Nick Joaquin Culture and History –Summary Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message. In the c ase of culture, like literature and the arts, the message is metamorphosis. We are being shaped by the tools we shape; and culture is the way of life being impressed on a community by its technics. McLuhan saw the introduction of different technologies as epochs of the altering culture. The coming of print medium for example, paved the way for a culture of literate eyes, in contrast with a culture of the senses. This changes how people view everyday life. The point is not how we use the tool but how the tool uses us and changes us. The change however is not given much m uch importance in our history since (1) the people who brought them were already so familiar with them that they could not assess the impact of the bringing of the tools to others and (2) that we have written a history of our own co untry that we do not want to admit that the changes brought by foreign entities are part of our culture and history. All parts of a story are equally important thus one should not be embarrassed with downgrading eras. Shifting the focus from conventional history to the history of culture will enable us to see the Filipino’s metamorphosis through the media. From such viewpoint we can see the process of the making of the Filipino. The tools or media range from physical tools, Christianity, and even the alien intruders. The change is our culture should not be viewe d as one of corruption of the original, pre -Hispanic culture, but that of a development. The absence of change or development in a boy would make him a cretin, and no mother would want his son to be a cretin. If the older society survived the tool that “corrupted” “corrupted” it, then it is not the really innovative tool; the really innovative tool will make the existing culture obsolete. This can be likened to the intr oduction of cameras. While these cameras changed the m ain use of paintings, paintings still continues but for a different main purpose other than before . The disruptions of the arrangements and uses of things in a culture by new media, produces a different culture altogether. The pre-camera culture is then different from the culture that is borne out of the introduction of camera. th
The culture of the Philippines in the 16h and 17 century has changed with the introduction of different media and other practices. In the end the culture did not go under, but it emerged: transformed by the new media. The pre-Spanish economy of the Philippines was a subsistent one. Undergoing economic transformation, we became the “first world economy of modern time,” trading with three continents. Before 1521, we lacked historical sense and a sense of national community. The Western influence begot a sense of history and national community. The plow did not corrupt, it begot the Filipino. Just like in other groups, a solidarity is formed by mastering a tool or craft. Examples are motorcycle spawning a sub-culture of youth, and even groups of scientists and e ngineers. An outsider can be absorbed by simply mastering the craft that forms somewhat an initiation to the group. The Tagalog and Pampango, being near the se at of power, are thus the ones who were first colonized and then found belongingness in a community of Filipinos. This would explain the nationalistic acts and deeds that sprung from them. The other tribes who were “outside” this were later on assimilated. One can argue that the Filipino as an identity existed before the name, but that will be anti-historical. IF this is the case then t he term Filipino is irrelevant since there was the identity before the name. Philippines can be paraphrased as horsepower; Filipino a love of horsepower or a lover of energy. It means dynamic.
The Filipino is a tool-forged fusion of Luzon tribes, Visayan tribes, Mindanao tribes, Spanish mestizos, etc, bound by geography to form a political unit. The Filipino cannot be traced back farther than that fusion and form. Like a baby changes into a child, t he changes do not make the person another. All possibilities of being contrary has been extinguished from the moment of c onception. Before 1521 we could have been anything and everything but not F ilipino; after 1565, we are nothing but Filipino. The Western influence has created the Filipino and up to a point where the Filipino was created, no invasion could change what was now a Filipino soul. The course of culture may change, but not the soul of culture (the Filipino identity). If it be true that we were Westernized to the expense of our Asian soul, the blame must fall on Asia. Despite the culture and civilization of the near by China, Japan, Malaysia and Java, they did not influence us. Even Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism did not infiltrate our country. The spread of Islam was very limited too. We did not get the wheel from India, nor the theatre from China nor the plow form Thailand, nor the hospital from Cambodia, nor the city c ulture from Malaya, nor te horse from Japan, nor spice culture from the Indies, nor architecture from Java, nor mathematics and sciences from the Arabs. Even if the West had not come, the rest of Asia would not have minded the Philippines. This leads to questioning whether we truly were “ship-building” people in the pre-Hispanic times, trading with other countries. Our stories show ot herwise because most of the characters and stories are about the mountains, nothing of the sea. If the Filipinos were able to go to other countries, they would have been able to see the civilization and brought these technologies to the country. The mere possession of porcelain from China does not mean that the Filipinos were the ones who tr avelled to other countries. Also, historical accounts from other countries about t he coming of Philippine ships or boats are rare if any at all. It was only in the colonization when the Chinese began coming to the Philippines. It then can be said that the coming of the West has caused the other Asian countries to take cognizance of the Philippines. Philippines became part of Asia, thanks to the West. Given this, the process of our Westernization was also our process of Asianizing. Our problem is the history of becoming. We cannot accept that the moment w e became Filipinos was the same moment we became Asians. It is our instinct to separate our be ing Asian with our being Filipino. Culture itself is history and so we cannot exclude certain aspects or portions of our past, saying that they brought about “corruption” to our true identity. Why do we feel shame or guilt over our uniqueness of being a product of both Eastern and Western influence? Why want to be East or West or North or South when we can be our own singular self as culture and history have shaped us? To say that we ought to be not just Filipinos but also Asians betrays a feeling of inadequacy. Why, isn’t it enough to be just Filipinos? Whether or not we reject the part of our history when Western influence begin to enter, we cannot discount the fact that it started both our Westernization and Asianizing, which then made us. This is the making of the Filipino. Skipping this truth is like removing the pan de sal and adobo from the Philippine life.
