (including the staff of this magazine) go through some effort and actually read what The Economist has had to say about the Philippines throughout the years. This is not an isolated event. Just compare it to The Economist's articles about ANY other country, and allow your logical reasoning to judge for yourselves whether or not there are grounds for criticizing this obituary. The Russians, the Chinese, the Thai, the Eastern Europeans all complain about perceived insults against their countries, yet look at the articles covering them--the worst are considerably more respectful than the average one about the Philippines, and on par with the most generous pieces The Economist has written about the Philippines in the last decade. Furthermore, the Eastern Europeans and Chinese, and to some degree the Thai, have had success in getting The Economist to change its reporting. Whether that was through flooding complaints on these comment fora/boards (a tactic used by the Eastern Europeans, excessively by the Chinese, and by the Thai) or through economic measures (Thailand banning distribution, for instance), it worked. If more Filipinos aired their grievances against what they perceive as prejudice on the part of The Economist (as the aforementioned groups did), and this gets The Economist to report on the Philippines in an objective manner, then great.

This isn't about The Economist being critical of the Philippines or even about exaggerating its flaws while not mentioning its successes. It's about the consistent disrespectful attitude The Economist has toward Filipinos. As Toto1789 has said about this obituary, I'll extend to The Economist's reporting of the Philippines in general. It's patronizing. It's also condescending, mocking, sardonic, and--as thinkfree wrote--childish, often not even consisting of more 'mature' insults. The writer might as well write, "Filipinos are a bunch of poopyheads!" Most of the ridicule amounts to nothing more substantial than that.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

The Case for Tienanmen, a Philippines Perspective

I'm going to take a stance differing from many Westerners: that although bad, the crackdown by the PLA in 1989 China was justified if--as they argued--leaving the people to protest would have led to the fall of the Communist Party rule and led to the collapse of Chinese society.

LINKS

The Philippines in 1989 (Wolfram-Alpha) China in 1989 (Wolfram-Alpha) Timeline: The Tiananmen protests (BBC)

In 1985, four years before Tienanmen, the Philippines underwent a similar case of country-wide protests, with the main action in the capital, Manila. The protesters wanted the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator ruling the Philippines, and a return to democracy.

As with China, where the Tienanmen (and other Chinese) protests began with the death of a respected reformist politician, the 'People Power' protests in the Philippines were instigated by the death of Ninoy Aquino, a pro-democracy politician who like Hu Yaobang fell out of favor with the ruling elite.

As with Tienanmen, the West and the media sided with the pro-democracy protesters, celebrating their expression of 'People Power' and emboldening the people to continue their protests which brought the capital to a standstill. 'People Power' was great, the Marcos regime horrible and evil.

However, in contrast to what happened in China 20 years ago, the Philippine military sided with the protesters and the Marcos regime caved in to 'People Power'. Marcos was thrown out bloodlessly. In China, the Communist Party crushed dissent violently. That was morally wrong, but did send a strong message deterring any further mass dissent that would disrupt society and make China appear unstable.

My point: in the latter 1980s, the Philippines was wealthier and more developed than China (really). The Philippines went down the path of democracy and ditched the authoritarian model. China stamped down on democracy and kept their authoritarian government.

Today China's and the Philippines' GDP per capita are about reversed relative to each other from what they were in 1989.

Today the media that in 1985 encouraged the Filipinos to embrace 'People Power' now heaps scorn on the impoverished and 'unstable' country that didn't make it. The media that continues to frown on China's authoritarianism nevertheless respects that country's enormous economic, technological, and military progress. Foreign investors flock to the 'stable' country.

The third-world Philippines and third-world China, around 20-24 years ago, both faced a conflict and choice between democracy and authoritarianism. One followed democracy, one authoritarianism. The one that chose authoritarianism is now the second largest economy in the world in terms of PPP, has sent astronauts into space, has several nuclear power plants, and is perceived as the next superpower. Its people are confident in their place in the world, and that they are destined for greatness. The one that chose democracy is now derided world-over, has to send millions of its people abroad to find (often menial and abusive) jobs, has declining infrastructure and education in spite of democracy, is beset by decades-old insurgencies, and struggles to attract investors. Its people have not gained economic or physical security from democracy, and have become so disillusioned with their country--and themselves--most expect that their nation will never be great, and a few even want their country to cease to exist so ashamed they are of it.

Taking these two roughly comparable cases, I hope readers can see why I do not have such an antagonistic view towards the Chinese military's crushing of dissent on June 4, 1989.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

My Reply: "10 reasons why there is genuine hope for RP"

[My response to an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer by Filipino Senator Francis 'Kiko' Pangilinan:]

Senator Pangilinan voices nice wishes, but not very strong arguments. Without intending too much offense, it is because of foolhardy politicians such as Sen. Pangilinan and the foolhardy Filipino population (in general) who keep voting such inept politicians to power each electoral cycle, that the Philippines is in the decrepit position it is today. Some rebuttals of Pangilinan's points:

LINKS

10 reasons why there is genuine hope for RP (Philippine Daily Inquirer)

Senator Pangilinan voices nice wishes, but not very strong arguments. Without intending too much offense, it is because of foolhardy politicians such as Sen. Pangilinan and the foolhardy Filipino population (in general) who keep voting such inept politicians to power each electoral cycle, that the Philippines is in the decrepit position it is today. Some rebuttals of Pangilinan's points:

"1. We are strategically located at the heart of East Asia."

The Philippines is located in between Northeast and Southeast Asia, but so to are Vietnam, Taiwan, and especially China. All of these are currently more desirable economic locations than the Philippines. The senator's listing of Northeast and Southeast Asia is also poignant. Northeast Asians tend to look down on Southeast Asians, often to the point of removing them from 'East Asia'. Yet Northeast Asia is listed before Southeast Asia, the region to which the Philippines belongs. To some extent, this is rational, as Northeast Asia is a better source of investors than Southeast Asia. Still, the Philippines could engage with its own region as well as all East Asia a bit more, could stop ignoring the rest of Southeast Asia, and try to become less dependent on the United States.

"2. We are No. 1 in aquamarine resources worldwide."

How long will this last with climate change, pollution, and the death of the coral reefs around the Philippines? Additionally, the Philippines has not been able to translate its marine wealth into better economic conditions. The Philippines is not as much a leader in producing shrimp as Vietnam; the Philippines is not a major fishing nation. So far, Philippine marine resources have not turned the Philippines into an aquacultural powerhouse, and in the near future I doubt it will.

"3. We have a huge tourism industry potential."

Really, does the Philippines? The Philippines is considerably behind Thailand in the tourism sector, an economic area with limited growth potential. Westerners find Thailand to be a more exotic (Buddhism, rich and 'strange' foreign culture) and desirable travel destination. The Philippines does not have many authentic 'Asian' landmarks such as Boroburdur or Angkor Wat; and the pseudo-Chinese buildings in Manila and Cebu are just a tacky embarrassment. Asian tourists might be drawn to the exotic (Roman Catholic, Latin-influenced culture) Philippines a bit more, but if any Asian tourists have a hankering for Latin culture (I personally have a low opinion of Hispanic culture) they could fairly easily book a trip for Latin America or Spain, which are far more Latin than the Philippines. And there are plenty of tropical islands in the world looking for tropics-loving tourists.

"4. We are now the No. 2 in the BPO industry worldwide and can become No. 1"

Even if the Philippines could overtake India (no small feat since India's educational system now almost matches the Philippines' and they have 1.1 billion people to the Philippines 100 million), there are only so many jobs to be gained--even indirectly--from BPO. BPO alone cannot make the Philippine economy thrive considering how far behind the Philippines is, and how fast the population is growing.

"5. We are extremely creative and artistic people."

This remark makes me angry. Filipinos should in theory be creative. But they aren't. Latin America's primary redeeming feature is its artistry and creativity. The Philippines has the worst of Asian and Latin cultures (not to mention American): all the uncreativity and copycatting of East Asia, and all the economic ineptitude and slow growth of Latin America. Filipinos 'perform' abroad by singing songs written and first sung by foreigners. They do not sing Filipino songs to foreign audiences, and from what I have listened to, Filipino rock is crud, arguably even beating out French rock--and the French don't even try to be good at 'Anglo-Saxon' music. The Philippines has output no artistic wave. Foreigners do not listen to Filipino music or avidly flock to Filipino art galleries. Even East Asians beat out the Philippines in this regard (think J-Pop, K-Pop, and Chinese modern art is currently very trendy in the West).

"6. We have the emergence of a new generation of progressive and results-oriented public sector leaders."

Is that so? I'd never guess. Corruption sure seems to still be rife in the Philippines. Any results are short-term, as politicians seek to placate the mob rather than set long-lasting projects that would lead to prosperity in the long-term even if they seem undesirable now. Any results-orientation and progressiveness on the part of Filipinos seems to be to try to oust corrupt, incompetent politicians before their terms are up, via protests rather than the ballot box where such ousters should be done, making the Philippines appear even more unstable and unattractive to potential foreign investors.

"7. Information and communication technology advancement is enhancing our sense of nationhood."

I agree. However, the Philippines needs to work much harder to form a common identity and ethnicity. Many may find it sad, or disapprove, but the Filipino tribes (Tagalogs, Cebuanos, Ilocanos, Pampangans, also 'Chinese/Tsinoys' and Korean-Filipinos and white Filipinos if they exist, etc.) have to go, and be replaced by Filipinos. A single, standardized language has to be the language of the entire country. I would even approve of the government creating a list of 100 or so 'Filipino' surnames, and assigning them randomly to every citizen household in the Philippines. No Chinese or European family names, at least in public. All Filipinos should have a 'Filipino' name. This goes for given names as well. Those Spanish-style and 'American/English' names don't mean squat in Filipino. Most peoples', especially in Asia, names actually mean something. Stop going foreign; stop giving undue adulation to foreign things; stop denigrating the indigenous. Have more respect for your country and people.

"8. We have a re-emerging middle class mindset."

I wasn't aware the Philippines ever had a 'middle class mindset'. As far as I can tell, income distribution in the Philippines continues to be appalling and far behind most of its neighbors, if not all. This hurts the economy of the entire country. Land reform is necessary to knock the landholding elite from power. Business reform is necessary to knock the bribing, business elite from power and encourage more competition and investment. Unfortunately, the landholding and business elite has a stranglehold on the Philippine government, economy, and culture (via the media). When Filipino actors drawn from the elite (Aquinos, Ongpaucos, etc.) and act as poor Filipinos in movies, that is infuriating. Their families are the very ones responsible for all those poor 'ordinary' Filipinos in the first place, and here they are pretending to be those whom they and their families keep in poverty!

"9. We are a young nation."

This is also India's argument about why it will one day supposedly surpass China. The Philippines large population is a double-edged sword. The population will make it so there are plenty of available laborers in the future. However, the Philippines can't even create enough jobs for the number of Filipinos there are now, which is why Filipinos are forced to look abroad for better business opportunities. A young nation is horrible if you do not have any jobs for those children when they grow up, or for their parents now. The cost of educating an ever-larger pool of children is increasing faster than the Philippines is developing, and so educational quality is in decline. The average Filipino's English is sub-par, to say the least. That the Philippines is a young nation does not work in its favor with the current Philippine economic condition.

"10. We are a people who love to laugh, who love our families."

This is a huge part of the problem with the Philippines. There is not enough discontent among Filipinos to truly push for meaningful change. Filipinos are too easygoing to be sufficiently embarrassed and angered by their nation's very poor status in the world. The senator's comments here reflect this Filipino self-delusion that things aren't that bad. Filipinos' love of their families leads overseas Filipino workers to support leaching family members who don't work, but instead just continually receive and spend remittances sent by their few diligent, loving family members who work in often abusive conditions in foreign lands.

Senator Francis 'Kiko' Pangilinan's comments here are weak arguments. Mr. Pangilinan might also consider dropping the 'Kiko'; mature adults usually should avoid nicknames especially when they are representatives of a sovereign nation.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

The Status of Filipinos in the United States in Comparison to Other Asian Ethnicities

LINKS

"We The People: Asians in the United States" (US Census Bureau)

This is an edited version of a post I made:

Here are some statistics from the US Census which refute my own belief (prior to reading this), and I believe the belief of many, that Northeast Asians emphasize education and are more prosperous in the United States than Filipinos/Southeast Asians:

(from page 12)
*)Filipinos are the fourth ranked Asian group to have a Bachelor's Degree or more, beaten only by Indians, Pakistanis, and Chinese. Filipinos beat out the Japanese and Vietnamese, and match Koreans (for the Confucian groups).

*)On the other end, proportionally more Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Cambodians, Hmong, Laotians, Pakistanis, and Thais have less than a high school diploma than Filipinos. Only Japanese have a smaller percentage.

*)Look at the chart(s) on page 12 for a clearer picture (literally and figuratively).

(from page 15)
*)71% of Filipino men participate in the labor force, as well as 65.2% of Filipino women. By contrast, for the Confucians, 69.3% of Chinese men and 56.8% of Chinese women participate in the labor force. Vietnamese: 67.7% men, 56.4% women. Japanese: 68.8% men, 48.1% women. Korean: 69% men, 52.8% women. Filipinos beat out every Confucian group. (If you're wondering, Indian and Pakistani men are the overall winners.) Saying that Filipino men are lazy does not appear valid.

(from page 17)
*)"The lowest individual poverty rates were for Filipinos, Japanese, and Asian Indians." Filipino poverty rate: 6.3%. Chinese: 13.5%. Korean: 14.8%. Japanese: 9.7%. Indian: 9.8%. Maybe this is evidence of validity of my footnote* below.

I'm surprised by this; it definitely doesn't fit the stereotypes of either Filipinos in isolation, or in relation to the Northeast Asians.

Maybe I have been too harsh toward Filipinos.

According to these statistics, and barring the noticeable exception in median income*, Filipinos in the United States aren't doing too badly, by any means, either on the national level or in comparison with any other Asian group.

*Maybe Filipinos overall live in lower cost of living areas/states, and thus are paid less for equivalent professions than their fellow Asians? Countering this, Filipinos fall behind all the Northeast Asian groups (they're just a little behind the Koreans), plus the South Asians, regarding being employed in "Management, professional, and related"--where the money's at. That, comparably, Filipinos are heavily in sales *does* fit the stereotype! I'm beginning to form a hunch that the seemingly more impressive Asian groups turn out a larger (but still small) elite of very high earners and professionals than Filipinos do, even if as a whole they underperform Filipinos.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.