Chenny V.

Ramos PS 212: Seminar on Filipino Identities

2016-89375 Prof. Noel Christian Moratilla, PhD.

Frake, C. (2006). The Cultural Construction of Rank, Identity and Ethnic Origins in the Sulu
Archipelago. Retrieved January 2017, from Australian National University: http://press-
files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p63701/mobile/ch14.html

Charles O. Frake discussed the hierarchical system among “tribal” groups in Sulu’s
Muslem community. He said that Tausug were viewed by themselves and by others as the
dominant group in Sulu. As Frake said, they have a“stratified society with a hereditary titled
nobility headed by a ruling sultan.” Ranked second were Sama group, which composed of
different sub groups like Yakan, Sama-bangingi, and Sama-badjao. Next would be the Kalibugan
and Subanon of Zamboanga Peninsula. Frake also discussed how the term “Moro” became a
unifying symbol among different “ethnic” groups in Mindanao. Before 60s, Muslims prefered to
be called and identify based on their ethnic affinities. But during Ferdinand Marcos’ time,
different groups embraced the term “Moro” and used it to create a separatists movement (MNLF
and MILF). This issue can be conneted to the issue of Filipino identities. Filipinos, not only
Catholics but also Muslims, were “regionalistic” in nature. In Azurin’s Reinventing the Filipino
sense of being, he explained how minority groups, like Muslims, were set aside in the discussion
of Filipino indentities. That’s why Muslims also question if they should also consider themselves
as Filipinos. Interestingly, ethnic groups in Mindanao had eventually settled their differences in
the 1970s to create a group that would loby for their independence. The question, would it be
also possible for the whole country to unite and be a Filipino?

Aguilar Jr., F. (2015). Is the Filipino Diaspora a Diaspora? Critical Asian Studies , 440-461.

Aguilar explained how the term “diaspora” was “Filipinized” or how different diaspora
compared to other countries? The word “diaspora” was usually associated with the movement of
Jews to different parts of the world. But according to Aguilar, Filipino Diaspora should be
explored in five dimensions: First, the population dispersal from homeland; second, the process
of “diasporization”; third, the relationship of Filipinos with homeland; fourth, the desire to return
to the homeland; and lastly, self-awareness or collective consciousness which was connected to
compatriots within the community. What’s most interesting was the fourth one: the “idealization
of return to the homeland.” Some Filipino migrants, workers etc. have the desire to return home
if they were already stable. Aguilar also said that the “desire of return” was not only a “physical
relocation but also psychic reversal.” That’s why migrants tend to give remittances and
balikbayan boxes to their relatives in the country. In other words, these people still look at
themselves as “Filipinos” o partly “Filipino.” There’s always the desire to “give back” to home.