Edward Said’s Orientalism was a book I first read in the fall of 2001. I recall not being too impressed and finding simple historical errors in it. But mostly it bore me. I am now rereading it because in 2018 the book is far more relevant to our current American culture, if not the world in a real sense. That’s because Orientalism is one of the most influential and seminal works in the field of postcolonialism (and to be frank, it seems more comprehensible than the stuff written by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak).
At some point, I may put down into a post my thoughts on Orientalism. But long-time readers are familiar with my position that postcolonialists, and most progressive Westerners, overemphasize the importance of the colonial in most non-Western societies. But this is not the same as saying the colonial is not important, and, that the colonial does not affect different societies in varied ways.
The Philippines is the mostly large majority Christian country in Asia. It is predominantly Roman Catholic, though like many Catholic nations it’s religiosity is declining. The brutal and blunt current president of the country has had some harsh things to say about the Church.
I bring up the Philippines because in comparison to other Southeast Asia nations it seems clear that it is a creature of colonialism. A hybrid of Western and Asian values that is somewhat out of place. The French influence Vietnam is undeniable, but fundamentally Vietnam remains part of the broader Sinic cultural sphere, as it was before the rise of Europe. This is not so with the Philippines, which was in the early stages of Islamicization when the Spaniards arrived and had only been lightly impacted by Indic civilization in comparison to Java or the Austronesian kingdom of the Chams in mainland Vietnam.
One of the most striking things to me is that more than half of the babies in the Philippines are now born out of wedlock. This is an exception within Asia and even Southeast Asia.
There is one set group of nations which has long had high rates of out of wedlock births: those of Latin America. My reading of the ethnography indicated that this is partly a function of the fact that Iberian males entered into de facto polygynous family relationships early on during the conquest of the New World. And, unlike some other European nations, “natural children” did have some customary rights in Spanish law. Hernan Cortes had two sons with the name Martin. One of them was a mestizo, the product of a relationship with an indigenous woman of New World. The other was the legitimate offspring with Cortes’ aristocratic Spanish wife.
Though Martin Cortes, known as “El Mestizo,” did not have the rights of his brother, he was still provided for. He fought in Central Europe for the Habsburgs, and married and had children.
This pattern of giving some rights and consideration to illegitimate children has been argued as a major reason for the high rates of out of wedlock birth in much of Latin America today. But, the problem with this model is that the number of Spaniards in the islands of the Phillippines was always far lower than in the New World. Demographically they made a marginal impact, and in fact, the Chinese were more numerous.
But it remains the case that Spanish colonial regimes in environs as distinct as the Philippines and the New World left a legacy of high rates out of wedlock births. It could be coincidental, but I doubt that. Scholars genuinely interested in the impact of exogenous colonial shocks should be exploring these cross-cultural patterns theoretically and empirically, not engaging in abstruse linguistic analysis or deploying Theory toward the ends of particular politics.
The rest of Asia probably has a lot of abortions, but with Catholics, that’s a big no-no.
good point https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/abortion-rate-in-vietnam-highest-in-asia-3476746.html
vietnam has highest abortion rate in asia. and, out of wedlock birth is taboo. seems like the two are related.
About the out-of-the-wedlock high rate of Latin America, there was the old Engels’ theory that the American Indians only recently had evolved from a supposedly past when men had sex with several women and women had sex with several men. But, even if this could make any sense for Latin America (and I am not saying that it does), seems more difficult to apply to Philipines (after all, I imagine that, some centuries, ago, there as not much difference between today Philippians, Indonesians, Bruneians and Malaysians).
Divorce is illegal in the Philippines. Though that might finally change this year.
Even to this day in the Philippines you have speakers of Chavacano which is Spanish based creole. My other-half’s maternal grandfather was ‘half-spanish’ Mestizo and her mother’s entire family are regarded as Mestizo in looks (compare to her father’s side). Which seems to be backed up by her 23andme results.
Anyways the old-man use to basically speak a fair bit Spanish right up to his death. It would seem the major blow to Spanish speaking community was the Battle of Manila (and the destruction of ‘Intramuros’) in 1944, which tore the heart out of the language community, killing elite speakers etc.
Anyways she often tells me stories about how the old man for example had a ‘formal mistress’ but that she had to live on other side of town and never cross paths with his wife (my oh’s grandmother). Also one of his brothers was involved in shipping and supposedly had a wife in every port etc.
I think the limited power of the colonial empires is something that ought to be recognised.
Especially in the middle East, where most was only “colonised” for the short interwar period.
The abortion thing is a strong factor but so is the fact you cannot legally divorce. A Filipina wrote this on another site:
Quote: “As a matter of fact, the Philippines is the only country left in the world where divorce is still not legal. People argue that once married, the couple should stay together no matter what.
But then…
Adultery is very common in the Philippines. In fact, it is even romanticised in movies. People commend the man who goes back to his wife after having cheated and they are proud of the woman who stayed strong and fought for her man. That’s a common plot in romantic films and television shows. Sadly, it has made adultery common and actually expected when one is in a relationship.
But, wait! There’s more!
Non-legal separation is also as common as mosquitoes in that country. Men leave their wives for another woman without being made accountable to pay alimony. The woman generally fends for herself and her children. There are plenty of couples living together and making a family without getting married because they can’t get married because the man is still married to his first wife. Complicated and messy.
It doesn’t end there…
The children of those couples with one of them still being married are considered illegitimate. They can experience all sorts of systemic discrimination including:
The state will not give them anything when their father dies (it’s usually the man who cheats and starts the second family).
The church will not allow them to get married unless their mother repents or something like that. The mother also has to provide evidence that she has been baptised. The church can be bribed though.”
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-greatest-hypocrisy-of-your-culture/answer/Reine-Jolie-Mercado?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=3267980108