Talk:Demographics of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Demographics of the Philippines, or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on its quality.
Wikipedia CD Selection Demographics of the Philippines is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Merging AFDed article

Demographics of the Philippines by other sources did not get consensus to delete on its AFD debate. It was suggested to merge the article with this one, and as an editor I have decided to do so. As the talk page now redirects here, you can find the original content of the talk page below. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original talk

Well, I noticed that the Demographs was getting a bit lengthy so I created this new link. I'm not sure about these claims though...

[edit] Mucb better, but can't this be added to the original article on the demog. of the philippines?

I find this source less racist because IMO, it atleast considers other claims with regards to the racial make up of Filipinos. The other one is disgusting, full of prejudice and racism.

they clearly need to be merged, but this one doesn't cite any sources - please add sources, then merge with the main article - Tedernst 23:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
So long after this article's creation, it still doesn't cite sources becuase there are no sources that corroborate the misinformation. That's why it had to be taken out of the main article. I don't get your resentment of the main article. What exaclty is racist and full of prejudice in the main article?
It's not about considering other "claims" made of the racial make up of Filipinos, it's whether any of those "claims" can actually be substansiated by any shred of evidence, other than wishful thinking, and they can't. All sources attest that the reality of the demographic make of the Philippines is another one, not the one presented in this page. It's amazing that this page had had such a long life as it is. Al-Andalus 20:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)'
Hi! You totally obliterated the entire content of the article Demographics of the Philippinesby other sources!!! I think it would be more objective if you would subsume (but not erase) the said article's contents in this (Demographics of the Philippines) article.-User:Matthewprc 01:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC 8+)

[edit] Which do you think is the real demographic status of the Philippines?

  • Austin Craig -- supported by the book The Philippines Through Foreign Eyes: 57% Tagala (i.e., Filipinos), 33% Mestizo (Filipino-SPanish), 3% CHinese, 1.3% South American, 0.0075% Spanish
  • Otley Beyer -- based on his research, promoted by several Philippine history books written by the scholar Gregorio Zaide: 40% Malay, 30% Indonesian, 10% Chinese, 5% Indian, 3% EUropean and American, 2% Arab
  • 'So-called' Philippine Statistical Office reports : 95.5% Malay, 1.5% Chinese, 3% Others
  • DK Financial Times World Desk Reference : Filipino 50%, INdonesian and Polynesian 30%, Chinese 10%, Indian 5%, Others 5%
  • Stanford University genetic study (based on number of genes) : Chinese-52, Formosan Aborigine-Malayan (i.e., Austronesian)-47, European-1

The Wikipedian community must choose between these five, since the constant editing and re-editing has been very irksome and totally opinionated. Obviously, the 'so-called' Phils. Statistical Office reports hasn't been verified, as with Craig's, Beyer's, and the DK's. -- ??? 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Suggestion, just quote them all(?). I personally feel there really should be no distinction between Indonesian, Polynesian, Malay, Formosan Aborigine-Malayan (i.e., Austronesian) and Filipino, in other words the same race.--Jondel 02:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Jondel. Thos are all people of Malay Stock. The Malay race has many different ethnicities (e.g. Bisayan, Kadazan, Tagalog, Bikolano), but they are still part of the Malay Stock. --Jandela 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filipino is beyond ethnicity

Diagram 1: Ethnicity and Nationality
Enlarge
Diagram 1: Ethnicity and Nationality

I urge you not to use the term “ethnic Filipino” or to use “Filipino” to mean low-land Austronesian-speaking Filipinos.

In several articles in Wikipedia, the term Filipino is equated with the Tagalog + the Bisaya + the Ilokano + the Kapangpangan + the Bicolano, etc.

I think it is true that the Philippines is composed mostly of these ethnolinguistic groups. However, I think that Filipino should not be defined in terms of ethnicity. I think Filipino is in a totally different level. Please see diagram 1.

Great Filipino thinkers have been very prudent in defining what Filipino is. For instance:

“History has our dates down in black and white, and knows that the Filipino, because he was created in the 16th and 17th centuries by a tool-forged fusion of tribes from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao; Spanish and Chinese mestizos; etc..” – Nick Joaquin
“The Filipino belongs to a mixture of races, although basically he is a Malay.” – Teodoro Agoncillo

Nick Joaquin’s etcetera and Agoncillo’s mixture clearly shows that Filipino could not be pigeon-holed into a certain ethnicity or a group of ethnicities. Doing so would be like saying blues music is music played with a guitar, drums and keyboards. Blues music couldn’t be defined by the instruments used to play it the same way Filipino could not be defined by the ethnicities of its members!

Phrases like the following should therefore be avoided:

Filipinos comprise 90% of the Philippines.

Or divisions like the following:

People of the Philippines
Filipino
Ilokano
Tagalog
Kapangpangan
Bikolano
Bisaya
Maguindanao
Etc.
Chinese
Spanish
Etc.

Thanks! --Nino Gonzales 11:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Pretty as the diagram is, it is not an ilustration of anything. The diagram represents nothing, it has absolutely no value as a tool of statitical mapping. Where was it sourced from? I can guarantee you that no academic institution would have released such a graphic. It represents nothing but the vivid colours on it. Perhaps it's art? Al-Andalus 16:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC).
As there's no official statistical census on the ethnicities of the Philippines, all numbers are just estimates. (If we based this article on the recent study of Stanford (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf

) then the proportion would simply be something like 52% Chinese, 45% Formosan, and 3% European). Actually, the term Filipino denotes the entire Philippine population (so some people are referred to as a 'Filipino of Chinese descent', 'Filipino of Spanish descent', etc.). As mistaken as the term 'Ethnic Filipino' goes, there is no single collective name for Austronesian lowlanders, hence, people resort to use that term. Regarding the use of the term 'Malay': I think that the lowlander Filipinos are descended from Austronesians, not from Malays - Malays and the lowlander Filipinos stand as co-equals since both are descended from Austronesians - some anthropologists mistakenly refer to the lowlander Filipinos as Malays, due to their similarity in appearance and in customs. This case is also similar with that of the Hakka people of China, which are referred to as 'Han CHinese' because of their adoption of CHinese customs (but they are actually not part of the Han ethnicity- they are the aborigines of China and are said to be related to the Austronesians by Salazar, 1998). BUT, I believe that the chart is representative of the Philippine demographic reality. Regarding the use of the term 'ethnic groups', ethnologists as well as anthropologists have already agreed on the use of the term ethno-linguistic to refer to the various groups like the Tagalog, Ilocano, etc., so I don't think that there's much problem-except maybe for the Visayans (regarding how to divide/group them). Matthewprc 3:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthewprc, we had a long discussion on the right term to use in the tambayan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TAMBAY#Filipino_is_beyond_ethnicity I hope you also share your thoughts. So far, people seem to agree that:
  1. As far as possible, not to lump together lowland Christianized Austronesian Filipinos
  2. Not to equate Filipino to lowland Christianized Austronesian Filipinos (this means Filipino is not defined by ethnicity but in terms of politics or history. As mentioned in the tambayan, if Oprah and Bush are equally Americans, then Ang Kiukok, Manny Pacquiao and Lucy Torres are equally Filipinos)
  3. Malay should be avoided (same reason why American Indian is inappropriate), (you are right) ethnic Filipino is misleading. Native Filipino is also not entirely correct, but maybe it is the best for now. In my opinion, it is better to use our ancient ethnic designations: Tagalog, Bisaya, Ilocano, etc.
I see no difficulty in the case of the Bisaya. It's an ethnic group. Cebuano is a linguistic/geographical/historical grouping. My friends in Cebu who are of Chinese or Hispanic descent do not think they are lesser Cebuanos than my friends of Bisaya descent.
Al-Andalus, the chart represents what most Filipinos think what Filipino means, and it is not something you could tell through genetics.--Nino Gonzales 14:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly i dont see why Malay should be avoided. Filipinos generally are of Malay stock. 2ndly if you want to get really technical about things then your graph is wrong. Because it has a huge circle representing "Hispanic" when if you check out the Hispanic page you will notice that even the small %1 of the population that may have Spanish ancestry, are not considered Hispanic. --Jandela 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plan

If no one complains, I'll do the following once I have time:

Please join the discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines#Clean-up --Nino Gonzales 01:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

First, this should only include statistics, NOT descriptions and histories. Second, "Ethnic Filipino" is B.S. What is "ethnic Filipino?" Tagalogs only? That should be modified into something else, such as Campampangans (sp?), Tagalogs, Bisayas (perhaps can further be split to Cebuanos, Ilonggos, etc.), the Moros and others. Howard the Duck 13:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The entire plan is fine. However, why not consider separating the Bisayans into Cebuanos, Warays, etc. They are separate ethnic groups from each other- scholars have agreed upon this. Their language is sufficiently different enough to warrant separation. Also, it has been studies that the Bicolano language is closer to the other Visayan languages than Waray is. Hence, if you cluster Bisayans into one giant group, you need to Bicolanos in your group (Since as a matter-of-fact, their language is closer to the 'Visayan languages). Romblomanon Visayans are even more distant to Warays than to Tagalogs. I think BIsayan is merely a geographical catchall term used for the various tribes of the Visayan islands. Also, lumping the Moros (Bangsamoro) is not a good idea, since the Maranaos, Maguindanaos, Tausugs, etc. have had their own cultures long enough to be considered independently.
That is a better idea although the explanations should not go into this article, they should go to the ethnic groups article. Also, we should agree on how the ethnic groups are to be classified. I'm not an expert on this so perhaps others can contribute. Also, can someone modify the Ethnic Filipinos part? Like substitute it with Malay or something else? Howard the Duck 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You are right; if we are talking about language, Visayans should be separated. However, if you are talking about ethnicity, they could fall under one category (according to its article, ethnicity is not just based on language). Shall we believe the scholars or the people themselves? What I know is brown Cebuanos (those who are not of Chinese or Spanish descent) call themselves Bisaya. Brown Ilongos call themselves Bisaya. Warays call themselves Bisaya. As well as the Aklanons, Capiznons, etc. I don't know why. They just do. And it was not invented by the Spaniards, nor the Philippine government--that I am sure of. Scholars from the foremost language institute, SIL, classify Waray under Bisayan. They don't classify Bicol under Bisayan. And it is not because the Waray call themselves Bisaya; the language of the Tausug are also classified under Bisaya, since it is very close to other Visayan languages, even if the Tausug do not consider themselves Bisaya. On Ethnic Filipino, I agree with Howard the Duck. We had a long discussion on this in Tambayan. And what came out was: 1) As far as possible, do not lump together the "ethnic Filipino", whatever that means (Why not use the ancient ethnic designations like Ilokano, Tagalog, Bikolano, Bisaya? They have worked for thousands of years...) 2)If you have to lump together low-land Austronesian-speaking Filipinos, use native Filipino (I do not agree with this, by the way). Malay maybe as incorrect as American Indian, but people get the point. That discussion has been archived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_2#Filipino_is_beyond_ethnicity --Nino Gonzales 14:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aetas are not descended from Austronesian-speaking migrants

Aetas are considered by anthropologists (such as Otley Beyer, Landa Jocano, Bellwood, as well as a hundred others) to be ethnically distinct from the other Filipinos. They are considered to be akin to the Andamanese. And furthermore, unless you are blind (not meant in a sarcastic way), or you haven't ventured far into Philippine interior, you should be able to see clearly the difference and distinction of an Austronesian-descended Filipino as well as the Negrito-descended Filipino (Aeta). Aetas just adopted the languages of their neighbors. In fact, one group of Aetas are shown to have one language-Katabaga, but this has been long extinct. Aetas and Filipinos are culturally and biologically different, and that, precisely, is why since the pre-Hispanic period (Mallat, 18th century), the indio (or Filipino) has been 'the mortal enemy of the Negrito'. You cannot claim Aetas as being Austronesians just becuase they adopted the languages of their Austronesian neighbors. In such case, you might as well classify Filipinos whose first language is English (plentiful in Metro Manila) as being Indo-European/Germanic.

This site discusses the origins of the Andamanese Islanders (who really resemble the negritos of the Philippines): http://www2.db.dk/pe/Andaman.htm (contains explicit pictures)

This site places the Andamanese islanders as related to Africans and confirms the origins of Negritos in the Andamanese islanders: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12478481

This suggests the possible affinity of Negritos with Australian aborigines: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=433923&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

Reference: Ethnic groups of insular Southeast Asia / Frank M. Lebar, editor and compiler. Publication info. New Haven : Human Relations Area Files Press, c1975.

-- User:Matthewprc 10:36 23 February 2006 (UTC); 6:37 23 February 2006 (UTC +8)

[edit] Heterogeneity of the Filipino People

[edit] Literacy

What does 15 and above can read and write mean??? is this true??? It should be 6 and above... I shoud change it -

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemographics_of_the_Philippines_4403.html"