Talk:Filipino people/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1 Say you are Filipino. If you were to fill out an official electronic form (The profile on Myspace for example) that had the choices where it says ethnicity: Asian, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander, along with white, black, Middle Eastern, and Native American (but not the choice "other" for any reason, forced or not, except in more defined interracial cases) and could only pick one, which one would you have to pick? This might be a hard decision, especially based on which group(s) you identify with the most. --Geopgeop 11:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC) P.S. If you can condense this whole thing into something easier to comprehend, and do, thanks. --Geopgeop 11:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything nor to whom this addressed. But I am Filipino and white, and whenever possible I try to select both. But if given only one choice, I always choose Filipino anyway. --Chris 05:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I actually have a Myspace. And i've put 'ASIAN' as my ethnicy because we (Filipinos) are technically Asians. --bANi 6:12, 07 September 2005 (HST)

Contents

Mestizo - for Al Andalus

I noticed you made some additions to the article. I was wondering if you could put your reference into the reference section please. Thanks. --Chris 09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Pinoy

Redirects here without further comment. What is this term and what are its origins? Bastie 19:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I put something in the main article. It's basically a nickname for Filipino. It comes from the last two syllables of the word Filipino followed by the diminutive suffix -y. --Chris S. 20:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. Bastie 21:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Why the Ph- and F- uses?

I am confused about why some of the words here use a Ph- [name of the country] and others use an F-. How did this come about? Anon 9 November 2005

The Philippines was named after King Philipp II of Spain. Filipino mainly is used to refer to the inhabitants/natives/race and the language. Philippine is used as an adjective. The Philippines is the proper noun referring to the country.--Jondel 02:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups (to Al-Andalus)

Actually the real filipinos are the ones that live in the mountain and look black. They are the ones that are the real filipinos. The now filipinos are mixed into 3 main mix and it's spanish, chinese, hindu (not alot and most are around mindanao.). They are a mix of them but it can't be said that they are one. This is why it's better off they call them selves filipino instead of saying they are a mix of something when it's been mixed a long time ago. Also just because they adopted the spanish language does not mean anything. To think that after a few mixing and years of being what they are, it's best to say that they are Filipino.


Al-Andalus,

I think you are misinterpreting the notion of ethnicity and ethnic groups. Ethnic groups is not limited to bloodlines which is what I believe your definition of it is. Ethnicity refers to culture, language, religion, and/or mutual perceptions of their origins. It is an encompassing term, which is why it was not necessary to put "linguistically" and "consanguineously."

In any case, please do not remove the Hispanics. Much of our culture and language is influenced by Spain, so this is why we are related to Hispanics. It's very funny, I was just in a debate on a mailing list with other Filipinos and Latinos who think that Filipinos are Hispanic. I am very much against that view.

And please don't remove the bit about Johann Friedrich. I have just completed a very enlightening course on anthropology at my college, which is the basis for my contributions to this page. I learned more about why racial classifications such as Malay are no good and I learned about Friedrich's definition of what is a Malay. --Chris S. 13:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

First and foremost, I will respect the consensus over Malayan.
Now, Hispanics as a "related ethnic group" is too far fetched, not to mention listing it as the first. Never have I suggested that ethnicity is based on bloodlines. Indeed it refers to culture, language and self-identity itself (however, not on religion, if anything this is a last factor). But one cannot deceive oneself or the reader. The Hispanic influences on Philippine culture are just that, influences. But to elevate these influences, and Hispanics, as a related group is as absurd as elevating Americans to a related ethnic group (or Indians and Arab for that matter, for their contributions to the Philippines via Malaysia). Additionally, to state that Hispanics are a related group implies that that alleged relatedness is true for all Filipinos, but this is not the case. While it may be true that Hispanic culture influenced aspects of life for most Filipinos, it did not really alter the foundations and pillars of the cultures of the nation, which remain fundamentally native. Spanish did not replace the language spoken by Filipinos (although most adopted many Spanish loan words), and all languages spoken by Filipinos are all still indigenous languages. And most importantly, this alleged relatedness attempts to homogenise Filipino ethnic groups that are far from it. Many Philippine cultures themselves have not yet assimilated into the “mainstream Filipino culture” (if such a thing exists), let alone adopted the hispanic influences that are spoken of. Filipino Muslims, Igorot, Negrito, for example, have nothing to do with any of the spoken Hispanic influences. The fact remains, those that indeed do have those influences, they are merely veneers. 'N.B. If we are going to get into a debate on the Hispanicity of the Philippines (people or culture) then I am ready for it. But to be honest, I'd rather not, since I have already engaged in many and in all honest it’s a bit of a bore gone over too many times.).
No, it is not too far-fetched. Also, you said consanguineously in your infobox edit, and that refers to bloodlines. Let me tell you, that I am almost on the same page as you as far as Philippine Hispanicity goes. Many people at the HispanoFilipino group (Filipinos, Spaniards, and Latin American members from Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina and Uruguay) strongly believe that Filipinos are Hispanic. I do not believe that they are so because of the reasons you listed. At the same time, the Hispanic influences are a significant part of Philippine culture, particularly the Christian Filipinos in Luzon, Visayas, and parts of coastal Mindanao.
What over 80% of Filipinos have in common with other Latin American countries is that they have a history being ruled by Spain. Granted, the Spanish language didn't impact us Filipinos like the Mexicans. However, many ethnic groups in the Philippines have been deeply affected.
Have you read W. H. Scott's Barangay? It is a look at pre-Hispanic Philippine culture, based on writings concerning the cultures of the indios of the time like Fr. Lesboa's Bicol dictionary, which gave examples of early Bicolano culture. I am, as far as my Philippine heritage goes, a Tagalog. However, the Spaniards described a Tagalog culture that is no longer my own. I do not have tatoo my body and neither do I have a pin inside my urethra - things like that. Furthermore, I am Roman Catholic and do not have whatever religion my Tagalog (and Bicolano, Visayan, Ibanag) ancestors believed in. However, I am not saying that indigenous culture is no longer there, it still exists and is a large part. But it is changed and has fused with the Hispanic one.
So, I find it true that Filipinos are not Hispanics, but because of culture, traditions, and history, we are related to them. There is a wide world of difference between a Nuyorican, a Guaraní from Paraguay, and a Spaniard from Rioja. Yes, language binds them. But the histories of their people also plays a part in them.
One more thing, you said "But one cannot deceive oneself or the reader." I am not deceiving anyone. The infobox is not meant to be comprehensive. It is only a summary of information. That is what the body of the article is for. Hispanics may not have touched all Filipinos, but that is explained in the article, is it not? --Chris S. 06:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
As for the linguistic specification, it is entirely necessary to indicate that Polynesians are related by virtue of linguistics. Were it not for this one single commonality (distantly belonging to the same language family, the largest of the world's language groups) they would not even merit being mentioned as "related". I don't see a push to include Germans or Russians as related groups at the article Punjabis. Al-Andalus 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC).
I will repeat again that languages are one of the principal defining characteristics of an ethnic group. Related languages tend to make related ethnic groups. And this happens quite frequently - take the Latin Europe and the Slavs article for instance. Even Arabs are united by language, among other things. In the Czech people article, you will see "Indo-European." Furthermore, certain pre-Hispanic Filipino groups had a culture that was similar to Polynesians. Polynesians, for example, have/had chiefdoms. Chiefdoms existed in the Philippines too - the chiefs were called datus. There are other cultural similarities too. I will have to locate a copy of Dr. Blust's book on Austronesian culture so I can have a source for this article concerning this issue. In any case, I am reverting the infobox to the original version. --Chris S. 06:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Arabs are related by language, but also by customs, mores, etc. (and in their case not religion, as there are Arab Christians, Muslims and Jews). But Filipinos are not related to Polynesians by language. They are "related" to them by belonging to the same language family, which is entirely different. The Austronesian language family is the widest branching language familiy on earth. To include them is rediculous. As for the Hispanic thing, to mention the "extremist" hispano-filipino frienshdip group was an error. These people dismiss the Philippines is even native, but at the same time propose introducing the teaching of Spanish in the Philipines, and Hispanizing the coutnry (which wouldn't be necessary if it were a Hispanic nation in the first place). As pointed out from the Arab example, religious tradition has nothing to do with relations, and this is the main reason given ass for listing Hispanics as a "related ethnic group". And once again, I ask of you to consider the Moros, Igorot, Aeta, etc, who have none of the Hispanic veneer you talk about. Modernday Filipinos have more outwardly American influences than Hispanics ones, and they speak English. If you insist on listing Hispanic and Polynesians, I will list Americans and Canadians. Al-Andalus 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC).

Listing Americans and Canadians is not entirely accurate. For one thing, those with American influence is mainly limited to the urban centers. And what They do not make up the majority of Filipinos. On the other hand, the vast majority of Filipinos come from ethnic groups which were heavily impacted and influenced by Hispanic culture. This does not make us Hispanic, but there is a relationship between Filipinos and Hispanics. Of course, I am considering the Moros, Igorot, and Aeta. The concept of "Filipino" is hard to define because the Philippines is so diverse, but at least we can come close by trying to capture all Filipinos. BTW, I have removed Polynesian barring further verification and research. --Chris S. 01:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Listing Americans and Canadians is not entirely accurate"? Of course it is not. That is the point. Nor is it accurate to list Hispanics. "For one thing, those with American influence is mainly limited to the urban centers." What proportion of the population of the Philippines is now urban based? The majority. In the last half century alone, American culture has permeated through the media (television, film and print) and schooling more than Hispanic culture did in three centuries. And that more recent and ongoing American influence goes beyond the urban centres. "They do not make up the majority of Filipinos." I'm sorry, but they do. "On the other hand, the vast majority of Filipinos come from ethnic groups which were heavily impacted and influenced by Hispanic culture." Influenced? indeed. Heavily? The truth is, Hispanic cultural influence did not change the basic foundations of all of the Philippine cultures and people it encountered. "This does not make us Hispanic", I'm not saying that you have suggested such a thing. "but there is a relationship between Filipinos and Hispanics". Yes, and I have not denied this either. I AGREE with you There is A relationship, but to go from there and suggest they are related "ethnic groups" is streatching said "relationship". There is also a long spanning and ongoing relationship with China, which in many fundamental aspects of Filipino culture, actually forms pilars of Filipino ways of life and in cuisine as well. And in fact, apart from the identifiably and identified Chinese-mestizo and Filipino Chinese minority, many Filipinos have some residual Chinese ancestry - unlike those outside the oficial and identifiable Spanish-mestizo and Spanish Filipino minority (1%) who have residual Spanish ancestry (3.6%). And as already stated there is a bigger, more influenced, and more contemporary relationship with America. We must see this for what is it; the pushing of a POV. Why not also put Guam, they also share a history of Spanish colonization and cultural imposition, and Spanish loan words on their indigenous languages (which are in fact Austronesian language). In fact, the Guamanians would be better fit the post of a "related ethnic group" to Filipinos. Al-Andalus 05:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We should have a discussion that involves more than just the two of us to see which groups should be included as related ethnic groups;

  • East Timorese
  • Indonesians
  • Malaysians
  • Taiwanese aborigenes
  • Malagasy
  • Polynesians
  • Guamanians
  • Hispanics
  • Americans (USA)
  • Chinese

Al-Andalus 05:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

I definitely agree about Guam. And I don't know if you have been to the Philippines, but the Filipinos you see on TV are not the representative majority of Filipinos. They are the urban Filipinos I was referring to. Certainly things are different in other parts of the country. I mean you say yourself that there is a relationship between Filipinos and Hispanics, but they are not related? What is up with that?
But before I go on any further - what is your definition of a related ethnic group. It seems like you are referring to one perspective, but there are actually more perspectives to consider. --Chris S. 05:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Hispanic refers to a specific usage entailing speaking the Spanish language. Without that there is no real connection. It's like the people of India saying they are Anglo-Indian or the Indonesians claiming to be Dutch-Indonesian. The main perspective used in all the peoples pages reflects what is commonly found in encyclopedias in general and verifiable information. Other than noting cultural contributions, encyclopedias do not consider Filipinos Hispanic or even culturally Hispanic as that is one influence in a largely Malay nation. The perspective you're alluding to is one of idealized nationalism and not common academic practice. Tombseye 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've never been to either India or Indonesia, but I don't their situations really compare to the Philippines'. For one thing, many Indonesians are still Muslim (and some, like the Balinese, are Hindu) and not Christian like the Dutch are. And many people from India are either Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim unlike Britain, which is Christian as well. In the Philippines, on the other hand, Roman Catholicism has made a significantly huge impact. The pre-Hispanic cultures that scholars such as W.H. Scott have written about in Barangay have dramatically altered to something else. Many Catholic Filipinos (such as myself), have many similarities with Hispanics/Latin Americans/whathaveyou. Groups such as the Guaraní and the Quechua were very much like the Tagalogs and the Visayans - their cultures were changed via occupation of Spanish rule.
Granted, Tomsbeye, Spanish is not spoken in the Philippines. For this reason, it would not be appropriate to call ourselves Hispanics. I am against this usage and have received huge disagreement from extremists like Guillermo Gómez seeking to reinstate Spanish in the Philippines. --Chris S. 07:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that explanation actually makes sense and it sounds like we're on the same page. This page seems to have clarified it well and the cultural contribution is accurately stated. The main Philippines' article should reflect that as well since the genetic study is misrepresented. This same issue was brought up on the Turkish people page and will be corrected once the page is no longer protected. Good explanation. Tombseye 18:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello! Regarding the template design, why choose three images that are pictures of people of hill-tribe origin (Ifugao, Mangyan, and T'boli)? Isn't it a bit misrepresentation of the Filipino people? As much as Statistics is concerned, only 10% of the Philippine Population are people belonging to various Hilltribe designations, and the vast majority belong to the Mainstream Lowland Filipino groups. I think it would be better if there was only one picture of a hill-tribe person and two other from the Mainstream Filipinos (such as the Filipino Muslims and the Filipino Chinese--User:Matthewprc 04:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a misrepresentation. Then again, I was not aiming to have proportionate representation. It does not have to be a proportionate representation because I am trying to display as much Filipino groups as possible with a variety of skin tones and dress. --Chris S. 13:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Diaspora

Worldwide Filipinos form the largest ethnic group in the Northern Marianas Islands, the second largest in both Palau and Guam, and the second largest Asian group in the United States. They also form significant minorities in Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, and Germany.


??????


I'm not sure what is trying to be said here, but the wording should be cleaned up.

Well, what are you waiting for? :-) Go ahead and propose a rewording, already. IMHO, it sounds fine, so I don't really understand why it needs cleaning up. --Chris S. 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Hey, who removed the figures for 'Filipinos Elsewhere'!?! -Isao

History and related ethnic groups

The present History of the article only discusses about the mainstream ethnic Filipinos. The one you reverted discusses entirely the History of the Filipino people including the several ethnicities [e.g., Australoid-Sakai, Proto-Austronesian] that came to the Philippines. And also, as you said in your discussion with Al-Andalus, to use the term Malay is 'no good'. Thus, to show equality between the 'Malays' of Malaysia, Indonesian ethnic groups, and the Filipino people, we use Austronesian. If the ancestors of today's Indo-European speaking peoples are simply referred to as 'Indo-European',why not also do the same for 'Austronesians'? : )

To Al-Andalus, regarding the 'related ethnic groups', you yourself saw in the site:http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf that the Filipino people is of three genetic classifications: Formosan (hence, Austronesian), Chinese (which by the way,is more larger than the Austronesian proportion),and Western European(by historical facts, this can be translated to 'Spanish'). So, please do not vandalize the article by removing the "Chinese" and the "Spanish" from the related ethnic groups. Also, it would be more proper to put Taiwanese Aborigines (95% Austronesian) in the related ethnic groups,and not Malaysian (which are only 25% Austronesian-see link)-- Matthewprc 00:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Austronesian is more appropriate since it includes Taiwanese Aborigines as well as Malayo-Polynesian speakers. 'Hispanic' is better than 'Sapnish' becuase it refers to people colonized by Spain (and other Latin-speaking countries) hence the term 'Hispanicized'. Americans should also be included due to their contributions to the current culture. And by the way genetic composition should not be the SOLE basis for culture. Other factors such as trade, geographic location and colonization should also be considered. -Isao
The study reflects the true ethnic contributions of only three Groups-Taiwanese aborigine, Chinese, and Spanish. When we refer to 'related ethnic groups', it generally regards the bloodline (i.e., chromosomal relativity). Please look at the study for more information: Malays are only 25% Austronesian (in terms of chromosomal frequenc) (the rest of the chromosomes are from Dravidian, Chinese, papuan, and others. As I mentioned, the Filipinos are 50% Chinese, 47.5% Austronesian, and 3.5% Western European (this frequency is based on chromosomal identities). -- User:Matthewprc, 02:30, 03 February 2006 (UTC)
The study does not claim such. I don't have time to look at the study again, but if I remember correctly, there were only either 19 or 27 Filipinos used in the study. That is not an inadequate randoms sample since this is incredibly less than .01% of the Philippine population, roughly 80 million+. If it were based on a study of over 10% of the Philippine population, then we could make cautious generalizations. But the fact remains that while the study is good for other purposes, it is invalid for the purpose you wish to use. Furthermore when one says "ethnic groups", from a purely anthropological stand point it DOES NOT refer to bloodline. Ethnicity surpasses bloodlines. You are thinking genetics. --Chris S. 14:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Actually this can qualify as a Small-n (sample) Within Groups sampling, and hence, this is statistically valid..Wikipedia defines ethnic group as: a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. This definition of ethnic groups puts into account first the bloodline (i.e, genealogy or ancestry), and then other factors as well. Ethnicity's definition is rooted in the idea of social groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, religious faith, shared language, or cultural and traditional origins and backgrounds. While ethnicity refers completely to the cultural and anthropological aspects of a group of people, the term 'ethnic group' is used to denote those who havea common genealogy and ancestry(and hence, bloodline). And I think it does claim such. It was a genetic study. Please scroll below. Thanks! :) - Mthwprc 05:04, 08 February 2006(UTC)
First the photos - they have the "fair use" tag on them, so all is good, afaik. First, your distinction of what is an ethnic group and what is ethnicity are not correct. According to my anthropology textbook (Anthropology: A Global Perspective by Scupin & DeCorse. Published 2005), ethnicity is all the ancestral, linguistic, cultural, ideas about common history, religious, etc. bases for one's identity. Ethnic groups are people who come together based on their ethnicity. These two words refer to the same general concept but are used in different contexts. Now, the statistics. When you do a sampling of groups, you randomly choose different groups which have more or less the same population within them. Since each group is randomly chosen, they have an equal chance of being chosen. However, I do not see evidence of this. And a sampling size of < 30 is way too low because it is not telling the whole picture. While the statistics are valid for claiming particular facts, it is not valid for saying that ALL Filipinos are 3.5% Spanish. It's very misleading. If there are studies out there that use a larger sampling size and claim what you want to claim, then by all means let's use them. --Chris S. 14:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK :) I've seen the pics at the Lonely Planet Philippines guide, but since you said that it has a "fair use", then its OK!...For the ethnic group, although anthropology as a more developed discipline has adopted 'linguistic, cultural, and the like', ethnic group is still primarily based around ancestry (and yes, its meaning differs within disciplines). The study does not claim that all Filipinos are 3.5% SPanish. It does, however, claim that the frequency of having a Spanish gene is 3.5%. Frequency is different from probability. And, this study is classified as a small-n sample, so it is valid. Also, if you opt to use your definition of ethnic group (which is also correct), you can might as well remove the titles 'special historical and cultural links' in the related ethnic groups box. Let's put it this way, you are a FIlipino with European genes (or descent), right? So why not accept putting Spanish in the related ethnic groups, since many Filipinos are indeed just like you, part-European (Spanish). Since it has been shown that Filipinos have a 3.6% frequency of having Spanish genes, why not put them in the related ethnic group box?  :) .--Matthewprc 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please give me a credible definition of ethnic group and ethnicity in a different discipline. Furthermore, since we are talking about an ethnic group, we would do this from an anthropological perspective. We would not write about the functions of human brain from a culinary perspective, would we?
Hi! Of course that definitions I gave you are credible- they are from Wikipedia.
Also, I still think you are applying the statistics wrong. And you are wrong about what I am explaining with the statistics. What I said has nothing to do with probability. What you are attempting to do is make an inference of the genetic make-up of a particular population. You are doing this by relying on an unreliable sample of < 30 because there are over 80 million Filipinos in the world. Whatever the frequency is applies only to that small sample; it is not enough to give a generalization to 80 million Filipinos. Sana'y makakaintindi kayo nito.
Yes. I thought you had a problem with the '3.6%', like others do. However, this study still qualifies as a small-n sample, and even though it seems that this study is unscientific ('yun nga, 'coz it is <30), it still is. However, there are some experts who find problems with that particular experimental design. Nevertheless, it is still considered OK by modern statistics.
Furthermore, I am a Filipino with European ancestry, yes. However, it is quite clear where I get my European ancestry from - my grandfather who was an American. However, the jury is still out concerning European genes from my Filipino ancestors. My great-great-great-grandparents Simplicio and Luisa Javier were supposedly Spaniards, the latter dying in the 1930's according to the late matriarch of our family. However, I am still searching for baptismal records corroborating this. On the other hand, baptismal records for my other ancestors say indio as opposed to filipino (Spaniard born in the Philippines) or europeo (born in Spain). But no, just because I have an American grandfather doesn't mean it applies to all Filipinos - I don't even look Filipino. --Chris S. 07:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, yes, its true that many Filipinos do fake their genetic identity in order to feel more 'superior' than others, and also the implementation of the 'Catalogo del Apellidos' has supported that some Filipinos are really indeed natives (or indios). However, there are also some with true Spanish descent. It does not mean that when you look Asian, you don't have Spanish blood. Some of my father's relatives, also surnamed Javier, who is quite Caucasian-looking (also has Spanish admixtures with a traceable ancestry lineage), have children, and these children, even though their parents have Spanish blood, really look like Filipinos - brown, short, black hair, and the like. What I mention below regarding the 'European look of some FIlipinos' is true. Many here, particularly in cities and towns, look quite Caucasian. Of course, this is not an opinion. I use this as a proof in order to impress the fact that Filipinos do indeed have significant amounts of European lineage (because if there's no genes, then there's no reflection of it, rephrasing, if there's phenotype, then there's genotype}. Regarding the ethnic groups 'historical and cultural links' tagline, it ought to be removed, since as you said, the term ethnic group itself refers to 'ancestry, cultural, linguistic...' links. Hence, it need not be doubled. Right? :) --Mthewprc
According to User:Matthewprc, "further studies accept the presence of Polynesian genes in the peoples living in the eastern seaboards of the Philippine islands, thus proving that the Philippines is the main departure area of the Polynesians toward Oceania." If this proves that the Philippines is the "main departure area of the Polynesians", then that means it is the Polynesians that have Filipino genes, not the other way around.
Read first the links and you will understand the entire concept. However, there is a possibility-that there is mutual influx of genes from the Formosans[or if you want, Malays] (i.e., Filipinos). Since the Y-chromosomes (male-side) of Polynesians are from Melanesians and the mt-DNA chromosome(Female side) are from a Austronesian (hence, Philippine) source. What the link says is that in the eastern fringes of the Philippines, there are admixtures of Polynesian genes that are found, which actually manifest themselves phenotypically (in general, Filipinos on the eastern side of the country resemble Pacific Islanders).  :)- Mthwprc 05:04, 08 February 2006(UTC)
And that "3.6% Spanish genes" constantly being quoted has been made quite clear that it does not refer to a suposed average admixture in every Filipino, but to the percentage of the population which showed as being in of Caucasoid genetic markers (while the rest of the sample population did not).
Explain how, with such a small number of Spaniards ever present in the entire history of the Philippines, could evey Filipino/a end up a fragement (even as small as 3.6%; if it is interpreted as the average admixture in every Filipino) of his/her genetic make up being Spanish? In most cases, the friar or mayor was the only Spanish resident in most villages, especially in rural areas. In that era the majority of the population was rural anyway, and a large portion still is today (even so, the urban Filipinos of that era did not have Spanish admixture unless they were specifically mestizos). The even more remote rural areas went without a Spanish person at all. Most of today's urban Filipinos are the descendants of rural Filipinos who became urban-dwellers during the internal migrations of the last two generations. Yet according to Matthewprc, every Filipino, all miraculously ended up with an average of "3.6%" of their ancestry being Spanish? It seems to be that if an ancestors lived in a village with a Spanish official (and not even this), then that makes you part Spanish by speculation.
I do not mean 'average'. What I mean is the 'frequency of genes' that are supposed to be present in Filipinos. It means, in a 100% of samples, there is a 3.6% chance that you can find a Spanish gene.

Of course, that is a tiny frequency mark, but that's beyond the concept. What is important that Filipinos in general, have been found to possess Chinese, Taiwanese aborigine, and Spanish genes in their chromosomes, and however small a 3.6% is, it should still be included to maintain the objectivity of an article. And also furthermore, several accounts such as that of Craig state that in Luzon, the population of the 'Pure Indians'(i.e., Filipinos) are 45,000, the 'Half-Castes' are 35,000, and the 'Spaniards' at 25,000, and that in Mallat: 'you will never find an ugly face in Laguna due to its proximity to the capital and to the abundance of Spanish blood in them' but you deleted the entire thing. Remember the article Demographics of the Philippines by other sources? And furthermore, please stop putting proportions such as 95% or whateverpopulation to denote the proportion of Austronesians in the country. As far as I know, there are no statistical studies in the Philippines that count people by ancestry or race (since the Philippine National Statistics Office are gearedprimairly on economy).:) - Mthwprc 05:04, 08 February 2006(UTC)

I once read a post written by a Filipina on the topic of Spanish ancestry in Filipinos; "What I am saying here is that, unless we undergo dna test, we cannot say that we don't have those foreign blood in our veins" In the case of the Philippines, the correct position to take would be that "unless we undergo dna test, we cannot say that we have those foreign blood in our veins." Al-Andalus 11:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
Exactly..This journal contains a DNA test, and it was scientifically proven, yet you won't accept the results stated therein.:)- Mthwprc 05:04, 08 February 2006(UTC)
I think this started because of the 'related ethnic groups' thing. While I considered the bloodline (Ethnic Groups), you considered also culture (Ethnicity). I think it would be better to havea consensus such as this: Genetic affiliation: Taiwanese aborigine, Chinese. Polynesian, Spanish; Cultural affiliation: All the aforementioned groups, including American. Skim again through the graphs in the journal, and notice that Malays are only 25% Taiwanese aboriginal, and that the other Indonesian groups have even less than 25% Taiwanese aboriginal gene. Hence, although we share a common languagegroup with them (Malays and some Indonesians), our ancestry varies much. Look at other 'people' page and note that they only list 'bloodlines' and not cultural affinities. Because in that sense, you might as well write Arab, Dravidian, Phoenician, and all other kinds of nationalities you care to imagine in Malay people, and this would clearly confuse people. So, we should place the genetic affiliations first (Taiwanese aborigine, Chinese, Polynesian Spanish) since we use the journal as reference. However, to achieve consensus on this thing, you might as well write 'Cultural affinities. This journal is objective since is clearly shows the genetic makeup of the country. Now, if you judge it as being unscientific, it will be up to you how to define Philippine ancestry. :) - Mthwprc 05:04, 08 February 2006(UTC)

Quote:

"It means, in a 100% of samples, there is a 3.6% chance that you can find a Spanish gene. Of course, that is a tiny frequency mark, but that's beyond the concept. What is important that Filipinos in general, have been found to possess Chinese, Taiwanese aborigine, and Spanish genes in their chromosomes"

If the chances of any given Filipino of having Spanish genes is 3.6%, then how can you maintain a that Filipinos in general have been found to possess Chinese, Taiwanese aborigine, and Spanish genes? Again, it is not Filipinos in general that were found to have Spanish ancestry - it was only 3.6% of Filipinos (or 3.6 in every 100, or 36 in every 1000, however you want to put it).

In genetic research on the ancestry of White Americans by Mark D. Shriver, around 30% showed as possessing some African ancestry, and the other 70% did not. Among the 30% who did possess African genes, the black admixture was "at an average of 2.3%" [1]. This fact does not make it correct to say that White Americans in general have been found to possess African ancestry (because only 30% of White Americans actually had African ancestry). If one really wanted to give a figure on the average African admixture for the ENTIRE White American population (including even those who did not have any African ancestry, which were the majority) then that "2.3% average" for those who did have the admixture must be distributed among those who didn't have the admixture, makeing the admixture even smaller. Then what could be said is that "among all self-identified whites...the average black admixture is 0.7%" [2] (but saying this is a bit deceptive, since those actually with the admixture are not all of White Americans, and the average admixture among those that actually did have the admixture was higher than 0.7%).

Now to put it all into context. Off 100 Filipinos, 4 (4 of 100 is 4%, but the percentage was actuality 3.6%, but let's say 4% for numeric convenience) have shown to possess some Spanish ancestry, the other 96% did not. Among the 4% who did possess Spanish genes, the average Spanish admixture in them was not even given (but as an example, let's asume that the average Spanish admixture was 50%). This fact does not make it correct to say that Filipinos in general have been found to possess Spanish ancestry. If one really wanted to give a figure on the average Spanish admixture for the ENTIRE Filipino population (including even those who did not have any Spanish ancestry, which were the majority) then that "50% average" for those who did have the admixture must be distributed among those who didn't have the admixture, makeing the admixture even smaller. Then what could be said is that "among all Filipinos...the average Spanish admixture is 0.1%". (but saying this is a bit deceptive, since those actually with the admixture are not all Filipinos, and the average admixture among those that actually did have the admixture was higher than 0.1%) Al-Andalus 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Craig state that in Luzon, the population of the 'Pure Indians'(i.e., Filipinos) are 45,000, the 'Half-Castes' are 35,000, and the 'Spaniards' at 25,000," Come on! Let's use some sources that at least resemle encyclopedic work. Just with "in Mallat: 'you will never find an ugly face in Laguna due to its proximity to the capital and to the abundance of Spanish blood in them'" You can clearly see the slant of the writer. First of all, where did he source his figuers for "indios", half-castes, and Spaniards. Secondly, he equated uglyness with "'pure indians' (i.e., Filipinos)". He already states that he equates ugliness with Filipinoness, so of course he will exagerate the proportion of mestizos and lessen the number of "indios" (and even in his invented numbers, "indios" still outnumber alleged half-castes). This comes from an author who obviously holds a fondness for Filipinos, but is also struggeling with his own racism, and can only reconcile it by falsly endowing racial ideals (in the Philipines that would be mixed-blooded status). Thus he would make Filipinos worth at least someting more than mere "indios", both for himself and for his reader (presumably they are also racists). 35,000 half-castes and 25,000 Spaniards? Hello!!! No historic documentation of the colonial period or later periods reports proportions such as those. If there is one thing you can trust the Spaniards on, it would be in disecting and documenting the castes, down to the last individual (they were obsessed with it). Al-Andalus 12:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC).
Yes, that's all correct. I'm the one who added the genetic study because people keep emphasizing a Spanish ancestry that is largely putative and most likely not based in real Spanish colonization. I actually wrote a paper on Spanish colonization years ago and the numbers going to the Philippines, which many regarded as a punishment, was very small and included many mestizos from the Americas rather than Spaniards in many cases. The genetic study shows that indeed between 3 and 4 (from the group sampled) showed SOME European ancestry that could be Spanish or American (in fact the American contribution may even be higher than the Spanish). Now out of this tiny group we're talking about people who might have distant European ancestry that goes back so many generations as to be meaningless or the 50% in some rare cases. Extrapolating from this that the most people are part Spanish is not only inaccurate, it perpetuates the European ancestry is something to be valued perspective that is holdover of colonial rule. In addition, no doubt, the adoption of Spanish names makes it easy to believe some Spanish admixture took place in the larger population, but remains unsubstantiated by either the historical record or by science. Tombseye 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
When I put Filipinos in general, and when I quote the 3.6%, it refers to the frequency, not to the central tendency (i.e., average). Hence, not all Filipinos have a Spanish gene. Frequency is NOT the same as central tendency. I DO NOT refer to ALL Filipinos having a 3.6% Spanish gene. I only say that the 3.6% gene proportion found in the journal IS sufficient enough to be included in the list of 'related ethnic groups'. You don't need to be a scholar to interpret the results. And you don't need to show the proportions in 'White Americans' having Black admixtures. WHat we discuss here is the qualitative aspect, and not the quantitative aspect. (i.e., If there's a SPanish gene, then put it in the 'Related Ethnic Groups' list.).There it is, a genetic study using the within group experimental design, with a small-n method, and the results are stated therein. In fact, you dont need to emphasize the number 3.6! I know its valid because my field is related to statistics and experimentation. The reason I mention '3.6' is because you won't put 'Spanish' in the related ethnic group'. Now you turn your attention to Craig and Mallat. Youve disparage their contributions to the qualitative description of the Filipino demographic reality during the Spanish times, without even holding a copy of officially approved sources dating from the SPanish era. FINALLY, I live in the Philippines, I have seen Filipinos, I have seen Malaysians as well as Taiwanese aborigines, and I can confidently tell you that Filipinos indeed do have European as well as Chinese admixtures, as it is expressed phenotypically. If you won't accept that. It's fine. I do not attempt to change your opinions. My only aim is that you put 'SPanish' in the related ethnic groups, and remove the 'historical and cultural' tag there. Ethnic group was defined by User:Christopher Sundita above, read it, and I suggest that you remove the aforementioned tag line. Better say- Related ethnic groups: Austronesians, etc., etc., then removing the tag line, it goes straight to ..., Chinese, Spanish, American. AND don't tag me as being 'subjective' (because I hold my opinions based on outward appearance). If something expresses itself outwardly (phenotype), then it must also contain a factor inwardly (genotype), right?  :) --Matthewprc 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Your interpretation is like saying that people in Peru are all part Japanese just because a small group are. That's absurd. I haven't been to the Phillipines, but I've known plenty in California and I don't know what you call looking like Europeans, but that doesn't sound particularly academic or born out from what I've seen. The vast majority resemble other Asians with a tiny group occassionally looking different (and corresponding to the study I'd say). And the tiny 3.4% AGAIN might mean that some people have one ancestor from 500 years ago. That's like being a white guy with an African American ancestor from the 1600s. And related refers to a proportion that constitutes significant admixture in the general population and not a tiny minority. Have you read the other peoples pages? Do you realize how long the lists would be if everyone starts listing minor genetic influences as if they are related to the general population. Quantitative definitely matters and it's misleading to put that Spanish is a related group when it only shows up in tiny group and it might not even be Spanish as it might be American. Your method makes no sense. In fact, there are not encyclopedias who claim that the Filipinos are related to the Spaniards because the vast majority aren't. Your opinion is not relevant. We aren't doing independent research here or opinions based upon what you think you see. This is endemic of the peoples pages with people emphasizing one thing over another due to usually a distorted perspective handed down from generation to generation. In addition, other studies may show a lower proportion, but regardless, it's completely inaccurate and the methodology does NOT reflect common academic usage. Tombseye 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the Japanese in Peru did not intermarry with the Peruvians, unlike in the Philippines, where there are some Spanish who have intermingled with the Filipinos.
Actually, I knew of a couple of Peruvians of mixed Japanese/indigenous ancestry. Couple people, that could be like 2% akin to your 3.6%. And you are aware of the close ties New Spain had with the Philippines and how the government was administered from New Spain, not Spain in Europe. 66.215.18.34 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
And even if you indeed have some census or a statistical report that indicates how there are Native-Spanish marriages, it would still be wrong, since it does not take into account the rapings of SPanish priests on Filipinas. You said:Quantitative definitely matters and it's misleading to put that Spanish is a related group when it only shows up in tiny group and it might not even be Spanish as it might be American. Well, you yourself even acknowledge the very presence of Spanish genes. Furthermore, READ THE JOURNAL-it labels it as 'European introgression', not 'Native American introgression' or 'Mexican mestizo introgression'. And I do not put my opinions. I just placed what I see here in the Philippines-that there are indeed many who have European features. You are the one who is placing your opinions. You say:This is endemic of the peoples pages with people emphasizing one thing over another due to usually a distorted perspective handed down from generation to generation.. Using your statements, you can might as well label Filipinos as 'liars'. Anyway, I now repeat, I don't say all Filipinos have a Spanish gene. I only say that FIlipinos have a 3.6% frequency to have a Spanish gene. Its' not misleading since they ARE in fact really related, albeit in minute proportions. You said:the methodology does NOT reflect common academic usage What then, can you say, is A methodology that reflects common usage? It is a genetic study, not a social science study. You said:In fact, there are not encyclopedias who claim that the Filipinos are related to the Spaniards because the vast majority aren't. Really?, check Grolier and Britannica encyclopedia, and you will see the opposite. You can might as well check other encyclopedias. And by the way, many Filipinos are even considered as 'Hispanics' by some Californians due to their phenotypic expressions. You are the one whose subjective. Even though how minute the proportion is, you need to include it, so as to prevent subjectivity. And of course, the term Filipino refers to anyone living in the Philippines, be it an American, an Austronesian, or anyone else. It does not refer only to the 'Austronesians' (natives, as you might call them). --Matthewprc 03:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Some Japanese did intermarry in both Peru and Brazil, but that's besides the point. European features? What does that mean? I've known Indonesians with European features, that hardly makes them all part European. I'm not saying Filipinos are liars, just generally unable to reconcile that just having a Spanish name doesn't make you part Spaniard. It's not their fault and now if we keep up this charade you can expect generations of people thinking being part-Spanish is somehow a badge of something or other. No, 3.6% have some genetic marker from Europeans AND that's one study with a possibilty of a error differential that may actually reflect the official 2% figure. Really Grollier and Britannica claim that most Filipinos are part Spanish? I have Encyclopedia Americana and it seems to simply discuss a Malay background with substantial Chinese interaction for the vast majority of Filipinos. Hispanic is a not a racial term! Geezus. It's a geographic term first invented by the US CENSUS bureau and can apply to black Hispanics from the Dominican Republic, white Hispanics from Argentina, and Native Americans from Mexico. I'm being quite objective here and if the article is not going to discuss ethnic Filipinos, but citizens of the country, then that's an entirely different matter. Regardless, look at the other peoples' pages and you'll note that the common practice is to denote major related groups and not tiny groups. Tombseye 20:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You say: I've known Indonesians with European features. Precisely. The journal says that Indonesians have some European chromosomes. You say: No, 3.6% have some genetic marker from Europeans AND that's one study with a possibilty of a error differential that may actually reflect the official 2% figure. Look at the haplogroup graphs, and that's where the frequency can be found. AND, there was no official census that says 2% of all FIlipinos are Mestizos. In fact, the Philippine government does not do survey based on ancestry. This 2% was just an estimate. To further, I did not say that Hispanic is a racial term. Furthermore, the use of Filipino here in Wikipedia refers to all 'inhabitants and bonafide citizens of the country', and not just Ethnic Filipinos (see WP:TAMBAY). -- Mthwprc

I just want to repeat what Chris said about Ethnicity . It is all the ancestral, linguistic, cultural, ideas about common history, religious, etc. bases for one's identitiy. So it is clear why Hispanics are included. - Isao

I did not counter that, I just said that ancestry has been the main priority for establishing ethnic groups. And so, it would be better to remove the tag line: 'historical and cultural links, etc.' in the related ethnic groups line. -- Mthwprc

It seems that Mattewprc seems to focusing on the "foreign" haplogroup which wasn't the intention of the research. This is one of those "I found something to use" in order to support their evidence.

Mtthew, I think you're better of contacting the researchers themselves or at least the genetics dept. at Standford Univ. who was responsible for putting out this research. There were 3 haplogroups identified (not counting the foreign haplogroup which you are arguing over) and their origins as this entire report seems to focus on are on the indigenous people who had been in existence in the area prior to the other migrations. The 3% which you imply applies to all Filipinos having Spanish ancestry is incorrect because had you read the report in its entirety, you would have seen how they mentioned that other options should not be ruled out based on their findings. The purpose of this was to dispell the thought of the "express train" theory and to prove that people have been living in these areas far before the so called express train route began. Most importantly exchange in cultural technology took place but as proven in the y-chromosomes, not the people. 66.215.18.34

I read the entire article, and the 'other options' you might be talking about is homoplasy. They have indicated that this was remedied by using a certain criterion. In fact their results had large letters indicating "European Introgression" -- Mtwprc
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/l/Talk%7EFilipino_people_Archive_1_fc4d.html"