Fil Garciano

I BSBA OM
PHILIPPINE HISTORY, GOVT, CONSTITUTION
ENDERUN COLLEGES
SEAT NO. 11, T/F 10 AM 11:30 AM
A Manifesto of Sheer Discontent: A Brief Critique on Contemporary Modes of
Conceptualizing Filipino Nationalism

When tasked to begin a reaction paper on the main tenets of Filipino nationalism,
I began to formulate a simple idea. Though I believe that the Filipino nation is, in itself, a
nation of itself, with a unique culture, identity, socio-economic conditioning, I believe
that contemporary notions of Filipino nationalism undermines many things. These things
include the aforementioned simple idea, which is, essentially, Filipino nationalism
undermines the different regional narratives that compose the Republic of the Philippines.
The Filipino nationalism I speak of is the nationalism that seeks to instill a sense
of national pride, national identity, national language, and national progress. Many
scholars and armchair critics of Filipino culture and society love to attribute the problems
we face as a nation to our lack of nationalism in pride, identity, language, and progress.
Many say that we must enrich the Filipino language, and we must recognize the richness
and the necessary underpinnings of Filipino history, and we must strive to formulate a
unique Filipino identity. This is all, however, not only the tip of the iceberg but an
entirely different iceberg itself.
If we continue to behave this way, if we continue to reinforce Filipinism in such
senses, this only further destroys the distinct and unique narratives of the different
echelons of Filipino regionalism. By reinforcing Filipino as a national language, the
regional languages begin to seem subpar to the imperialistic Filipino. By attempting to
seek a distinct Filipino historical, the emphasis of scholastic and everyday discourse is set
only towards the Propagandists and the Katipunan and their Tagalog revolution, thereby
allowing for the complete discursive dismalness of such significant entities like the
Negros Republic or the Moro sultanates. In continuing to force upon the different regions
a singular national identity, the Cebuanos and the Zamboangeos and the Cagayanons are
blocked from a place in the formation of a truly Filipino cultural condition.
Many scholars would say that such mode of thinking, this mode that endorses the
regional narratives of the different Philippine regions, would only tatter the already
divided Filipino nation-state. However, we must recognize that the Filipino nation-state
was not united in the first place, with differing histories, identities, and languages
composing the Filipino nation-state that was already artificially united by the Spaniards.
However, we must not stop there. Filipino non-nationalists (people who also
refuse to recognize the imperialistic Filipino nationalism or people who have given up
entirely on the hope of progress for the Philippines) who subscribe to this form of
discourse may also claim that we should therefore be more passive in allowing the
negativities in Filipino culture to exist. Many academics proliferate this negative
nationalism in the form of lambasting what they think is the cancer in Filipino society,
such things as the lack of education of politicians, the dynastic nature of Filipino
politicians, or the poor being a hindrance to growth. Though there is some truth to these
claims, Filipino non-nationalists must wake up and stop their nonsensical formulations
such as eradicating generations or other such non-solutions. In creating proper discourse
regarding Filipino society and culture, we as academics must disassociate non-
nationalism with misconstrued values such as undermining those who lack in educational
capacity for office.