Talk:Philippines/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

The messages below were archived on August 5, 2005. And include messages written between June 13, 2005 and August 1, 2005

Contents

Intro paragraph

"Colony" and "protectorate" are both not quite correct, but not totally incorrect either. The correct legal definition of the status of the Philippines in United States law is that the Philippines was a "United States unincorporated territory in the form of a commonwealth." Language in the introductory text was changed to reflect that legal definition. --Gerald Farinas 17:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


07/29/2005 by Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com

The official terminology USA enforces for Philippines should be what's in the 'Library of Congress' (of USA). It became a Commonwealth in 1935. My question to you all now is: What exactly was the Philippines from 1898 thru 1935?

Here's excerpts relevant to the terminology of what this 'unincorporated-territory-but-not-commonwealth-either-for-37-years' represented to the USA, or plainly speaking a 'backyard' for kids to roleplay the so much envied status Spain had of "Imperial Nation". I won't go into clear outrage of what these following quotes of History leave in anyone:

"...A secret agreement was made between the governor and United States military commanders in early August 1898 concerning the capture of Manila. In their assault, American forces would neither bombard the city nor allow the insurgents to take part (the Spanish feared that the Filipinos were plotting to massacre them all). The Spanish, in turn, would put up only a show of resistance and, on a prearranged signal, would surrender. In this way, the governor would be spared the ignominy of giving up without a fight, and both sides would be spared casualties. The mock battle was staged on August 13. The attackers rushed in, and by afternoon the United States flag was flying over Intramuros, the ancient walled city that had been the seat of Spanish power for over 300 years.

The agreement between Jaudenes and Dewey marked a curious reversal of roles. At the beginning of the war, Americans and Filipinos had been allies against Spain in all but name; now Spanish and Americans were in a partnership that excluded the insurgents..."

"...A document was approved by the congress on November 29, 1898. Modeled on the constitutions of France, Belgium, and Latin American countries, it was promulgated at Malolos on January 21, 1899, and two days later Aguinaldo was inaugurated as president.

American observers traveling in Luzon commented that the areas controlled by the republic seemed peaceful and well governed. The Malolos congress had set up schools, a military academy, and the Literary University of the Philippines. Government finances were organized, and new currency was issued. The army and navy were established on a regular basis, having regional commands. The accomplishments of the Filipino government, however, counted for little in the eyes of the great powers as the transfer of the islands from Spanish to United States rule was arranged in the closing months of 1898.

In late September, treaty negotiations were initiated between Spanish and American representatives in Paris. The Treaty of Paris was signed on December 10, 1898. Among its conditions was the cession of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico to the United States (Cuba was granted its independence); in return, the United States would pay Spain the sum of US$20 million. The nature of this payment is rather difficult to define; it was paid neither to purchase Spanish territories nor as a war indemnity. In the words of historian Leon Wolff, "it was . . . a gift. Spain accepted it. Quite irrelevantly she handed us the Philippines. No question of honor or conquest was involved. The Filipino people had nothing to say about it, although their rebellion was thrown in (so to speak) free of charge." ..."

"...President William McKinley issued a proclamation on December 21, 1898, declaring United States policy to be one of "benevolent assimilation" in which "the mild sway of justice and right" would be substituted for "arbitrary rule." When this was published in the islands on January 4, 1899, references to "American sovereignty" having been prudently deleted, Aguinaldo issued his own proclamation that condemned "violent and aggressive seizure" by the United States and threatened war. ..."

"...United States presidents and their representatives in the islands defined their colonial mission as tutelage: preparing the Philippines for eventual independence. Except for a small group of "retentionists," the issue was not whether the Philippines would be granted self-rule, but when and under what conditions..."

"...The 1902 Philippine Organic Act disestablished the Catholic Church as the state religion. The United States government, in an effort to resolve the status of the friars, negotiated with the Vatican. The church agreed to sell the friars' estates and promised gradual substitution of Filipino and other non-Spanish priests for the friars. It refused, however, to withdraw the religious orders from the islands immediately, partly to avoid offending Spain. In 1904 the administration bought for US$7.2 million the major part of the friars' holdings, amounting to some 166,000 hectares, of which one-half was in the vicinity of Manila. The land was eventually resold to Filipinos, some of them tenants but the majority of them estate owners..."

"...A major step was taken in the direction of independence in 1916, when the United States Congress passed a second organic law, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, which replaced the 1902 law. Its preamble stated the intent to grant Philippine independence as soon as a stable government was established..."

"...Quezon himself went to Washington and negotiated the passage of a revised independence act, the Tydings-McDuffie Act, in March 1934.

The Tydings-McDuffie Act provided for a ten-year transition period to independence, during which the Commonwealth of the Philippines would be established. The commonwealth would have its own constitution and would be self-governing, although foreign policy would be the responsibility of the United States. Laws passed by the legislature affecting immigration, foreign trade, and the currency system had to be approved by the United States president..."

"...The country's first constitution was framed by a constitutional convention that assembled in July 1934. Overwhelmingly approved by plebiscite in May 1935, this document established the political institutions for the intended ten-year commonwealth period that began that year and after July 1946 became the constitution of the independent Republic of the Philippines..."

End.- Please let me know your comments at donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com

Article Size and Specifics/Details

Article size should remain small according to Wikipedia standards. Some details had been deleted and they have to be transferred to other articles. Certain subjects such as Shopping and Night Life that only contain information specific to Metro Manila should be written in those articles, not in the Philippines article. Such information regarding the Economic Society of Friends may be transferred to the History of the Philippines. --Wng

I don't see much about shopping and night life in other articles about other cities and probably should be deleted.--Jondel 04:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Austronesian vs. Malay

To Al-Andalus, I posed a query about "ethnic Malays" and "ethnic Austronesians" a few weeks ago in the Austronesian Language mailing list, AN-LANG. AN-LANG is composed of linguists and anthropologists who study Austronesian languages and their people.

The well-known and respected Dr. Lawrence Reid of the University of Hawaii wrote:

"The term Malayo-Polynesian is used to label the family of languages which includes all Austronesian languages outside of Taiwan. I personally don't like the term for the following reasons. In the tradition of historical-comparative linguistics language families were supposedly named by combining the names of languages or groups at opposite ends of the geographic distibution of the family. Thus Indo-Germanic, which itself is also perhaps a misnomer, since I suspect the Slavic languages are probably more distant from India than the Germanic languages. I suspose the western edges of the Malayic languages are more distant from Polynesian, as the crow (or jets) fly, than the Philippines, But the implication of course is that groups like the Philippines are subsumed under Malayic, which is false. That is why I have consistently used the term Extra-Formosan for all Austronesian languages outside of Taiwan, but the majority of linguists continue to follow Blust in his use of Malayo-Polynesian... It will probably stay as the label for future generations, despite its misleading connotations."


      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com: A certain rejection to "Malaysian" grew up out of nowhere. They weren't ever considered CHINOS per se by Spaniards; throughout Hispanicamerica what's left in our History books of Filipinas mentions "Malayos", "Malasia", and related. My guess is that the Muslim predominance of Malaysia/Indonesia clashes with Philippines' Iberian Catholicism, the rejection of "Malaysian" referents would be called for the survival of Philippine Christian faiths. Terms like "Extra Formosan, Austronesian outside of Taiwan, and more like Islanders, Asian, Southeast Asians, Polynesians, and in the least degree of them all 'Latin' are clear signs of the identity crisis, or the onion layer syndrome, Filipinos are suffering today as a result of this build up of innovating 'theories' aiming at positioning them anywhere outside the 'Malaysian' context. The terms mentioned won't be the last ones, embrace yourselves for whatever Australian, Hawaiian, Taiwanese and USA 'academics' come up with in the near future. - end***


Dr. David Gil at the Dept. of Linguistics at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany wrote:

"... In Indonesia, the term refers to a particular ethnic group found primarily in Sumatra and neighboring peninsular Malaysia; in this usage, Bugis, Javanese, Sundanese, Lampungese, Minangkabau, Acehnese, and so on and so forth are most emphatically not Malay. ..."
"... in contrast, in Malaysia, the term Malay has a much broader usage, which seems to correspond roughly to Muslim Austronesian. (So this would include also those Pilipinos who are Muslim.) To a certain extent, this usage reflects current realities within Malaysia, where Javanese, Minangkabau and other Muslim Austronesian migrants assimilate rapidly into the dominant Malay cultural mold."
        • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com: Muslim Austronesian is still Malaysian, Indonesian or Filipino if the person grew up in either one. Faith of parents has to be added to the sociocultural context to determine the person's real idiosyncrasy. Add up the Hispanic cultural elements of the Philippines to tell apart a Filipino Muslim Austronesian from a Malaysian one. -end ***


"From the above, it should be obvious that for linguistic and ethnographic discourse, the more limited Indonesian usage is more precise and hence more appropriate than the broader Malaysian one. And it would also seem to be preferable on ethical grounds. ... Using Malay as a cover terms for Minangkabau, Javanese, Bugis and so forth is a bit like using German as a cover term for Swedish, Dutch, English and so on."
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com: Linguistically and ethnically, Malaysia/Indonesia become an axis, a pivot, a stronghold of whatever islander migration theories will come up. What I've noticed, somehow, is that no theories Philippines chooses to 'eat' include the Southeast Asian continental peninsula, that is Vietnam, Thailand... Why's that? All island cultures throughout the world interact and are influenced off solid ground. Why an exclusive pattern of migration off China and Taiwan, without touching the referred peninsula? Makes me wonder. End- ***


Dr. Fay Wouk of the University of Auckland in New Zealand wrote:

"Your Wikipedia person is right that 'ethnic Austronesian' doesn't make sense. The problem is, of course, that Malay was supposed to refer to a racial type, and race is not the same as ethnicity. Many anthropologists now say race is a cultural phenomenon, not a biological one, and don't want to refer to racial groups, only to ethnic groups. But they are not the same thing. There are populations that differ in biological descent"


      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com: More, perhaps, on the rejection to Malaysia/Indonesian influence. Race and ethnicity go holding hands, but genetical DNA obsessions destroy the true virtue of genuine anthropological mapping of people. Filipinos will be filipinos with whatever layer 'modernists' will put on them. The very layer that needs some theory-boosting is the Hispanic one, and who knows if this one's the one to save Filipinos from the identity crisis. Perhaps one day when the truth behind the sweet potato migrating from South America into China comes up, fascinating facts will change a big chunk of anthropological and genetic/ethnic research. End- ***


" In the Philippines, there are lots of different ethnic groups speaking Austronesian languages. My understanding is that some of them are descended (biologically, genetically) mainly from Austronesian immigrants, and some of them are mainly descended from pre-Austronesian populations. (Of course, there is admixture."
"If you are referring to biology, that is, to populations who look physically different from each other, but who belong to a variety of ethnic groups, you need to make it clear that the term you are using does not refer to either language or culture. Then you can really use any term you like. You could use Austronesian, or Malay. But you can't throw ethnic in there."
"However, the notion of a 'Malay archipelago' is a bit weird. There is a Malay peninsula, and Indonesian archipelago and a Philippine archipelago. And I doubt it was ever correct to consider the entire area a single group ethnically. So Malay may not be the best choice"

To remedy this, I decided to avoid the use of "ethnic Malays" and "ethnic Austronesians" given their misleading usage. Yes, people can learn the differences, but this is easily so not done. The best thing to do is explain what Filipinos are - that they are composed of ethnic groups who speak Austronesian languages. And I repeat - they are not from Indonesia or Malaysia. Austronesian researchers are mostly in agreement that Austronesian-speaking peoples come from Southern China, via Taiwan. Please read Peter Bellwood's The Austronesians for more information. --Chris 22:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The best thing to do is explain what Filipinos are - that they are composed of ethnic groups who speak Austronesian languages. And I repeat - they are not from Indonesia or Malaysia. Austronesian researchers are mostly in agreement that Austronesian-speaking peoples come from Southern China, via Taiwan"
Fine, let's analyse this. Let's hypothesis that at no point in time Malays entered into the Philippines from Malaysia and Indonesia (let's ignore the fact that at this time in the Malay Archipelago there was no consciousness of where Malaysia or Indonesia ended and the Philippines started, because there was not modern Indonesia, Malaysia or Philippines) and are therefore not the ancestors of the Filipino Malays. But tell me this. Where did all the Filipino Muslims come from? You do know that the Philippines was Muslim as far north as Manila (prior to conversions to Catholicism). Why of course, how silly of us to ignore such an obvious fact slapping us right in the face, they came from Indonesia and Malaysia. And NO, the Muslims that proselytised Islam in the Philippines weren't Arabs, they were other Malays who had themselves been Islamised earlier on by Arab and Chinese Muslims.
I am not disputing this. But what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? --Chris 20:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:Malayarch.png
The Malays (Filipinos, Malaysians and Indonesians, etc) have been island hopping for centuries, there was no concept of "we're in the Philippines", "now we're in Malaysia", "now we're in Indonesia", "now where back in the Philippines". It was all just the Malay Archipelago, there were no set limits or what we know today as modern border-states. They were all just different tribes, all ethnically, culturally, linguistically, artistically, phenotypically, genetically Malay!
How do you know that they weren't Bataks, Sundanese, Javanese, Balinese, Madurese, etc.? Remember at this time the only true Malays were those who called themselves as such. What is a genetic Malay? What source do you have that there existed "genetic Malays"????? --Chris 20:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I quote user Ancheta Wis; "There is other evidence that the peoples of the Malay archipelago have migrated from island to island in the archipelago, for example, the emigration of some Malay people to Antique on the island of Panay to escape from the influence of the Srivijayan kingdom on Borneo, for which they paid a gold headdress to the chief of the Negritos on Antique. It is safe to say that the Malay people live in the Malay archipelago (including Borneo)". That is to say, it is safe to say there is such a thing as the Malay people, and that they are the people of the Malay Archipelago; Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines and East Timor. Al-Andalus 14:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC).
This is the case of Malay migrants to the Philippines. But this is not mean that they intermarried with the vast majority of Filipinos living on those islands. And how about "other" Malays? In Taiwan there are groups that are closely related to the Ivatans and Itbayats of the Batanes islands. And just recently (last two months), there was a University of Chicago study that determined that people from Madagascar are genetically related to some groups on the Malay Peninsula. Are people from Madagascar Malays too? Do true Malays even consider them as such??? --Chris 20:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


      • 07/29/05 by Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com: Filipinos are not pure Austronesians today, if they ever were. Neither are the rest of the proposed "Austronesian" nations, also referred to "Nusantaran" culture before the "Austronesian" term even came up, the latter term was ironically invented by Indonesia for 'island peoples' as far as Malaysia and beyond. Do your research for Nusantara, which is now only limited to Indonesians.

I agree with whoever mentioned 'island hopping' above, because that's the fact. No nation, but rather "nobody's land". Let's all remember this when speaking of Spain and Philippines.

A Malaysian residing in Spanish Philippines back then is doomed to lose its cultural purity, not to mention its genetic one, like anyone else considering the profusive interethnic crossing Spain provoked in all their lands, something that wasn't normal before her. It may be good to understand that migrants from Malaysia or elsewhere in Philippines were just a normal segment of the normal population of citizens (everyone), whose education and evangelization was charge of the friars. Today's 'moros' in Philippines didn't retain their Islam by retreating into the jungles, otherwise they'd have a different culture from the mainstream Philippines, in cuisine, idiosyncrasy, social and body behaviours. Everyone had to interact with the officers in town, that goes to the lowest officer or today's 'cop', who would've been Spaniard at first. The language is Castilian, and so is the identity of the town everyone lived in. End-***

Major Regional Languages

Just wondering?? , What happen to the Major Regional languages in the Philippine Information Category? Can you please put it back in the list. Cool! Thanx!

Malay again

Again, let's avoid references of Malay as stated above. I left Dr. Rizal's title untouched because that's what he's also known by. But I have to wonder, do the majority of the people in this so-called Malay race (i.e., Indonesians & Malaysians) know who Dr. Rizal is? Maybe a better term would be "Pride of the Filipino people." --Chris 03:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping that by quoting Philippine government sources "Malay" would be left alone, instead of the worse choice "Austronesian". As already discussed, there is not such thing as "an Austronesian person", there are however people of different ethno-racial stocks that are Austronesian-speakers; Malays (those from the Malay Archipelago comprised of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, East Timor), indigenous Taiwanese, Polynesians, Malagasy.
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com: I agree, there isn't an Austronesian person. End***
Every single source provided by the government of the Philippines indicates that native Filipinos are members of the Malay race. José Rizal, national hero of the Philippines, is even endowed the title of "Pride of the Malay Race" (in the opinion of the Philippines, of course) because Filipinos are in fact ethnic Malays. That they are Malays is not to say that Filipinos are Malaysians, which is a totally different concept.
Apart from a couple of "scholars" you have quoted (that haven't really countered what is being said), every other non-Philippine source also states that the natives of the Philippines are ethnically Malay, differentiated from Indonesians and Malaysians mainly by religion.
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com: The Philippine government sources, as above mentioned, are so disinformed and let's no go to the hispanophobic facts, that the headers on a big percentage of Tourist brochures distributed by the Dept of Tourism (Philippines) says "The Filipino is basically of Malay stock with a sprinkling of Chinese, American, Spanish, and Arab blood." Check DOT. I do agree on the basic Malay stock, because it's evident when comparing the predominant faces of Filipinos and their neighbors. But the 'sprinkling of American and Arab' parts are exaggerated, the only unrestricted interethnic mixing happened with Spaniards and, to a much lower level, Chinese who're traditionally 'exclusive' of others into their clans. Philippines has to strip off their irrational aspirations to be perceived as 'American' (-sic, America is a continent from Canada to Chile) using whatever arguments, and 'interethnic marriages' is the least of them all considering the true conditions US bases Pinays yapayukis came to be infamous for. End***


I think this refusal to accept the blatantly obvious is from a Christian Filipino point of view. Most Filipino Muslims wouldn't argue their Malay status, because their [Filipino Muslim] culture and religion (being the less influenced of among all the numerous Malay groups of the Philippines) is almost a mirror image of those of the people of Indonesia.
      • 07/29/05 by Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com: This is clear consequence of Philippine mainstream culture evolving into the connotation of "Malay" for 'muslims', if not 'terrorists, savage people'. In turn, it may have something of the bad connotation Spain passed on to her child, Philippines, towards "Malayos". What's left for Philippine muslims but to call themselves 'Malaysians', and I wouldn't be surprised that if they weren't 'rebels' originally, they TURN pro-Moros after becoming muslim to 'go with the stereotype'. End***
Even data provided by the CIA in the composition of Philippine demographics also classifies Filipinos as either Christian Malays or Muslim Malays, but all Malays nonetheless.
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com:USA is very famous for its obsession to reclassify things already classified, with the premise of 'simplifying in an intelligent way' which is no other than tossing anything that 'looks the same' in their eyes into sacks. "Malays" is not any different from "Latino" or "Hispanic", labels that come apart once you start to interact with the different components of those umbrellas and you realize how different they are. Merit's given to CIA and its hard work, not any less than the Thomasites and SIL's adoctrination of Philippines, but let's bear in mind the 'USA' standards work that way. No wonder Europeans always scrutinize well whatever modernist or revolutionary ideas USA comes up with. End***
This "ethnic Austronesian" label that some editors have been attempting to apply instead of "ethnic Malay", is an invention. I have been looking up the use of "ethnic Austronesian" everywhere, but as yet haven't found it in use. The fact remains that Austronesian is a language group, not an ethnicity. And the Malays are just one of a few ethnicities that just happen to have their languages in the same language group.
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com:I agree. It's a proto-it-all 'possibility' of originating language/culture. That's why the migrating pattern proposed has to be solidified in theory with facts. Everytime the brilliant ahtropologists come up with discoveries, the whole act collapses in no time when truths surface. The Homo Floresiensis scandal, one of the biggest fiascos of recent times, and what a rave it had caused...
The Taiwanese bottleneck sounds as good as for example some Indonesian waves sailing towards Taiwan instead. As true as New Zealanders making it to Easter Island or Peru/Chile, which in turn is also as valid as Peruvians/Ecuadorians according to Thor Heyerdahl following the El Niño currents all the way to Philippines and beyond to leave behind some sweet potatoes...
In one and the other, I believe the Austronesian theory is a waste of time because the times alluded happened perhaps more than 500 years ago. Once again, all these territories were colonized by either Chinese or European nations, and each one walked a different way. It's as much waste trying to bring together the 'supposed descendants of Austronesians' into a cultural/linguistic umbrella as it is to give the descendants of the Nazi Holocaust, or (even if they weren't their own parents) some money today.
The Austronesian research is, to me, evidence of what started out as 'anthropological' curiosity, that may be touring the wrong way today and who knows if its political gains to Taiwan to gain a strong cultural identity supporting its final secession from China is worth it. We all head up, back in time, to a common origin regardless. Spaniards and Filipinos going way back in their trees come from the same place if you know what I mean... ;-) End***


I don't want to give more analogies, but I will have to state once again, that one cannot state in the Pakistan article that the population is ethnically "Indo-European", because one person or another doesn't want to state the obvious, because they don't want to be associated with one people (sub-Continent Indians) or because they want to be associated with another (Europeans). "Indo-European" is a family of language with wide ranging branches that happens to have almost unrelated ethno-racial groups as speakers. An ethnic group is based on a variety of factors, kinship in language being just one of them and definitely not the most important.
Another problem, I believe, is that many urban Filipinos in all honesty cannot see how their ethnicity could be Malay, as in their minds there is little similarities between them and Indonesians or Malaysians or even East Timorese. But this dissimilarity is due to recent foreign cultural adaptations into Filipino culture. Take away the western borrowing (Hispanic or North American) and you will see it is Malay in core.
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com: I write it once again, the label "Malaysian/Indonesian" has been imprinted on the mind of mainstream filipino society as radical, muslim, and therefore both sides (Christians and Muslims) have taken up their differentiating labels, want it or not. The ones losing are the non-Muslims, because Malaysia is not an insult for anyone. Muslims are comfortable calling themselves Malaysian, while the whole rest of Philippines is 'orphan' of a cultural identity. Hope it takes back its Hispanic heritage, as opposed to the above paragraph that says 'borrowings'. You don't 'borrow' for 300 years, and if you do guess how you pay it back. The person above, and everyone else, have to come down to terms with the Philippine Hispanic heritage as the TRUE umbrella under which all the faces and cultures of modern day Philippines are sheltered as a 'nation'. Hispanophobia taken off, and a consequent 'revision of historical facts' to clean up the hispanophobic exaggerations, along with a reinstitution of Castilian but this time around with perhaps more ground enforced by the government, can give all Muslim and Non Muslim filipinos some peace at last. They all relate to the same common denominator, on this. End***
I propose we have independent arbiters come in to see the dispute, this way a resolution may be found without further reverts. Al-Andalus 06:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC).
First and foremost, I took into consideration what the Austronesian scholars have told me. Dr. Fay Wouk in particular said that you were right. I will not argue with that - she has a background in anthropology and linguistics. At the same time, she and the others had reservations concerning the Malay race. There is none. And that's what I have learned from other anthropologists. The idea of a Malay race was created because we brown folks did not fit in as Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids. But since then, even these three racial categories have been debunked.
You see Malay as an ethnic group - as you put it. But what makes a Malay? Is it language? No, can't be. We don't have a common Malay language. Is it culture? Yes, there are similarities but I, as a Tagalog, cannot understand Indonesian or Javanese for the life of me. Religion? No, I'm a Roman Catholic and most Malays are Muslims. Next. Political? Nope, can't be. Racial? Yeah, we do look like but that's only skin deep.
My proposed alternative was that 95% of the population of the Philippines belong to the numerous native ethnolinguistic group of the archipelago. That sounds like a compromise, don't you think?
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com:If only that breaking down of a nation in its genetics or anthropology were healthy to themselves, it'd be ok. But in this one Philippines where, as I write this, president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in danger of being toppled is pushing for descentralization of the nation into 'federation of states', it's more the damage than the benefit. These genetic and anthropologic 'deconstruction', the same type proselitized by Protestant Summer Institute of Linguistis and its Wycliffe Bible legions with full power from the USA for so long into innocent Philippine natives for 'sense of identity and pride' in their territory, has created exactly that effect: The archipelago is currently turning away from its status as 'nation'. Let's see if micronations like "Luzón", "Cebú", "Zamboanga", etc etc have better luck. By then, the obsession to break down a population into its cultural elements will have reached its goal. End***
I will revert your edit for now. I invite others to join in on the conversation. In the meantime I urge you to broaden your research and not just rely on government statistics and Google.Com. Read books like The Austronesians by Peter Bellwood. Join AN-LANG and discuss this with Austronesian experts. I will do the same and report my results. But I stress again - please don't rely on the government. It's the same institution that has reduced the dignity of the Philippines' native languages by calling them dialects. The government isn't composed of anthropologists and linguists - what do they know?. Keep that in mind. Please. Thanks --Chris 09:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
PS: Another reason Filipinos were called Malays was the theory of the waves of Malays who came to the Philippines from Indonesia and Malaysia. These people were called the "Deutero-Malays" or the "Proto Malays" by H. Otley Beyer. This theory has since lost support. The currently supported theory is the China via Taiwan one. The Austronesians arrived in the Philippines and from there migrated everywhere. Locate the July 1991 issue of Scientific American for more information about this. --Chris 09:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com:Why don't we check Spanish originals from the ones who know best: Spain. Let's. No one but a first hand witness can tell what he found when he arrived, and when he started to write down the full scope of identities of Philippines. Not that I have any source in mind, but neither does anyone else, thanks to that huge disregard of all parties involved or dis-involved. Blair and Robertson (the writers of Philippine History you guys learned from), translators from USA, selected at their will whatever Spanish originals they wanted and translated into English what you guys know as 'history'. God knows in his mercy, rare times of the world have two people had the omnipotence of 'forming' a nation by writing... End***
What is this about, you're not sure if Filipinos are Malay? They are. See the US Country Study on the Philippines, for one. To answer your question, "What makes a Malay?", the answer is race. TheCoffee 10:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
This is about the fact that Filipinos are not Malay. It's an outdated and misleading term. It's a term to be avoided. Or we could put a section explaining the uses of this term. In any case, please read the arguments above this section concerning this. --Chris 17:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - Once again, the rejection of "Malay" goes back to an 'arbitrary identity' built up to the name, by the Philippine mainstream if it wasn't the Spaniards before, to symbolize 'Muslims, rebels'. It doesn't make a Filipino less filipino. End***
But Filipinos are Malay.
I don't see anything that suggests that the theory "lost support". As far as I know, and from what I learned in history class, the Filipino people are Malay. TheCoffee 04:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
First and foremost, look at the dictionary entry of a Malay. It was originally used by the original Melayus themselves. A dictionary like Merriam-Webster would say that a Malay is "1 : a member of a people of the Malay Peninsula, eastern Sumatra, parts of Borneo, and some adjacent islands and 2 : the Austronesian language of the Malays." That's it - hindi nila binanggit ang mga taga-Pilipinas.
I am well aware that Malay is in widespread use by folks such as the ones at World Almanac and the LoC source you cite. All this is goes back to anthropologist H. Otley Beyer. He theorized that the ancestors of Malays, Indonesians, Filipinos, etc., whom he called Proto and Deutero Malays, came from Indo-China. This, among others, was his rationale for calling Filipinos "Malays."
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - Spain was under Syrian rule for 800+ years, interethnic mixing was tremendous. That doesn't make today's Spaniards 'Syrians'. The debate over protofilipinos remains useless, the best bet is to toss some 100 people in a locked hall, with the following nationalities: Filipinos, Malaysian, Indonesian, 'people from USA', Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Cubans, Argentinians, Spaniards, Mexicans, Colombians, other Hispanicamericans, Australian, Hawaiian, and give them some six hours to form groups. Or... You know what? I guess it's a bad idea of an experiment, anyways, most Filipinos will end up in the 'people from the USA' group for clear reasons... End***
Since then, Beyer's Malay migration theory lost support among anthropologists, archaeologists, and linguists in the field. The new theory is the Austronesian migration theory which is the opposite of what Beyer believed. Instead of the ancestors coming from the south in what is now Malaysia, they came from southern China, through Taiwan, and south to the Philippines. From the Philippines they populated various islands between Madagascar and Easter Island. Some links to peruse in addition to the 1991 Scientific American citation I gave to Al-Andalus: From Australian National University's site, a map of a partial Austronesian migration, Another map, Another view of Austronesian migration from Berkeley, A site about Polynesian origins from Stanford, List of sources from University of Hawai'i that you could peruse.
Beyer had a profound influence on budding historians and anthropologists of the past - those who would write textbooks for Filipino students. May utang na loob sa kaniya kaya inuulit pa yung mga claims niya, among other things. Yes, you may have learned in school that Filipinos are Malay. But you may also have learned that Filipinos speak "dialects" or the Code of Kalantiaw or the 10 datus or what not. I'm not dissing your education, but the fact is that even until now outdated and inaccurate things are still being taught in Philippine schools.
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - So much for the heavily battered filipinos in their search for their true identity... It's sickening the obsession to view Philippines without its Hispanic component. Nobody cares to view it 'in light' of the tricentennial, extensive work of armies bringing together different peoples (and different languages regardless of what's above stated) into new towns... I have an interesting link I found recently, it's not academical or perfect but the ideas it poses are to me more credible than all the ones in this chapter together: The Early History of Chavacano de Zamboanga.
Everyone's obsessed with an 'unifying factor for all prehispanic filipinos in the 7,100 islands', now the Code of Kalantiaw to top it off, and TODAY, but nobody sits down to ponder on the consequences of moving masses together, done by Spain. On the above mentioned link, they speak of masses of inhabitants of the Bisayas islands along with their Jesuit friars and military from Iberoamerica brought to Fort San José in Jambannga (now Zamboanga) to fight off the Sultanes of Mindanao, Sulu and their legions of pirates...
Another typical mass displacement happens when they 'borrow' some more contingents of Mindanao islands inhabitants and their Jesuit friars into Luzón to fight off Koxinga, who never invaded anyways. These two are isolated examples barely 70 years after Philippines is founded, of the whole process of colonization. Friars are in divine and royal charge of making all the new 'españoles' like their paisanos in the Spanish peninsula, Catholics, with knowledge of Latin, and even though the language (Castilian) is not allowed, the Friars in their linguistic authority were the DEFACTO intermediaries among different tribes and the Spaniards back and forth.
Jesuits were spreading like seeds the different types of deformed Castilian some tribes were already mumbling (Criollo languages, or a mix of Castilian with their original language), some of languages from one land to another land, and some good Castilian. Why not view Philippines in light of a boiling pot of Criollo languages, where masses of inhabitants transported back and forth among the 7,100 islands developed forms of Castilian that would later in time recede back instead of go forth? End***
Moving on. So what does it mean for a Filipino to be Malay? Their cultures, although sharing similarities, are quite different. The languages of Malaysia are not mutually intelligible with the languages of the Philippines - but there are similarities. Racially? The concept of race is considered shaky according to a Wikipedia article titled Validity of human races. Ethnically? According to the article Ethnic group, one of the definitions of an ethnic group is a group of people who identify with one another. There are many Filipinos who think of themselves of Malay, which includes Indonesians and Malaysians - check. But what do Indonesians & Malaysians think? Their concept of a Malay is vastly different than that of Filipinos'. If you remember in 2002, Filipinos were being deported from Malaysia. I don't have a citation on-hand, but there were Malaysian immigration authorities who said that Filipinos are not Malays. Geographically? Filipinos are Asians. But that has little to do with culture, language, and ethnicity. Think of it this way - it's like Belarusians and Ukrainians saying they are Russian because they were led into believing that they are from Russia.
I hope my position on this issue is now clear. The original argument between Andalus and me was calling them either ethnic Malays and ethnic Austronesians. I have found that it wouldn't be right to call Filipinos ethnic Austronesians. So I changed my position and just say they're ethnic... Filipino. Ayan, mas simpleng sabihin iyan, di ba? Of course, the more specific ethnic groups in the Philippines are the Tagalogs, Ilokanos, Cebuanos, Bikolanos, Ibanags, Tbolis, Mangyans, Aklanons, etc. The Malays are their distant cousins, but no, they are not them. Thanks for reading. --Chris 06:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - How 'distant'? Malaysia, last time I checked on the maps, is like right there next to Philippines. Culturally, yes, and thanks mainly to Spain. Genetically, not so far, and thanks mainly to Spain again. A thorough, respectable research done with Filipino DNA today would determine how much Spaniard lives in your guys blood. Mestizaje, that is. Big lips, slanted eyes and brown skin do not discard the Spaniard genes, consider the generation leaps and live to see your grandkids. (Note: Nothing to imply that Spaniard genes are any better than Malaysian ones, or any other in the world) End***
I can see what you are trying to do, and say, but you are still confused. It still doesn't make sense. For you see, if a Ukrainian says he is Russian because he has been taught this, of course this is wrong, because "Russian" is a nationality. In the same way, if a Filipino says he is Malaysian, he is wrong, because Malaysian is a nationality. HOWEVER, If a Ukrainian says he is ethnically a Slav, he is right! AND the Russian is also ethnically a Slav.
      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - That's relative. Somebody being told he's Chinese, even though he looks African, can live a normal life if no intruders come in to tell him 'no, you aren't, don't let them tell you what you are'. What's the importance of telling filipinos they aren't Malaysian? Of course Malaysian is nationality, Malay is ethnicity or anthropologic elements. Filipinos aren't 100% of anything they were before Spain came, in either case. End***
Likewise, when it is said Filipinos are ethnically Malays it is right, and when Malaysians (or Indonesians, etc.) are said to be ethnically Malays it is also right.
Malays would be the counterpart to Slavs, but NOT the counterpart to Russian as you are trying to imply to prove your point.
Malays is counterpart to Slavs.
Filipino is counterpart to Ukrainian.
Malaysian (or Indonesians, etc.) is counterpart to Russian.
Your fight against "Malay" is just as baseless as it would be for an Iraqi worrying over being classified an Arab because of a complex he may have, and then endlessly debating the issue on the obviousness that he is not from Saudi Arabia. It's a fairly simple concept! In fact, this hypothetical Iraqi would probabbly have a slightly better arguement to make and stand on, since Iraq isn't even on the Arabian Peninsula. Add to all the inter-connecting facts of the Malays, the Philippines IS IN FACT on the Malay Archipelago.
Al-Andalus 07:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC).
You're comparing apples and oranges here. There are two main reasons why the Arab and Slav analogies do not compare.
I mentioned that one of the definitions of an ethnic group was that the groups identify with each other. There is a very widespread acceptance among Arabs and Slavs of being labeled as Arabs and Slavs. With Malay, Indonesians and Malaysians do not really consider Filipinos Malay. They're just orang-orang Filipina (Filipino people). That's the problem.
Second, the terms Arab and Slav have had a long tradition. Malay, on the other hand, was conveniently slapped onto Filipinos in the 20th century because of a now-debunked migration theory. Dr. Beyer took a term that already refers to an established ethnic group and redefined it to fit his theory. This is akin to slapping the word Sorbian onto Bulgarians or Palestinian onto Syrians.
And no, I'm not confused. I know that Malaysian refers to a nationality. I am refering to Malay the ethnic group who are found in Sumatra and other parts of Malaysia. Those are the real Malays and an anthropologist simply expanded the term to include several hundred ethnic groups. Also, please don't call my arguments baseless. I have researched the subject and conferred with Austronesian linguists and anthropologists on this issue as well as take into account what Malaysians and Indonesians believe. --Chris 20:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Chris, but the only point that you've been able to argue thus far is that the migration route of Austronesian-speakers into the Philippines MIGHT HAVE BEEN via southern China and Taiwan. This doesn't differ drastically from whether they entered the Philippines by first arriving via the south of the Malay Archipelago (modern-day Indonesia and Malaysia) and then spreading up to the northern parts (modern-day Philippines).


The point is that, if Malays didn't migrate into the Malay Archipelago from Indonesia and Malaysia and then spread into the Philippines, it doesn't change the fact that the populating of the Malays of Malaysia and Indonesia had the same source as the Filipino Malays (as you yourself have stated, from Souther China and Taiwan).

You're right. But, it does make a world of difference because it wasn't the Malays who came. Under Beyer's theory, the basis of the name Malay is that he theorized the presence of the Proto-Malays. I will repeat again that there is academic consensus that there were no Proto-Malays and "waves" of Malay migration. --Chris 20:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Just look at the languages currently spoken across the Malay Archipelago, eg. Bahasa Indonesia, Javanese and Tagalog. They are most closely related among each other, than with any other branches of the Austronesian family of languages. This indicates a common time, point and source of entry. Of course Tagalog, Ilokano and Cebuano are even more closely related with one another (just as French, Piedmontese and Lombard are related to one another; note these are languages not dialects of French). But Bahasa Indonesia, Javanese and Tagalog, for example, are no more distant than French, Spanish and Italian are to one another. You are trying to make it as though Bahasa Indonesia, Javanese and Tagalog are as distant as Norwegian, Slovak and Portuguese (all Indo-European languages), and perhaps even trying to imply a distance as great as Hindi, Greek and German (also all Indo-European).

Uh, wow. This is just patently false information. I am not sure if you're doing it out of ignorance or doing it out of deception. Or maybe you're overexaggerating the notion of closely related. I've been studying Austronesian languages for a long time now. The statement that Indonesian, Javanese, and Tagalog are closely related - to the same extent as Spanish and Italian - is simply not true.
Como Ud. sabe (¿o quizás no?), sé hablar español. Ya que con muy poco esfuerzo entiendo más o menos bien el gallego y el portugués. Y también el italiano el sardenio. Es lo mismo con mi conocimiento del catalán; entiendo ciertas variedades del occitán. Now, this is what I call closely related. But this isn't the case with Indonesian and Javanese. As a native Tagalog speaker, I cannot understand the language used in thisJavanese language except for maybe bangsa-bangsa which resembles bansa (country) in Tagalog.
But it doesn't stop there. As a Tagalog speaker who has studied other Philippine languages, I cannot understand languages like Ilokano and Cebuano. I have to get a dictionary to find the meaning of many words. Yes, Tagalog is closely related to Cebuano but it's not mutually intelligible with it. They are both Central Philippine languages and come from a language that was spoken several hundred years ago. The closest language I can probably understand is Bikol but even then, there are vast differences. My point is that the differences are greater than Spanish and other Romance languages. I'd say the difference between Tagalog and Indonesian is akin to the differences between Brazilian Portuguese and Romanian. If you don't believe me, ask a another Tagalog speaker on Wikipedia like User:Jondel or User:seav to read a Javanese or Indonesian text and see if they understand... --Chris 20:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Even Encycloædia Britannica says "Filipinos are predominantly of Malay descent..." [1].

And what is Encycylopædia Britannica's source? --Chris 20:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've also already provided Philippine government sources declaring the Philippine stock to be Malay, as well as providing non-Filipino sources declaring the same thing, for the same reasons. I just ask of you to strip away the religious, cultural and linguistic borrowing of the last 500 years made to Philippine culture, and you will also see why they are Malay in all essence.

Now, the oldest known surviving document in Tagalog is the 412 (is this close enough?) year-old [La Doctrina Cristiana http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/1593cat.htm]. It is without Spanish borrowings. It still does not resemble Malay. And I still understand it; it's like reading Shakespeare due to the archaisms. You also have to understand that Tagalog is not a Malay language. Study this Austronesian language family chart and you will see. Tagalog isn't even a Malayic language; it's a Meso-Philippine language! I'm not denying that Malay and Tagalog are related but I am against the absurd notion that Tagalog is a "essentially Malay." --Chris 20:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a better designation should have been coined all those many years ago, when someone came up with "Malay", I can give you that. But it is not one's place to deny one's history and origins based on a mere complex.

Mere complex? I used to think Filipinos were Malay. But as I became more educated on the subject, I have found that this is no longer the case. I stopped believing in what old Philippine history books have told me and instead broadened my horizons to include current research. --Chris 20:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It's becoming ever more clear that your position is just that, YOUR position, and a POV as a result. Whether a fringe element likes it or not, the academic consensus is that there is such a thing as the Malay people. Al-Andalus 13:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC).

I am taking a NPOV, Al-Andalus. The neutral point of view is what I have written - that 95% of Filipinos belong to the various ethnic groups of the country. And academic consensus? You've selectively ignored what academics in the field have given. You fail to cite from Austronesian scholars and instead resort to outdated government information whose ultimate source is the unsupported writings of a long-dead American anthropologist. I did my homework already. If I were truly POV, I would have put that Filipinos are not Malay. I've attempted to at least find a neutral, factual basis. --Chris 20:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Before 1521

This is very hard to verify due to lack of historical evidence. But the Chinese knew of the Philippines. There are also Hindu empires that existed which included the Philippines. It is possible that Magellan was in the Philippines (1506- 1511)as a squire with the Portugese before reaching it from the west. This was when the Portugese where searching for the Spice Islands.--Jondel 06:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My oposition is for the article to state that the Spanish (or any other European nationality, or Ethiopians, or Turks, for that matter...) "discovered" the Philippines. The Philippines were a part of the KNOWN Old World. Thus, European "discovery" of something they already knew existed is an oxymoron. Having said that, even in events where it can be said that Europeans "discovered" lands that they [Europeans] didn't previosuly know existed even if these land were in fact inhabited by people (such as the Americas), discovered is always used in quotation marks (""). Al-Andalus 07:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC).


      • 07/29/05 Álvaro - donquixotevanegas@yahoo.com: There we go again. Above paragraph is more of the 'indigenist' tendency which is eroding Hispanicamerican unity, and is clearly not benefitting Philippines as a nation, given the fact everyone's tired of the Tagalog Imperialism. Indigenist activism has an issue with 'Discovery', and even when some countries pushed for the more correct term of 'Encounter of Two Worlds', 'indigenists' still won't oblige.

It all depends how we look at it, for a start. It's a "discovery" for Europe, clearly all of our New World lands (I'm including Philippines) weren't militarily superior to them, and SOME of us were up to them and more advanced in disciplines of science, medical, in astronomy, architecture, engineering, social... BUT, there wasn't ONE "US". There's no "we filipinos", there's no union, no nation, it's a land of chaos and island hopping, where most Datus were against each other, not to mention the Sultans and the Chinese pirates and traders... Slaves back and forth, village torching, and let's not go to religious practices some of our natives 'nations' were famous for... To Europeans, the ones writing most of history ever since, it's a 'discovery', good and bad.

When Spain arrived to Philippines, many 'inhabitants' were VERY VERY happy to receive them, these would protect them from their enemies or assist them in enforcing their pending 'revenges'. For some inhabitants, it's an 'encounter'. "We're used to having a Master own us, or govern us in our barangays, the switch is not so bad compared to what we'll go through with same foes". There.

For many tribes in America (it's a continent from Canada to Chile), and it's interesting to research on this, they were expecting Spain. "Our gods will come back, and they're pale and shiny, and their weapons make fire". Seems after all History was written from ancient times by the only hand that can write it, blood and not. And remember some blood shed and cruelties are very well manipulated in Philippine History to make them hate their colonial past. End***

Dutch in the Indies

To! Al-Andalus!, How's it going dude!! "The Dutch explores", did not reach the East Indies, until "1595". The Portuguese led by ( Vasco Da Gama ), were the "first" Europeans in the "East Indies" in "1497" which was in the period of the late 15th century and founded East Timor. Then followed by the Spanish in "1521" in early 16th century, during Magellan's circumnavigation of the world. The Portuguese and Spanish were the first Europeans in "East Indies", not the Dutch!, SORRY dude !!. The Dutch followed 74 years after the the Porto - Spanish conquest!, right after hearing the news in Europe. It say's in the Encyclopedea!! Just wondering?, Why is it called 14 century?, when infact the Indies was discovered in the late 15th century. The Spanish reach the Philippines in early 16th century, which is the year 1500s'. cool, thanx!!

Thank you to the annoymous contributor. I've just realised my mistake, that you have so kindly pointed out. Yeah, the Portuguese did arrive to the Indies first in the's 1400's, as you said. My mistake was to call the "1400's" the "14th Century" when it it is in fact the 15th Century (just like the 2000's is the 21st Century). It slipped my mind to add one hundered years when converting hundred's (the fourteenhundreds, into it's equivalent century, the fifteenth century). I twas an honest mistake. Thanks for noticing it. Al-Andalus 09:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC).

3rd Most Populous

To: Al-Andalus!, Hey dude! How's it going!, I "erased" the sentence, the "3RD most populous English Speaking nation in the world, 3rd only to India and the U.S.", because, it's to "POV" and plus we do not have prof. Sorry dude!. I know the language is spoken of the majority of the population, but it is also one of many many languages" in our country and not many people, like it, because of "loathsomeness" and "arrogance" it brings to our culture. I erazed it, coz we are "trying" to established, a "unity" and true "Filipino indentity" and be united as one!, and to show, who we really are. Putting the sentence " " will only further confused our already confused nation!!,Sorry dude! :) cool!, thanxs!

Huh? I'm reverting it. It's not POV, it's a fact. TheCoffee 00:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I should point out that the 2000 Philippine Census says that 12,611 Filipinos reported English as their native language. If Canada, the UK, Ireland, Jamaica, Belize, Australia, and others have less than 12,000 people each then I guess it's correct. ;-P~. In all seriousness, where does this statistic come from? It's very misleading. --Chris 01:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Coffee, Filipinos can but don't speak it natively. Even cigarette vendors can understand 'Star Wars' in English or a description of heart disease, etc, better than PHds here in Japan. But Filipinos don't speak or don't want to speak English in the Philippines. --Jondel 01:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
If we're counting how many people consider it their "native language", then India wouldn't be #2. English is an official language of the Philippines, and Filipinos can speak and understand it. There's nothing "point of view" about the Philippines being the 3rd most populous English speaking nation. It would be POV if you're using Wikipedia as a vehicle to "establish Filipino identity". TheCoffee 04:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

To: The coffee!, Hey dude!! How's it going!, How do you know, the Philippines is 3rd most English speaking populous nation in world? There's no Prof!. Oh!, I get it, it is because you read it in some magazine, in an "Airline" or some thing and also been counting the people populations of the country, Sorry dude!!. By the way there is only "12,611 speakers" that consideres it as their only language, and these are probably: "Americans" or Filipino - American Mestizos etc. What about countries such as: England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada, Fiji, Puerto Rico, Guam, Mariana Islands, Hawaii, Malaysia, Belize, Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago etc. Aren'nt these countries also highly English Speaking countries as well. Dude! to be honest with you "English" is only spoken in "commerce" and "working purposes" in the country and "it is not a native language of the Philippines". We only speak English "when we meet a foriegner". The "majority" of the local born People "prefer" to speak there own "dialect"s. Just wondering are you a Filipino? , because local born Filipino peoples "understand" there country better than a foreigner! :) cool!, thanx!!

Here's a list of the most populous countries in the world:
  1. China 1,306,313,812
  2. India 1,080,264,388
  3. United States 296,202,709
  4. Indonesia 241,973,879
  5. Brazil 186,112,794
  6. Pakistan 162,419,946
  7. Bangladesh 144,319,628
  8. Russia 143,420,309
  9. Nigeria 128,771,988
  10. Japan 127,417,244
  11. Mexico 106,202,903
  12. Philippines 87,857,473
Philippines is the 12th most populous country. You can count how many countries on that list speak English as their official language. There are there are three: India, the United States, and the Philippines. No other country on that list has English even as a non-official but commonly understood language. The sentence in the article didn't say the Philippines has the 3rd highest number of native English speakers, it said it is the third most populous English speaking country. That's a fact. And yes, I'm Filipino. TheCoffee 09:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Please take a look at Pakistan and Nigeria's articles. English is the official language of these two countries. The United States has no official language. In any case, the United Kingdom has about 60,000,000 people. Do 60,000,000 out of the 88,000,000 Filipinos speak English? What constitutes an English speaker in the Philippines? Can they hold a conversation in English for a certain length of time? In the Philippines, people who cannot speak English at all are common. I don't know the right answer as to Philippines' ranking. However, I find the claim that Philippines is the 3rd largest English-speaking country to be an exaggeration. --Chris 21:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Filipinos can speak English. No one is disputing that. Native or not, Filipinos don't actually speak English on a regular basis. You don't expect English being spoken in the market or after mass. Casual conversation is ussually not in English. I don't hear it on the streets. In restaurants, the regional language is spoken. Jeepney drivers can but won't speak in English. Isn't this true? --Jondel 10:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


To: the Coffee!! I agree with Jondel!. If A jeepney driver or any one in the streets, hear's you speak English to them and your Filipino person, they will answer you back in their Dialects! And see you as "a try hard and pretenseous person". It's true!!. Coffee!!. Filipino people only speak English "when we meet a foriegner". Why are you, so worried about, "who is the biggest English speaking country in the whole universe?. No one "cares" in the Philippines!!. The People here!, are more worried of "survival" such as "Finding a Job and Food", than worrrying about these none sense!!, "Pop Culture from Hollywood", has got "the coffee" brain washed!! Do you even live in the Philippines??, Be local for once, and act like a Filipino!! :) cool!, thanx!


Taiwai94 - I hear that English being spoken between Filipinos is more likely or more common between the upper class and middle class Pinoys. Local languages is more likely between lower/working class Pinoys. www.ethnologue.com lists 175 languages for the Philippines of which 4 are classed as extinct and 6 others are nearly so. English and Filipino are the 2 official languages (Filipino is a "made-up" language though, a section is included in the 1935 Constitution but there are two different stories as to why this was done: (1) one nation, one language, or (2) because politicians were not sure which language to use when speaking to voters in the run-up to elections to get elected into office). Although there is a large number of languages, Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilocano, Hiligaynon (Ilonggo), Bicol, Waray, Pampangan and Pangasinan account for the vast majority of the population. In some provinces (based on www.ethnologue.com) there may be like 90 different local languages spoken. In this case, English may prevail in the absence of the provincial population not all speaking a common language (or more incorrectly, a dialect). I might not be a Pinoy, but I know my stuff, afterall, been to the Phils. many times and done a lot of reading/researching etc.

Anonymous user, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Insults are not welcome at Wikipedia. And we would also appreciate it if you registered. And yes, I live in Valencia, Negros Oriental. I think it's notable and relevant to the article to say that the Philippines is the third largest English speaking nation. I'll revert that information and include a note saying that most Filipinos do not speak English as a first language. TheCoffee 14:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

To: the Cofee! Hey How's it going!. To be honest with you!. People in the Philippines do not speak English all the time. It is only spoken at "work" and "when meet a foriengner". Everybody knows that!, Cool' :). It's not a personal insult- just an honest opinion. cool!:) Tell us, why are you so worried about who is the biggest English speaking country in the world?? What's the reason?? Do you Speak English as your first and only language?? :) cool, thanx!

We're all trying to build an encyclopedia, that's all. :) TheCoffee 01:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I wish we could speak English( or Spanish) without being labeled as 'rich', 'elite'. It's a form or reverse-bias/bigotry.--Jondel 02:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

How's it going everyone! it's me again!:), Spanish is all right for us Filipinos, because that is "part of our History and Heritage and it's a important part of our culture and who we are as well". But I don't know "about English". "English" is seen in some parts of the country as "Loathsomeness" and "Arrogant"!, asked our Muslim Brothers in Mindanao. cool, Thanx! :) I also added, Spanish and 170 Austronesian native dialects in the category, because these languages has it's significant importance as well, cool, Let's all live in peace!! cool, Thanx! :)

To the anonymous contributor. Is this Gonzalo? Why don't you make an account? :-) Anyway, I already am familiar with your feelings towards Spanish and English. But that is not the job of Wikipedia. The job of Wikipedia is to present a clear picture of a certain subject and not to advocate or instill pride into one's country. If people happen to derive pride from an article, then that's fine. With that in mind, I certainly do not mind having the "third most populous" line in there if it were factual. But I reject this line for a two reasons: 1. There are no reliable statistics on the number of fluent English speakers in the Philippines (or other countries for that matter) and 2. The notion of what qualifies as an English speaker is not clearly defined. --Chris 05:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Chris, to the anonymous contributer, I encourage you to create an account. This is really an encyclopedia(and a community). There are a lot of Filipino-Spanish articles that need contribution like Plaridel or Marcel H Del Pilar,Spanish Jews/Basques in the P., Spolarium , what are the ilustrados?, a lot on Spanish literature like works of Balmori, Instituto de Cervantes in Manila, Prof. Blumentrit(Rizal's advisor), Link with Mexico, Community of Filipinos in Mexico, Gines de Mafra, List of notable Spanish speakers , CIFRA and the movement to revive Spanish, etc. --Jondel 05:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

before philip

what was the philipines called before the spanish named it that?


Mindoro used to be called Ma-I or Mait by ancient Chinese traders before the Spaniards, but it may have referred to the whole Archipelago as well. The Philippines before the Spanish times was similar to a feudal society. Each chief (Sultan/datu/Rajah)had his own region. Each thought of themselves as a separate tribe or nation. The Visayan region may have been a part of the Sri-Vijayan empire.--Jondel 05:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


The following may be of interest: . --Jondel 06:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Malay Terms are just a racial identification for the people of the southeast, north east Asia. But the truth is that the Malays were all a product of a cursed, when there was one Language in the whole world, then God divided the world when the people built the Tower of Babel as an act of rebellion against the True One God in Babylon now modern Iraq.