Sunday, November 18, 2007 Cariño: You and we By Linda Grace Cariño Paradigm shift
EVER been in these conversations where the one you're talking to appropriates the collective "we" and the collective "you" quite unthinkingly? I.e., a visiting American lecturer talking of the Fil-Am War like this: "... and then we liberated you from Spain, declared Martial Law, and you had to go into hiding... we had superior firearm power and you had bolos..."
Of course we know what's going on here. American lecturer's identification with his country is total. This is why he speaks as he does. He owns his country and what "it" did, and thus considers himself as the doer himself.
I, on the other hand, am more appreciative of some distance between myself and what "my country does." I wasn't liberated from Spain, didn't go into hiding, didn't have a bolo up against a rifle...
Plus there's my preferred version of what happened. There was a Philippine republic of 1898, largely said to have been "stolen" by the U.S.A. The ensuing Fil-Am War forced many Philippine republicans into hiding, and the Philippines lost that war because of the military superiority of the U.S. Sounds better to me. It is more clinical, more discussable and better for analysis, too. No we, no you. Just history as best as it presently can be. It may even sound better later, as has been known to happen. Again, you weren't around then, and neither was I. There's no we and you.
