My Winning Submission: EDSA/People Power Revolution Essay Writing Contest

EDSA/ People Power Revolution Essay Writing Contest, sponsored by Philippine American Writers and Artists (PAWA) Inc and the Philippine Consulate of San Francisco


To My Grandparents,

How did you feel when Marcos’ government fell in 1986? What went through your mind when you heard the news? Were you happy that a regime that took so much from the people was gone? As Ilocanos, were you upset that a man who began with big promises for the people was unfairly slandered by opposition forces and unlawfully deposed? Were Ferdinand and Imelda your John and Jackie Kennedy? Were the people right in their revolution? What did your families say when they sent letters, or did they mostly ask for money? I wish I had asked before you went to God’s side. I knew of you, and spent time with you, but never had the chance to really know you. I was so young, and knew nothing of death. I felt you would be around for a long time.

I wish I could have asked you about your life in the Philippines. As a young child, I never learned about our Filipino culture and our Ilocano language. Now that you are both gone, I’ll never be able to recapture your unique stories. As an adult, I can now read about the conditions Filipinos faced in early twentieth century America. Having read America is in the Heart, I can imagine a little of what you, lolo, went through on your journey to Hawaii and California. Did you, like so many pinoys, come to the United States in hopes of a better life? Did you see so little opportunity in your home that you felt a long voyage across the sea would open the doors for your success? What made you decide to purchase one hundred acres of Central Coast farmland with your brothers? How were you able to purchase the land, at a time when Filipinos were still looked at with suspicion and prejudice? So many questions, and yet so few answers.

How did you feel about your children? Were they raised to be wholly American, with so little expression or knowledge of their Filipino heritage? I know among many immigrant parents it was better to cultivate the American culture, in order to assimilate more completely, and draw less attention from the government officials who tried to expel “illegal” workers and “lawfully” exclude Filipinos from free access to all being an American national meant. Were you proud of your children? Did you feel, as so many parents do, that there was more you could have done to make them even more successful?

How did you feel about me? A third­-generation Filipino American with so little knowledge or cultural ties with our family’s Filipino culture. A young person who must rely on books, secondhand stories, and friends’ families to learn anything about our Philippines. Who knew so little that, prior to this assignment, didn’t even know what the 1986 People Power Revolution referred to? I knew who Ferdinand Marcos was, but only as a dictator who styled himself a political playboy. I knew of Imelda Marcos’ shoes.

How can I recapture that narrative which, through my and my parents’ upbringing, was so quickly lost within two generations? While I feel so blessed to have unrestricted access to a wealth of virtual resources I can use to study our culture, they are not you. They are not your individual stories. How can we; young, third and fourth generation Filipino Americans with, at times, so little connection with our Filipino heritage, recover a lost history that’s so often ignored in our American and World history courses? We must ask questions and take action.

Would you, our manongs and manangs, be proud of where we have come? We have a TV show that depicts a Filipino American family sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner without over-­the-­top stereotypes. We fought to rename a high school after two of our most prominent, but largely forgotten, labor union warriors in Larry Itliong and Philip Vera Cruz. We produced a documentary that introduces so many of our own to the fight in Delano, and its role in the great labor battles of the twentieth century. We’ve done much but, like those who came in support of their personal values and rights as citizens on the Epifano de los Santos Avenue, there’s still much work to be done. Neither the Filipino people or we are truly free of the status quo.

Ours is not a physical conflict against an individual regime or tyrant, but a cultural struggle against anonymity in history and invisibility in society. Our conflicts are not waged in revolutionary language with great public displays, but with a quiet determination in the halls of government and behind our cameras. In speaking with you and your children, and telling or retelling the story of our people, we honor our culture and those who fight for their beliefs. We are the offspring of Filipinos, but we are also Americans. Our charge may not be to overthrow a government, but like the Revolutionaries we must change minds and hearts of others who do not know about us. We must save our cultures from disappearing into the shadows of history, lest we ourselves forget. We owe our lives to the sacrifices of men and women like you, lolo and lola. Without you, I would not be here, able to enjoy the benefits of this great country. I hope our young people are up to the challenge of honoring the lives of our grandparents and great-­grandparents, and honoring the spirit of those who fought for a better life for themselves and their families on the EDSA in 1986. Though we are in different arenas, we both fight for our right to relevancy and visibility in our national stories.

To my grandparents, I hope I made you proud. I wish we had had more time to get to know each other, and share our stories with family and food. I look forward to showing you more about my life when I see you again.

Love,
Your grandson

See Positively Filipino Magazine's article on the contest here.

Movie Monday: "John Adams" an HBO series by Tom Hooper

On the recommendation of history colleagues, I found a copy of the HBO Series “John Adams” at the local library, and I’m not disappointed. This historical drama follows the career and presidency of Founding Father John Adams, including his participation in the American Revolution and his activities in foreign arenas like France and Britain during the establishment of the American Government. This series doesn’t avoid the darker aspects of Adams’ experience, and seems to give a balanced view of his life.

Like many HBO series, the acting is on point. Lead Paul Giamatti brings this John Adams to life and reflects his educational background in theater and broadway. David Morse towers over the other characters as bigger-than-life General and President George Washington, and gives a subdued performance as the first leader of the new government. Laura Linney is an excellent Abigail Adams, giving life to the famous first Second Lady and second First Lady of the United States.

As the series opens, Adams (Giamatti) is a successful lawyer in Boston, with wife Abigail (Linney) and children John Quincy, Abigail and Charles. The cries of “Fire! Fire!” echo through his home as British soldiers fire upon a crowd of protesters to Britain’s overreaching influence in the colonies. Adams is the only lawyer in Boston willing to take the case, which opens him up to attacks and criticisms from his patriotic neighbors.

The benefit of a series such as “John Adams” is how human our founding heroes become when treated in a balanced manner. Putting aside the romanticism surrounding the founding of the United States, a student of history will appreciate the nuanced treatment. Additionally, the series does not marginalize the other key members among Founding Fathers (and Mothers), which can sometimes happen when a series focuses on one particular subject, or minimize their influence on the main character. The humanity present in this series brings the founding members down to a relatable level, in particular the balance between work and life, family, religion, and the fundamental principles of the United States.

What I found most instructive is how contentious the developing government of the United States was during the first few years. Every member had their own interests and concepts of who held what power, and the extent of that power over the individual states. As a newer student of early American history, I found these insights informative for future study. Additionally, the sheer weight of what was before the Revolutionary leadership, founding a new country, is not lost on the artists who changed the characters’ appearance based on circumstances. The various epidemics that swept the New England territories, coupled with the stress, play out on the faces of the actors throughout the series.

A viewer hoping to bolster their patriotic feelings will likely feel kinship towards the characters in this historical drama. Students of history will appreciate the perspectives of the film, and the contentious nature as more reflective of reality than the simple founding myths many of us grew up on. There is very little to fault in this series, from my perspective, as there was clearly enough financial support to give “John Adams” a suitable treatment.

Purchase or stream "John Adams" through Amazon

History Notes:

The differences between fact and fiction in historical drama (see historical inaccuracies)

Religion and political backgrounds of the Founding Fathers and others

Family life of John Adams

David McCullough's book "John Adams," inspiration for this HBO series

US Multiculturalism

By Maleliberation (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Multiculturalism has been a fundamental aspect of American society nearly since inception, when the colonists first encountered Native American tribes. From this, the United States as an entity has needed to address issues related to a citizenry of widely diverse backgrounds, which stretches all the way from historic times to today, and will continue to be an issue into the future. Two fundamental relationships are key in addressing the debates of modern multiculturalism in America. These relationships are religion and its relationship to the state and population and affirmative action and the government in race relations.

Firstly, one of the biggest issues at the forefront of a multicultural America is the apparent conflict between the “West” with the fundamentalist Muslims, a decidedly “Other” entity, to borrow Edward Said's terminology. With the significant rise of violence attributed to Muslims, people who are Muslim, associated with Muslims, or look like what Muslims are thought to look like are targeted as inherently against America. A style of “guilty until proven innocent.” The fundamental issue here is the reconciliation between national security, a product of US Cold War policy, and preservation of the rights of American citizens as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution this country was founded on. Examples abound of Muslim citizens being targeted for illegal wiretapping, government supervision, and general public mistrust by the fact that they follow a specific religion. Further examples speak of the detainment of citizens without proper charges or due process of law. Though the state has a mandate to protect the integrity of US borders and security, no mandate exists for the State to do so at the cost and erosion of citizens’ rights. A product of this move towards a national security state is also the lack of understanding among the general population, specifically in relation to people who “look Muslim,” but have little to do with the faith, or outwardly oppose the fundamentals of the faith.

An example of this is the news stories of vigilante militants attacking and harassing people of the Sikh religion. They do so because, through ignorance, they see the beard and turban and assume they are fundamentalist Muslims when, in fact, Sikhs particularly practice a faith where some tenets are opposed directly to some tenets of Islam, reflecting a long-standing cultural conflict between the two faiths. Moving forward, then, requires the greatest care to ensure that the state protects certain fundamental rights of the citizenry without taking away the rights afforded by the core principles of the country and that the people work to keep culturally aware and avoid simple “black and white” thinking.

Secondly, we must address the issue of Affirmative Action and related policies in relation to the selection and acceptance of students into university. According to the most modern Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon Johnson, the movement of affirmative action

“prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” It also requires contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

This has been further required that contractors document their policies for enforcing equal opportunity for review by the Federal government, outlined here:

“..required contractors with 51 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more to implement affirmative action plans to increase the participation of minorities and women in the workplace if a workforce analysis demonstrates their under-representation, meaning that there are fewer minorities and women than would be expected given the numbers of minorities and women qualified to hold the positions available. Federal regulations require affirmative action plans to include an equal opportunity policy statement, an analysis of the current work force, identification of under-represented areas, the establishment of reasonable, flexible goals and timetables for increasing employment opportunities, specific action-oriented programs to address problem areas, support for community action programs, and the establishment of an internal audit and reporting system.”

An interesting byproduct of such orders show that businesses and universities have developed, either implicitly or explicitly, policies which favor, or give certain preferential treatment to, underrepresented minorities in relation to acceptance into university. Several states have moved to take this to the ballot, with several also establishing that so called “points systems” favoring certain races over others is unconstitutional. California’s Prop 209 from 1996 describes this response:

“..upon approval in November 1996, [Proposition 209] amended the state constitution to prohibit state government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting or public education.”

In a circumstances surrounding the greater Civil Rights Movement, certain institutions exceeded what many felt was the original “flavor” of the order not by eliminating unequal opportunities among various ethnic groups, but giving preferential treatment and establishing unclear “quotas” for students of certain ethnic backgrounds. No longer based strictly on the merits of the applicant, some institutions swung towards selection based on the color of the applicant’s skin.

Few people still maintain the belief that races hold any true biological significance in relation to the greater human race. Few would openly wish to maintain the unequal institutions common before the Civil Rights Movement helped abolish segregation and certain “separate but equal” policies. The end goal, then, must be a level playing field based not on color of the skin, which is in and of itself a form of discrimination against merit-based selection, but one based solely on the abilities and talents of the applicant being reviewed. This balance, however, continues to be an issue as the US continues to become a more diverse landscape of backgrounds.

Recommended Films: Shawshank Redemption, Frank Darabont; Osama, Siddiq Barmak; Pushing Hands, Ang Lee; Dim Sum: A Little Bit of Heart, Wayne Wang; Smoke Signals, Chris Eyre

Progress in Political and Social Equality, 1960-1975

"AfricanAmericans," FEastman. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

The US Postwar period of the 1950s through the 1970s marks a significant paradigm shift towards inclusion, at the cost of continued segregation and exclusion of African Americans and women from social status. The statement “Between 1960 and 1975, there was great progress in the struggle for political and social equality,” is essentially sound, given the circumstances, with the understanding that the path towards human equality remains a constant issue.

A number of incidents and circumstances between the Civil Rights Movement and the continued fight for women’s liberation share common cause towards equality during this period. Influenced by Martin Luther King Jr.’s influence and the aftermath of the Montgomery Bus Boycotts of the later 1950's, issues of human rights and calls for equality took a higher priority among the general social discussion.

The 1950's also saw, on a more international scale, the shift away from traditional patriarchal social norms towards a more inclusive slant, as nations began to rebuild after World War II. Emphasis on public education, and the desire to utilize all able human capital within the nation state, began to address common issues of unequal opportunity in places like Europe, the US, and Japan.

The 1960's, which contains the bulk of what we refer to as the Civil Rights Movement, further pushed the shift away from a “separate but equal” understanding in the South, with parallels to the 1950's “nuclear ideal” of women as domestic homemakers, excluded from opportunity in the larger social context.

The rise of the Vietnam War in the 1970's, coupled with the continued counter-culture movement against established cultural norms, as well as the climax of total desegregation within the Civil Rights Movement’s efforts in 1969, further influenced the liberation and shedding of many social norms aimed at women. Additionally, the US government under Jimmy Carter moved towards emphasizing human rights as a federal policy, thus addressing lingering issues of inequality among women and African Americans.

Honestly, the work is still continuing in the call for honest reevaluation in equality among people. With the United States being such a pluralistic society, with many ethnic identities and cultural interactions, the issue of what is “fair” and “equitable” will likely shift with current circumstances. Issues of unequal pay still plague women in the workplace, while minorities are still largely over-represented among the population in crime statistics and underrepresented among education statistics. Unfair targeting of specific ethnic groups represents the ongoing battle between crime prevention and invasion of fundamental civil rights. Finding concrete answers to these lingering issues will continue to challenge the people as we move into the next generations.

Recommended Films: American History X, Tony Kaye; Malcolm X, Spike Lee;

Book Review: Still Missing: Amelia Earhart and the Search for Modern Feminism, Susan Ware.

[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons via http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/

Book Review: Susan Ware. Still Missing: Amelia Earhart and the Search for Modern Feminism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1993. $19.13.

Susan Ware’s book Still Missing: Amelia Earhart and the Search for Modern Feminism argues that Earhart, while most certainly an exceptional example of young womanhood during the 1920's, was definitely a product of time and place. Earhart reflected the rising understanding of liberal feminism, specifically that by showcasing the talents and abilities of the exceptional individual, the entire gender would adjust minds by “proving” the category “woman” held no inherent handicap in achievement.

Ware’s strength is in her choice of chronological structuring of her text. Earhart’s philosophies seem to develop organically, particularly between the period of 1928-1937, although not limited to this range. By taking a chronological approach, Ware is able to build the drama of the tale, though we all know what the outcome will be. Nevertheless, Ware’s narrative is not about the end result, but the significance of the journey and the substance of Earhart’s life. Chronology also allows Ware to showcase, in her chapter “Popular Heroines/ Popular Culture” other women who occupy the same exceptional, liberal feminist pantheon of legends, particularly Katherine Hepburn, Dorothy Thompson, and Eleanor Roosevelt, to name a few. These case studies further emphasis on individuals as exceptional examples of possibility for women.

Ware structures her argument organically. This emphasizes clarity in understanding in a linear fashion. One strength here is this very clarity and understanding, as we understand time moving in a linear way. A weakness may be the temptation of thinking the events of Earhart’s life and philosophy were inevitable, or though the author goes to lengths emphasizing at different levels when things may have taken a turn (such as Earhart’s choice to marry G.P. Putnam, or her decision not to have children, or her choice of doing a world-wide flight in 1936-7).

Ware successfully utilizes primary source documents, particularly the words of Earhart herself, to emphasize her brand of liberal feminism and how her words and deeds sparked the imagination of possibility among vast numbers of young women. Ware’s argument suggesting how Earhart’s words and actions supported her aims of expanding women’s access is further supported through her use of unpublished primary source documents like private correspondence, that further emphasizes not only Earhart’s steadfast support of liberal feminist philosophies (avoiding sex-based laws of help or hindrance) remain behind the cameras as much as before them. Even given the limited availability of other primary sources, due to fire at Earhart’s home, Ware does successfully utilize the sources available and seems to mine them very well to emphasize her arguments.

This book encourages the reader to not think of Earhart as a legend, though she certainly was an exceptional individual and a fantastic self-promoter (also thanks to G.P. Putnam. Ware wants us to consider her as a product of 1920's liberal feminism, and as a larger-than-life hero to so many young ladies who see the possibilities within the context of this specific society. Earhart represents these possibilities, and showcases, as the main thrust of this book emphasizes time and again, that women of the 1920's wanted an exceptional example of what women could do, and women like Earhart, Roosevelt, and Hepburn reflected this want. It also emphasizes that liberal feminism was the vogue way of looking at  women’s roles within society and the workplace (among white, middle-class women and their fans). It wasn't sex that one should focus on, but the individual ability and talents, regardless of sex. Nevertheless, the book does not gloss over Earhart’s limitations, nor the limits of liberal feminism. Both Earhart and liberal feminists were largely white, middle-class or upper-middle class, individuals with exceptional talent and exceptional opportunity. The plight of minority women, particularly African-American women and economically disadvantaged women, whose options to excel seemed particularly limited.

In conclusion, Ware’s book expands upon the understanding of Earhart as feminist, and avoids further expansion on Earhart the legend. Ware succeeds at contextualizing Earhart, which is the main emphasis of her text. Earhart was reflective of liberal feminist thought, her contributions unfortunately overshadowed by her unsolved disappearance. Ware ends with a treatment of why Earhart might have taken that last flight, as a publicity stunt for a slumping career or as an answer to the social shift away from 1920's feminine heroes towards 1940's suppression of mass feminist movements. Earhart’s potentialities were not diminished had she successfully returned from her flight, and Ware wonders whether she would have taken a post at Purdue as a researcher or counselor, or taken another aviation-oriented “second career.” One wonders whether or not we would even be studying her had she not disappeared!

Ware’s case studies of other women further places Earhart within a context, although does not bog the reader down in details unnecessary for her main purpose, which is greatly appreciated. It is a fine example of blending narrative and scholarship to produce a product that will appeal to academic and layman historian, although academic historians will likely find particular points of critique, as with any text.

Work for Free, and Reap the Rewards

Liberal arts degrees, or at least liberal arts as a minor, are not completely worthless in the marketplace.

One of the best skills people who study a liberal art, specifically English, Philosophy, or History, among others, is the ability to research and write clearly, for a specific audience, supported by concrete details and evidence. These also help contribute to critical thinking and analysis skills that are required in fields as divergent as science, business, and law.

While the job market is indeed more challenging, or less linear, among certain liberal art fields than it may be in, say, accounting, or computer science, it is no less viable than any other field. The truth is there is work out there for anyone who is seeking employment.

What is necessary for these specialists, however, is creativity in the search. It isn't enough to follow and believe that a seamless transition from education to corporate employee is immediate, or easily obtained. For the liberal artists, and to a lesser degree any field where a leg up on the competition is wanted, it is necessary to utilize multiple approaches to doing the key point of any job application: real world experience.

Most job postings want the "ideal candidate" to have 3-5 years of experience in the field of work, and a laundry list of skills and abilities. How recent graduates can acquire 3-5 years of experience, specifically if they didn't have the foresight to do so while in school, is on the surface unappealing. This task is the "work for free" mentality.

Internships, volunteer work, underpay, or otherwise minimal compensation for work within your specialization is what is necessary to achieve success when starting out. Whether it is writing articles for a few dollars, or processing artifacts within a non-profit museum, or volunteering time at a local shelter or office, these experiences show future employers that you are serious about your work, and are not merely doing it for monetary gain (although it may be a future goal).

It places you within a proper mindset to build a more solid appreciation for the work. When a person is working for low or no pay, they are able to gauge how important the work itself, the field, or the topics are to the individual based on intrinsic merits, and not extrinsic rewards like money or status. It makes sense that finding internal rewards first may make the employee more productive and thus will contribute to increased pay.

Do the work for free, or low pay, to begin with, and reap the rewards of a better, more suitable career in your chosen field.