|
|
Post by honeyviper on Apr 10, 2008 13:25:50 GMT -5
...Which is why the figures produced from that study for the Philippines are brain dead/worthless. The Philippines is far from a homogeneous society. If all of the samples were taken from people in, say, Binondo, Manila you would get very different results than those from a sample taken in Iloilo; or one from Alabang, Muntinlupa City; or from the heart of Kalinga Province... To then extrapolate that over the entire country is non-trivial, to put it mildly. Even common sense logic (something overlooked in academia, at times) suggests that the problem is intractable for the sample size in question. Actually, I don't see how it is all that helpful. This is the master surname catalog for the ClaverÃa Edict. It just provides a list of names that were assigned throughout the country -- most of which coincide with Iberian surnames found throughout the Spanish-speaking world (Rivera, Flores, etc.) and place names (Madrid, Valencia, etc.). Logically, a common Spanish name corresponding to one that appears in the list could therefore be a Claveria assigned name, or it could be a genuine surname of a Spanish immigrant ancestor -- how could one tell the difference? Conversely, having a Spanish-sounding name that doesn't appear on the list also doesn't tell you much, because exemptions existed for natives that had already adopted Spanish surnames for several generations. Genealogy isn't a straightforward task for Filipinos... I see your point, but quantitative researchers take samples from across the geographic spectrum for that same reason as well--to attempt to account for diversity. Whether or not any demographic studies truly represent any one population is questionable as even demographic research such as 'mandatory' censuses can be denied by individuals and communities. It doesn't take into account self-definition, nor the complexities of dealing with particularly large populations. Actually, it also includes a lot of names that are not found in the Iberian peninsula as well that are references to flora and fauna (e.g. my grandfather's paternal surname is from species of fish in the Indus River). Maybe I should have clarified to note that it was helpful for me personally. I know that it is definitely frustrating when you just delve further and further into archives and don't feel like it's going anywhere. How does one tell the difference? Well, it requires research into looking into ports (which would show the ports that were open during trade and which were not) and other historical documents, regions and areas (even in the 'New World' where those names were used), and so forth (the use of 's' versus 'z' in surnames had difference connotations). It's difficult though because it also requires looking at documents that are really difficult to read, not only due to the language used, but also because some archival handwriting looks like ridiculous scribbles. I had my share of that when I was in the musty old BC archives. Genealogy isn't a straightforward task for anyone (I would say that North Americans have it easier with all these forums dedicated to the topic), but if you're serious about it then you have to approach it methodically and with commitment. |
|
aya
Junior Member
japanese and german
Posts: 71
|
Post by aya on Apr 11, 2008 13:19:02 GMT -5
I actually know a few halfies who look more white, so it doesn't really surprise me.  Her mom is Canadian Euro-mutt, her dad is Japanese.  Half-black and half-Irish-American...natural red hair and freckles. Well... it's surprising to learn the 2nd girl is half black... but I think she's cute and I like her mix  The first girl... I'm not sure if I would has suspected she was half Japanese all on my own, but at the same time it's really obvious. I mean, picture her with dark eyes, hair, and more olive skin. BAM, she looks very Asian. I mean... white genes can dominate too, and in her case, it did so with her coloing... I think her features actually DO look Japanese. She's very interesting/pretty |
|
|
|
Post by insularinsider on Apr 11, 2008 16:09:44 GMT -5
I see your point, but quantitative researchers take samples from across the geographic spectrum for that same reason as well--to attempt to account for diversity. The Stanford study in question used samples from 28(!) individuals from the Philippines. How the hell can this possibly represent the geographic spectrum of the Philippines? I'd argue that one couldn't even account for the racial diversity of the old city regions in the Philippines (e.g., Metro Manila), for that matter, with such a sample. My point is crystal clear: the figures cited from that study for the Philippines are worthless. There is really nothing to even debate here. I wonder if this was the result of a massive and intentional compromise in their data gathering or from total ignorance of the country. True. The study was concerned with race from a genetic standpoint and not the standpoint of the total ethnic heritage package. Common sense and a few seconds' worth of thought on this matter (including a very rudimentary understanding of history, anthropology, and ethnology) ought to tell anyone that this is a complex issue. True, but most are Iberian (mostly Castilian). For the overwhelming majority of Filipinos, it doesn't really add anything that we don't already know: "Vargas" could be a Claveria surname, or it could be genuine, to highlight one famous example. Interesting story. So basically you're lucky that you had an unusual name from the catalog that isn't also an actual European name. Not too many of us are in that boat. In fact, I can't really think of any famous examples, off of the top of my head... Cool though. The use of 's'-vs-'z' in patronyms doesn't help much either. While names like Gonzale s and Valde s are more common in Spain than Gonzale z and Valde z, both versions exist there. I argue that this is of very limited use except for basic curiosity/trivia. Personally, I wouldn't even bother reading much into that one. Clerical errors/shoddy record-keeping make such a small detail inconclusive, as well (as you no doubt realize). I would argue that it is particularly difficult for Filipinos for several reasons: record-keeping and archival preservation was the worst among the Spanish colonies, the Claveria Edict, low rates of Spanish literacy during the colonial period, the destruction caused by the earthquakes and the Second World War, and the fact that most Filipinos cannot read Spanish today(!). In light of this, wouldn't anyone agree that this represents an extraordinarily challenging problem for most Filipinos? |
|
|
|
Post by buff on Apr 11, 2008 16:48:11 GMT -5
A sample of 28 individuals do not speak for the whole. Even a sample of 1000 could be negligible if sampling is not statistically drawn from most cities and provincial spread.
The Catalogo is not a sole representation of Spanish Surnames that are assigned to native Filipinos. For example the Surname CONCEPCION. Concepcion is found in the Catalogo. However, the Concepcion Family of Bacolod is proven to be of Spanish heritage (such as Gabby Concepcion and KC Concepcion who also look the part) while the Concepcion family from Ilocos has no proven Spanish heritage nor doesn't look Spanish at all. The two families are not related at all.
Many surnames in the Catalogo imitated the existing Spanish surnames of Spaniard families living in the Philippines (exception to the rule was the family names of Spaniard leaders at the time the Claveria was issued). Remember that the Claveria decree was only issued in the mid 1800 while the existence of the Spaniards and Mexican Mestizo dates back to 1595. Two hundred fifty years of mixing had taken placed before the Claveria Decree was issued
|
|
|
|
Post by honeyviper on Apr 11, 2008 21:13:52 GMT -5
The Stanford study in question used samples from 28(!) individuals from the Philippines. How the hell can this possibly represent the geographic spectrum of the Philippines? I'd argue that one couldn't even account for the racial diversity of the old city regions in the Philippines (e.g., Metro Manila), for that matter, with such a sample. My point is crystal clear: the figures cited from that study for the Philippines are worthless. There is really nothing to even debate here. I wonder if this was the result of a massive and intentional compromise in their data gathering or from total ignorance of the country. JEEZ!!! That's a really low sample even for a preliminary study (which I don't know if it was or not?). My friend had referred me to said information, but I was mainly interested in the ties to Taiwanese Aboriginal languages and wanted to know if there was any hint of a genetic link in Luzon. It sounds like a case of people wanting to publish something in an academic journal to get their careers going. Unfortunately this happens a lot more than I care for. No debate from me really after hearing that information. That's just such a crazy low sample! It may have even been a combination of not enough care put into wanting a true representation and biting off more than they could chew. I would have thought they could've obtained substantial funding from the Human Genome Project though. Sometimes people see a country and think "monoculture", but there is so much diversity out there particularly in places like the Philippines where long-distance trade has long been a part of the way of life. I've always been really skeptical about the surname thing (and researching genealogy because dead-ends are disappointing). But I thought I'd put some effort into it because my genealogy for my Dad's family has been tracked back roughly 300 years. When I got into it about four years ago I was surprised to stumble upon the unusual nature of my name. Apparently the only other few families that ended up with the name are somewhere in Mindanao. The only thing worse than reading uncleanly written records are records that are poorly kept! That's very disappointing. I'm not a historian by trade (I work in cultural anthropology/curriculum development), so I always found the written word to be more elusive and difficult to deal with when it came to researching throughout historical records. |
|
okay
Junior Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by okay on Apr 13, 2008 19:25:21 GMT -5
Alot of Filipino who claim to be full filipino are in fact descendents of mix ancestry, hence the the higher possbility of a recessive gene. Yep, met one today. A new girl joined the Filipino folk dance troupe I'm in and claims to be 100% Filipina, but I really thought she was mixed. I'm slightly amused by the fact that many Filipinos are pleased when others think they might be mixed. Yeah...lol, it's so amusing when many fiipinos are so please when they get comments how they look mixed. Must be the colonal mentality thing... many Filipinos get offended when they say they look asian but get very happy when they look slightly caucasian...lol..lol... ;D  poor thing. |
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Apr 22, 2008 13:06:22 GMT -5
Elementary school Genetics taught me that both parents would have to carry genes for blond hair and blue eyes (they're recessive traits) in order for these to be expressed in their children. If that "Chinese" guy is, in fact, her biological dad (her surname seems rather ambiguous to me), and she is a natural, blue-eyed blond, then he is carrying those genes along with the mother. I have actually seen a number of *full* Chinese who have blue eyes or hair that is not black or dark brown. Chinese are not *pure* either and these genes are found across the Chinese population, although they almost never appear in combination sufficient to make them very prevalent. |
|
|
|
Post by joannenicole on Apr 22, 2008 21:04:01 GMT -5
That's interesting. My mom is a Filipina and my dad is Caucasian and I'd definitely say that I look like an equal blend of them. Um...that sounded odd. The only thing is that I inherited my dad's fair skin so a few people tend to mistake me for a person of some Chinese or Japanese descent. Most of my eurasian cousins look the same way with the exception of my oldest sister and a younger cousin of mine (both of whom many people would think are fully caucasian). I should add a picture of me and either my sister or cousin some time. But as for the person who claimed that they believed the majority of half-Filipino eurasians look caucasian, I disagree. Most of my half-Filipino half-Caucasian relatives and friends, including myself look like a blend of both of our parents.
|
|
ibzie
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ibzie on Apr 26, 2008 16:36:50 GMT -5
Wendy Marie Mock. (2:57) youtube.com/watch?v=jJ9ewRjXS-EShe doesn't look Eurasian. Her dad doesn't either, but you can see the Asian in him. It's surprising when you see Eurasians who look completely white. She looks 100% polish |
|
ibzie
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ibzie on Apr 26, 2008 16:38:51 GMT -5
That's interesting. My mom is a Filipina and my dad is Caucasian and I'd definitely say that I look like an equal blend of them. Um...that sounded odd. The only thing is that I inherited my dad's fair skin so a few people tend to mistake me for a person of some Chinese or Japanese descent. Most of my eurasian cousins look the same way with the exception of my oldest sister and a younger cousin of mine (both of whom many people would think are fully caucasian). I should add a picture of me and either my sister or cousin some time. But as for the person who claimed that they believed the majority of half-Filipino eurasians look caucasian, I disagree. Most of my half-Filipino half-Caucasian relatives and friends, including myself look like a blend of both of our parents. I deffinetly agree  Im mistesa as well, and i think i look half-half, however when it comes to my height Im a bit more pinay on that aspect hehe |
|
|
|
Post by joannenicole on Apr 27, 2008 17:35:44 GMT -5
I deffinetly agree Im mistesa as well, and i think i look half-half, however when it comes to my height Im a bit more pinay on that aspect hehe I have my Filipina mother's shortness as well, even though my dad is like, 6'4". That annoys me to no end. |
|
|
|
Post by 2bob on May 16, 2008 6:08:59 GMT -5
Wendy Marie Mock. (2:57) youtube.com/watch?v=jJ9ewRjXS-EShe doesn't look Eurasian. Her dad doesn't either, but you can see the Asian in him. It's surprising when you see Eurasians who look completely white. i reckon her dad looks pretty eurasian. half chinese probz. lol i love americans back then. "My dad is oriental" is ASIAN not ORIENTAL blondie lol! |
|
|
|
Post by Emily on May 19, 2008 10:40:56 GMT -5
Wendy Marie Mock. (2:57) youtube.com/watch?v=jJ9ewRjXS-EShe doesn't look Eurasian. Her dad doesn't either, but you can see the Asian in him. It's surprising when you see Eurasians who look completely white. i reckon her dad looks pretty eurasian. half chinese probz. lol i love americans back then. "My dad is oriental" is ASIAN not ORIENTAL blondie lol! Sadly, it's not just American people who say this. My Vietnamese boyfriend attended one of my Filipino folk dance troupe's show and one of the Filipino dads later approached me asked if he was my boyfriend. Once I said yes, he said ''Oh, that's right, many white women go for Oriental men.''  |
|
s
Junior Member
Posts: 171
|
Post by s on May 19, 2008 16:51:50 GMT -5
^I don't take offense if someone says 'Oriental' That was the word used for many decades. 'Asian' began to be widely used in the 90s perhaps 80s. If someone especially over 35 says 'Oriental' that's just the word they grew up with. Really I don't know why 'Oriental' is a bad word to describe someone. It has a nicer ring than Asian but then North Africa can be considered 'Orientale.' 'Asian' is a vague word too. Any place East of Turkey is 'Asian.' Maybe we should say 'oh you whites like those Mongoloid types.' At least I understand they mean East or Southeast Asian. Then an Asian Caucasoid could be South Asian or Western Asian. Then there can be the Mongocaucs or the Caucamongs meaning Eurasians. ^ ^ ^ pretty much everywhere outside of hte US they use arab to describe indians/pakis/arabs and oriental for east asians |
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68 
|
Post by cm on May 19, 2008 17:02:26 GMT -5
Oriental is a word that objectifies Asian's and goes back to a colonialist time.
It's as outdated as calling blacks negroes which wasn't necessarily insulting back in that time.
In essence, the word itself is not demeaning. Nigger is not a demeaning word. It's simply derived from Negro from latin languages. Yet it's the historical implications.
|
|
Im mistesa as well, and i think i look half-half, however when it comes to my height Im a bit more pinay on that aspect hehe
