This document discusses the resilience and strength of Filipino culture and identity despite colonization efforts. It argues that indigenous Filipino practices were dismissed as inferior but have endured, and that Filipino culture has absorbed influences while maintaining its integrity. The document rejects the notion that Filipino culture was damaged, asserting instead that the colonizers were not able to fully dominate or subvert Filipino culture. It highlights the preservation of language and traditions as evidence of the invulnerability of Filipino identity.

1. 4

2. • Indigenous practices are labelled and
referred to as “pagan religion”, “folk
medicinal practice”, or “implicit
ethnic philosophy”, conceding they
exist but are inferior to the prevailing
“master” culture and psychology

3. • Filipino have a culture, but it should
be labelled a “damaged culture”.
.

4. • Filipino culture held its own, body
and soul wherever the Filipino
might be.

5. • Filipino culture is better
characterized as an invulnerable
culture
• “ Marunong lang sumakay ang mga
Pilipino.”

6. Denigrating the Filipino soul
• Who colonized whom?
• Which culture damage what?
• Whom are we referring to when
we mention the “colonized”
Filipino?

7. • Edilberto N. Alegre puts it, the
evidence that the culture is intact
“available anywhere we go-our
language our hale, and show no
symptoms of illness”

8. The Sikolohiyang Pilipino thesis of
invulnerability does not deny
contact with the West. It is
essentially a thesis of
counterdominance.

9. • The colonizers were here, they
established a colonial administration
which placed a large portion of the
country under its control: but no,
they did not penetrate our culture to
the point of subverting it.

10. • Spanish: pista, misa, sapatos,
medyas, mesa, silya

11. American: iskul, notbok, bolpen, jip,
taksi

12. • “ Oy mamimista kami sa inyo.”
• “ Magpapamisa kami para kay Nanay
sa katapusan.”
• “ Mag – taksi na tayo, pagod na ako.”
• “ Kung magji – jip ka rin lang dalhin
mo na ito.”`

13. Hiding and Denigrating Filipino
Identity and Values

14. • Hispanics name – Maria Teresa,
Mariano, Juan and so on are specific
enough to distinguish us from the
Anglo-Saxons, Nordics, Greeks,
Indians, Chinese, Africans and other
nationalities.

15. • Names like Sinag Liwayway, Dawani
Paros, Janatyan Ahaddas, Hamili Ayo
and Sudi Amor are more
discriminating and unmistakably
Filipino.

16. To rule you must not just divide, you
must also insult

17. • The denigration of Filipino
personality is perpetuated and
taught in schools and reinforced by
media.

18. • Van Heughten found that there is no
statistically significant difference
between the values taught in elementary
school textbooks currently used in the
Philippines and the textbooks used
during American Commonwealth period.

19. • Maggay documented the tendency
for a borrowed consciousness to
evaluate Filipino traits from the
standpoint of borrowed values and
presuppositions.

20. • Filipinos are misrepresented as
having “ a casual and relaxed attitude
towards time and space which
manifest itself in lack of precision
and compulsiveness, in poor time
management and in procrastination.

21. • Filipinos supposedly have “ an
aversion for following strictly a set of
procedures and this results in lack of
standardization and quality control”

22. • Filipinos are charged with lack of
patience and inability “to delay
gratification or reward, resulting in
the use of short cuts, in skirting the
rules and in foolhardiness.”

23. END OF
PRESENTATION
Submitted to:
Prof. Agnes Montalbo
Rizal Technological University
Submitted by:
Eliesa Jem S. Aguinaldo