Talk:Filipinos/Archive 2

message: July 21, 2004 - We the Filipino people do not deserve the widespread poverty, injustice, and continued government corruption that plague our country and society. My heart cry out that these will all come to pass before my lifetime is over.
--202.138.180.33 10:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Entitlement

message: Let's make this page solely a disambiguation page. The rest should go on to a new page called Filipino people.  This is to make it uniform like Swedish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, etc. --Chris 19:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits & New Page

message: This is addressed to User:TruthComission and his/her confusion concerning the Filipinos' ethnic make-up.
Although Filipinos are popularly called Malayans, the reality is that they are not. The reason they were called Malay(an)s was due to H. Otley Beyer's theory that Filipinos are descended from Malays who came from the Malay peninsula. Beyer took the name of an existing ethnic group and expanded it to include Filipinos.  Since Beyer, there have been more conclusive studies that Filipinos came from the north rather than the south.  If they didn't come from the south, then this does not them Malay. The ancestors of the Malays instead came from the Philippines (but ultimately from southern China).
As for Filipinos being Melanesians, I am not sure how where you got this information from. Would you care to share your source? I don't see any indication from the 89 year old source you quoted. The ancestors of the Melanesians also came from the same place where the ancestors of the Filipinos came from. 
Chinese - yes there are many Chinese Filipinos. But to state that all Filipinos are mixed of Chinese blood is very misleading. 
Here are sources that I urge you to peruse:
*Bellwood, Peter. "Taiwan and the Prehistory of the Austronesians-speaking Peoples." The Review of Archaeology. 1998
*Bellwood, Peter. "The Austronesians: Historical and comparative perspectives" 1995
*Blundell.  “The Austronesian Dispersal,” Newsletter of Chinese Ethnology.
*Blust, Robert. "The Austronesian Homeland: A Linguistic Perspective." Asian Perspectives.
*"The Austronesian Dispersal and the Origin of Languages." 1991. Scientific American. July.
And here are some websites to peruse: 
*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.
Last but not least, "Asian Latinos?"  Filipinos indeed have Hispanic influence. And indeed they are Asians. But they are in no way Asian Latinos. First, they do not meet the definition of Latino as you can see in that article.  Second Asian Latinos refers to something totally different. Please stop redefining terminology that is not even used in academia. --Chris 09:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm Filipinos are not Melanesians. Melanesians are black and arent related to Filipinos at all with the exception of language. We are related to the Polynesians though because they are a mixture of Melanesian and the original Austronesians from Taiwan.Jcdizon 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Filipinos' ethnic make-up

message: While it is true that Filipinos descended from Austronesians originating in Taiwan. Most of the Malay ancestry descended from Filipinos came directly from the Malay Peninsula. There were 3 waves of  Malay migration in the Philippines. The first wave came directly from Taiwan, these are the ancestors of the T'boli, Igorots and other highlander tribes. The second wave of migration came from the ten Bornean chiefs who brought along them their subjects. These were the ancestors of the Tagalogs, Ilonngos, Bicolanos, Cebuanos and other low-land Filipinos. Majority of the Philippine population came from this wave. The third wave came just about the end of the Pre-hispanic era up to the Spanish Colonial era. These Malays are now the ancestors of the Muslims in mindanao and Sulu. Furthermore, even before the Chinese have trade and commercial relatonship with China, Malays are already imbued with Chinese, Arab, Hindu, Persian blood and all other blood of ancient civilizations they have been in contact with. Malayan/Malay and Malaysians are two different terms, please learn to differentiate them.  Melanesians are what is locally known in the Philippines as the "Negritos". Thus, it is correct to say that categorically, Filipinos are descended from the Malay, Chinese and Melanesian peoples.
Also, there are small communities of Latin people that came directly from Asia and Oceania where the Spaniards and Portuguese once colonized it. Some of them are in the Philippines.
:The migration wave theory is exactly what Beyer proposed. And wave theory is what is no longer true. All Filipinos came from the north, as evidenced by current research.  There were people from Malaysia who came to the Philippines, but this was much later. But they did not intermingle with the Filipinos. Given linguistic research, the languages of the the northern Philippines (Ilokano, Pangasinan, Kapampangan, Ifugao, etc.), central Philippines (Tagalog, Bikol, Cebuano, Tausug, etc.), and southern (Maranao & Maguindanao) are closely related to each other. This suggests a common source. Furthermore, the Malay language is so dramatically simplified. The languages of the Philippines are conservative - they retain many of the features of the ancestral languages. --Chris 18:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Filipinos are predominantly Malay

message: The research only explains the migration of Austronesians from Taiwan to Southeast Asia to Oceania via the Philippines. This however, does not give extensive research on the history of migrations exclusively in the Philippines. That while it is true that first migration came directly from Taiwan, the descendants of most Filipinos came from the Malay Peninsula. The reason is that, when the first wave of Austronesian migration from Taiwan to the Philippines occured, these austronesians do not have the technology as advanced as those in the Indo-Chinese regions. These tribal villages only adapted the technology coming from their previous settlement. Many Austronesians however, continued to move from Philippines to Southeast Asia and then to Oceania. And after several centuries, these Austronesians who settled to the Malay peninsula, adapted the technology and culture of the advanced civilization of India and other ancient civilizations of Asia as exhibited by the Majapahit and Sri-Vijaya empires. The second wave of Malay migration occured because these austronesians or malays, trying to escape the clutch of invasion from the latter empire, went to the Philippines where they also brought the culture and technology they have adopted. Majority of Filipino's ancestry are rooted to this said wave.
:Please read the other sources I gave you. There are two issues you are dealing with here. First, you are dealing with the Malay people.  They refer to a particular ethnic group in Malaysia.  Because of Beyer's migration theory - that all Filipinos came in "waves" of migration from the Malay peninsula - he began labelling the Filipinos as "Malays." However, Malays is no longer used by archaeologists, anthropologists, and linguists who study Austronesian-speaking people.  Furthermore, the concept of race (read the article) is no longer supported by anthropologist. In essence, there is no such thing as a "Malay Race." 
:On another issue.. There are records of "Luzones" who have settled inMalacca in Malaysia. Does this make Malaysians Filipino? Of course not. That is what you're doing with the Filipinos. A fraction of Malays in a certain part of the Philippines does not make all Filipinos Malay. 
:The second issue is the migration of Malays and what nots to the Philippines. This may be true for some areas. But certainly not for all; i.e., not all Filipinos have ancestors who came from Malaysia and Indonesia. Malay words such as dalamhati, salamat, and guru are to be found in Tagalog due to contact with Malay. Malays came when the Tagalogs were already there. The evidence is in the language.  If what you're saying were true, wouldn't Tagalog resemble Malay? No. Are you a Tagalog speaker? Can you understand "Malayic" tongues? Of course not.
:What they teach in Philippine schools is simply fantasy. There were no 10 Borneo dodatus. There were no "waves" of "Proto-Malay" migrations who came at certain dates. The Visayans had nothing to do with Sri-Vijaya; or at least there is very little record of their presence in the Philippines. The Code of Kalantiaw is a fake. I could go on. I hope you consider reading the resources I gave you. --Chris 03:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Majority of Filipinos did NOT directly come from the Taiwan

message: *To Chris:
Malays is not refered to a particular group in Malaysia, rather, it referred to a generic group that posseses the same characteristics and features commonly found in and around the Malay peninsula. As I said before,  Malay or Malayan is different from Malaysians by definition. Another point is that, Malay is not a race when taken in a scientific context, just as much as the Franks, Saxons, Visigoths, Semites, Arabs, Norse, Aztecs, Incas, Inuits, Hmongs and Hans is not a race by scientific or bioligical term. But “Malay” term is meant here in a historical context. And yes, there are records of Luzon people that settled in Malaysia, most people called them Tagals. There are many ethnic groups in Malaysia as much as in the Philippines. And as I said before, Malay/Malayan does not necessarily refer exclusively to the Malaysians. As for the language both language are different from each other, as much as Visayan is different from Tagalog. However, both of their predominant vocabularies originated  to the Austronesian language family. And while it is true that the code of Kalantiaw has been proven to lack validity, Philippine History taught in Philippine schools is not a fantasy.  The ten Bornean Datus is not a fantasy as you claimed. Rather, it is a story handed down by word of mouth for several generations, and is very rich in detail that support it. The story may be shrouded as myths, but the Bible of the Old Testament is shrouded with mythic-like events either, still,  the scientific circles consider it as the oldest historical book and used it as basis for some of the historical research on ancient history and civilizations. The” waves of migration” is also not entirely discarded, since it is a theory and the most possible one at that as supported by scientific researches. There is no basis that says Sri-Vijayans has no connection whatsoever with Visayans, it has not been proven nor disproven, not yet. The Philippine archipelago has never been a part of the Sri-Vijaya empire, which is the reason why the “Second Wave” migrated in the Philippines. It is simply a repeat story they did thousand of years ago in South China where the Mongolian people started to dominate. One thing for sure though, the Second Wave proved to be more advanced and different in technology and culture than the first wave. As exhibited by their literature, artisanship, manner of dressing, warfare and culture. The characteristics have more in common with the people of the Malay peninsula and their oral history roots them directly in that region. Also,  Austronesian is used mostly in         terms of language and culture, the racial term used for Austronesian is Malay-Polynesian. We indicated Malayan to differentiate them from Melanesians and Polynesians who are also subgroups of the Austronesian family. Lastly, Austronesians did originate in South China, but we were just merely rebutting on your claim of Austronesians immigrating on just one single route to the Philippines from Taiwan.
: The reason is that, when the first wave of Austronesian migration from Taiwan to the Philippines occured, these austronesians do not have the technology as advanced as those in the Indo-Chinese regions. 
: This makes no sense at all.  Please cite your sources.  I'd also like to see your sources regarding the number of Europeans or Spaniards as you claimed that mixed in with "most" of the Filipinos. --Mamoahina 19:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that^. Since when were Filipinos considered Hispanic/Latino? Never heard that one before. Coojah 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Malays

message: Filipinos from Southern China & Taiwan? Oh please I would rather believe they came from via Malaysia, Indonesia or other Pacific Islands. They closely resemble those groups.
Just because an American researcher said that it does not mean its true.
In Philippines schools, were taught that majority of ancestors are Malay, Indones races.
With mestizo included in the minority groups.
*Even if something is taught in schools that doesn't mean its not subject to change.23prootie 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern Chinese/Taiwanese origin

message: Hey folks,
The image for the ethnobox was removed becaused it contained four images of questionable copyright status. I am working on getting three more images from public domain sources such as the Philippine government. I think I found acceptable public domain ones for the Tboli & Ifugao pics. I should get it by this weekend.  So just letting you all know that this is getting done. --Chris S. 23:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mission accomplished. It's on the page now. And I used Freddie Aguilar as per someone's suggestion. I was lucky that I have a German friend who visited him in the café he performs two years ago. She was thrilled that her pic, under GFDL, would be on the page. So everything works out - all the images, but the Aguilar one, are public domain and thus not subject to deletion. --Chris S. 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forthcoming Filipino People Image 

message: I am a Filipino that has lived in philippines for most of my life and i can say that i know myabe one person who speaks Spanish, and they were taught in Spain.
:Yeah, you're right. I don't know how that one slipped in. --Chris S. 16:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish is not a major language of the Philippines 

message: "Filipino culture is primarily based on the cultures of the various native groups, and has little to no influence from Spanish or Mexican cultures. The customs and traditions of the Roman Catholic faith are Spain's lasting legacy."
However, the article Culture of the Philippines states:
"The Customs and Traditions of the Philippines are strongly influenced by its colonized past. The Spanish colonization of the Philippines, actually governed from Mexico, lasted for more than 350 years, thus there is a significant presence of Spanish and Mexican influence in many facets of the Filipino culture."
Being Filipino, I have noticed that much of the culture contains facets of Spanish culture. Should it be changed in the main article? -Shiryu22 18:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know how that phrase you put in bold slipped by. I've removed it. --Chris S. 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture and Religion section - possible contradiction? 

message: Hey, I'm going to trim down that section. It's unproprtionately large compared to the others.23prootie 00:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: North American section

message: Umm where are the sources? Were are we getting these numbers?
We dont even have the source for Philipines itself. 
--Coojah 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is getting long. Can we just add the places with alot of filipinos. I mean filipino's in norway? I mean it says regions with "significant" populations NOT "All regions with filipinos". Plus, THERE STILL ISN'T SOURCES, are you guys just making up this info?--Coojah 06:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed it. --Howard the Duck 10:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regions with significant populations