Whose thinking should be changed — ours or theirs?

Whose thinking should be changed — ours or theirs?

Reply to Dr. Philip Kelly

Congratulations for a very informative and scholarly publication. I enjoyed reading every column of your last issue (March 1-15, 2005).

Anent Dr. Philip Kelly’s erudite article, Class Struggle: Filipino Immigrants and the Quest for Identity, please allow me to offer my two-cent’s worth of opinion:

I fully agree with his assessment of the Filipino situation, especially when it comes to the statistical portion of it. Cited were facts which no one can deny. However, I wish to look at the situation from a different perspective:

• The Filipino situation is not unique. The negative stereotyping is true to all Asians or Orientals who hail from Third World Countries and are therefore considered less educated and financially challenged, or worst, collectively having a low IQ.

• The article seems to give the impression that something is wrong with being a Filipino; that the solution to the problem of sad stereotyping should come from within the psyche of the Filipinos or how we look at ourselves as a people. In other words, the solution should come from “inside out.”

As to my first point, I think it is the prevailing mainstream view that people from Third World Countries are considered less educated and financially strapped. These negative connotations are the by-products of having come from a “less developed or under-developed or developing or backward country” which signify under-achievement as a people in general irrespective of whether or not the same is the result of intellectual immaturity of the people or their culture or lack of natural resources. A good example is corruption which is cultural in nature. If I were to stretch the concept to the point of absolute absurdity, corruption may be regarded as a form of intellectual creativity, no matter how wicked it may be, for leaders to amass wealth and for ordinary workers to augment their meager salaries. But the point has been made: the state of a Country’s progress is not an indication of the people’s intellectual maturity as it is their culture and/or lack of other relevant factors for economic development. Another obvious point I wish to make is that economic reason is the bottom line for all immigrants of all races – blacks, whites, brown or yellow – the difference being only in the degree in which the financial aspect of the situation serves as the fulcrum for decision-making. As an extreme example, a refugee from an impoverished country like Ethiopia may have economic and security as primary reasons for emigrating while a Doctor from the Philippines may consider as the primary reason the desire to provide his children with better educational opportunities.

As to my second point, the positive or negative (psychological) outlook of the Filipino is immaterial to the discussion of the problem insofar as the solutions thereof are concerned. This is because, to my mind, a Filipino’s outlook in life does not affect to a large degree, if at all, the negative impressions which other people (whites, for example) may have on the background of Third World people. I think the discussion should focus more on the outlook of persons “outside looking in.” In other words, no matter how we Filipinos justify our circumstances or no matter how we modify our values to align with those of the western’s, does not in anyway, methinks, change the Filipino stereotype so long as the “whites” do not modify their values in respect of the Filipino culture. To better understand the Filipino predicament, or for that matter, the “brown-skin” predicament, I suggest that the mainstream thought-processes should first be re-oriented and redefined to align with the fact that we are all equal in this world as brothers and sisters before God. Only then can the Filipinos be free of the prejudices and biases against them and in the long run, remake and recreate their image as a Filipino vis-à-vis other races. The validity of this argument is proven by the many “cultural sensitivity courses” being offered in this Country. I sincerely believe that the solution to the problem will never work in the reverse process.

As to Dr. Kelly’s observation that “Filipinos’ income, on average, (is) well below those for immigrants as a whole, and even further below the average for Canadian workforce in general,” let me explain: His research concluded that: “Many Filipinos arrived under the stringent discipline of the Domestic Worker Programme or Live-in Caregiver Programme” (underscoring mine). The pay for this type of work is well below the minimum wage for ordinary Canadian worker which explains the disparity in income. I think for the situation to be assessed fairly, the question should be rephrased thus: Why do most Filipinos come under the Domestic or Caregiver Programme?” The answer is simple: it is a shortcut to immigrating to this Country and the overall expenses involved as well as the process are not as onerous and tedious compared with those if one is to apply as an independent immigrant.

As to the question why Filipinos allowed themselves to be “de-skilled and de-professionalized,” the answer is equally simple: their credentials, paper and experience, are not recognized in this Country. One has to start somewhere to gain “Canadian experience.” And even with a Canadian experience (albeit not along his profession), a Filipino Doctor or professional has to go back to school to validate his credentials. For a first generation immigrant, Filipino or not, to go back to school with several mouths to feed is a tall order. Thus, the first generation immigrant has no choice but to contend himself with the “de-professionalized” occupation in order for his family to survive (and even give some to people back home). The prevailing psychological escape clause, I hazard to submit, is for the children, the second generation immigrants, to continue their studies in order to “fight it out” with the mainstream Canadian with Canadian credentials. Thus, the first generation immigrants have to silently contend with the glass ceiling spawned by the prevailing prejudices against them in their struggle for “upward mobility” in the workplace.

As to the Filipinos’ indulging in positive stereotypes to justify their predicament, this is a normal human reaction. The instinct of survival commands every person irrespective of ethnic origin to alleviate their sufferings via the “misery seeks company” dictum.

As to Dr. Kelly’s question: “What is the comparison group that is used in establishing status and self-esteem?” the answer, I think, is obvious: the Philippine. This is because the Filipinos can never rise to the status of “white” Canada for as long as the prejudices and biases are in place.

Having said the foregoing, I wish to emphasize that the point of reference for the above discussion is the general practice rather than the exception. In this connection, I wish therefore to apologize to those mainstream Canadians who are the “exception rather than the rule.”

Rico J. Matas
Toronto