Well, this is late. But that's okay. Here we go.
I never knew the abundance of Filipinos in California cities. I am from Torrance and next to it is Carson, a dominantly Filipino area. I guess being from SoCal, I have never heard of Daly City. Upon reading about it, I depict it as sort of a "more Filipino" Carson.
But today (again, I was late to this post), the Professor really wanted to beat into our heads that idea that there is no singular rooted culture. Tying it back to Hall, culture is a constantly changing battleground. Is it right to say one area is "more Filipino" than the other? I certainly think so, but I am really trying to understand what the Professor is saying.
Something interesting is that sense of betrayal. One could understand such criticism, but it really is stupid that those who accuse others forget about the OCWs. Maybe this is out of their power, but don't bullshit one side or another. In other words, you cannot call out Filipino Americans for moving to America without talking trash about the OCWs. They really are not all that different; both move away from the Philippines to work and make money. Its just that one is seen as "selfish."
But why? Selfish is the wrong word. It carries a negative connotation, that they are leaving because they despise the Philippines and have a malice against it. But that is simply not the case. They are moving for a better life. Sure, one could call that being selfish, but this is not at the disservice to their home country.
What I found particularly interesting was the depiction of these Filipino Americans. that they are all high class, own these cars and houses and have lost their culture. Again, we are brought back to the idea of "What is authentic culture"? And while the Professor argues against it, claiming that there is no really true authentic culture since its "constantly changing" (again, Hall), I am still struggling. I get it; apparently its not right to say you have lost your roots since what are the roots, but I do think there are traditional Filipino values and beliefs. For example, it is very focused on family and Catholicism. I think when we put "traditional" in front of the word, we get a more narrow definition to say someone lost their roots. I don't know. I'm still figuring things out.
Perhaps the most interesting part of this was the bit about TFC and how Filipinos are essentially watching it to feel like they are Filipino. It shows all these news bits about whats happening in the Philippines, but tends to leave out the parts about the poor people in the country. They are only seeing the goods things that are happening in the country, which actually creates a classless depiction in the Philippines...just like the United States. When we say countries are getting globalized, we think of Starbucks and McDonalds, but this can also be applied to media. As the US depicts itself and a classless society where the upper middle class dominate and poor people don't exist, this is also happening on TFC.
Also, I'd just like to connect the idea of a "classless society" with a "race less society". When people don't see color or race, I never understood why this was a bad thing. If you don't see color, I thought that would make you seem more human since you treat everyone the same. However, that is saying that racism is not an issue. By not addressing race, we don't address racist problems. The same goes for class. If we ignore class, we don't see the people struggling; we only see the wealthy. Omg wait. Epiphany. I'm going back to race for a sec. If we don't see race, we don't see those who are oppressed because of their race. Bruh.
No comments:
Post a Comment