GARCIA, Celine Marie L.

3LIT1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Background of the Study

Our beloved country is a former colony of not one, but three imperial powers, therefore it is no

surprise that most of our history was penned down in a foreign language. This means that the

earlier part of our culture had been written from an outsider’s perspective. Whatever pre-colonial

records our ancestors had written on easily perishable materials (i.e. tree bark, bamboo segments)

were destroyed by the Spanish friars who sought to eradicate all traces of paganism in our pre-

colonized societies to easily introduce Catholicism into our culture (Lopez, “A Brief Cultural

History of the Philippines” xxii). Because of this, we have little to no insight on what pre-

colonial Philippine society was. In most pre-colonial societies, the literature is almost always

transferred orally. In our case, some of the origin myths, hero tales, fables, and legends were

preserved through the untouched indigenous peoples culture and were only relatively recently

recorded. Aside from a surviving oral tradition, the only references we can depend on for pre-

colonial Philippines are from the writings of friars who, at the time, immersed themselves in the

natives’ lives.

Prior to the 1800s, all the printing presses were owned and run by the Spanish. However,

Gaspar Aquino de Belen, a layman employed by the Jesuit printing press, was the first Filipino

Literary artist. He published a long poem written in the vernacular Tagalog entitled Ang Passion

1
ni Jesuchristong Panginoon Natin in 1704 which he added to a translated Spanish devotional.

This eventually became known to later Filipinos as the pasyon (Lumbera, “Towards a Revised

History of Philippine Literature” 8-9). After Aquino de Belen, Jose de la Cruz pioneered the

komedya, which was based off the awits and koridos. He was the benchmark for native drama.

Prior to him, the komedya depended only on Spanish ballads. De la Cruz’s contribution was

providing a distinct indigenous drama for Filipinos (10). Unfortunately, de la Cruz’s numerous

works never left the survived past the 18th century. Only during 19th century did the Spanish

finally take the initiative to produce documents that contained local Filipino folklore. In the first

half of the 1800s emerged Francisco Baltazar, also known as Balagtas. He produced numerous

but only three survived: La India Elegante y el Negrito Amante, a farce; Orosman at Zafira, a

full-length commedia; and his most famous work, Pinagdaanang Buhay ni Florante at ni Laura

sa Cahariang Albania, an awit (11). Balagtas’ masterful work stands the test of time and can still

hold itself against analysis even in modern times and thus set the bar for Tagalog poets (12-13).

Eventually in the 1800s, a Filipino journalist from the Ilocos area gained the attention of

the people. Isabelo de los Reyes declared himself a Filipinologist which made the Spaniards turn

their noses up and irked his fellow Filipinos who, at the time, were too busy associating

themselves to the peninsulares who they were trying to emulate (Lopez, “Philippine

Folkloristics: A Survey” 4). At the urging of his mentor, Felipe del Pan, Isabelo started a

compilation of folklore in El Folklore Filipino from the Ilokanos, the Malabones, the

Zambaleños, and other people near the area. This sparked the “Philippine Folklore Battle of

1884-1885” between de los Reyes and the publication, El Eco de Vigan (The Echo of Vigan)

which caught the attention and praise from Spanish folklorists abroad (5). Unfortunately, Isabelo

lost but his efforts gained recognition from fellow folklorists of renown, earning him the title

2
“Father of Philippine Folklore,” dubbed by Pedro Paterno (6). In the late part of the 19 th century,

Paterno published Sampaguitas, the first collection of Filipino poetry, and Ninay, the first

Filipino novel in the Spanish era (Lumbera, “Towards a Revised History of Philippine

Literature” 14).

In 1886, Jose Rizal involved himself with the folklore and published his first contribution

to folk literature in Trubner’s Oriental Record, that contained the first Philippine comic “Ang

Unggoy at ang Pagong.” In 1890, he published Mariang Makiling in La Solidaridad. Rizal’s

momentary involvement with folklore is, to this day, greatly treasured by folklorists. The La

Solidaridad, aside from being a propagandist periodical, was also a place for other Europe-

educated Filipinos to publish their work on their local folklore and culture (Lopez, “Philippine

Folkloristics: A Survey” 7). In the years that led up to the Philippine independence from Spain,

Filipinos were Hispanicized while also Filipinizing Spanish culture (Lopez, “A Brief Cultural

History of the Philippines” xxvi). This was the seed that would eventually grow into Filipino

Nationalism. Jose Rizal contributed not only to the revolution but to the literature as well. His

alleged final poem, Mi Ultimo Adios, which was speculated to have been written on the eve of

his execution, established patriotic verse that would be utilized by the Katipunan in igniting the

love of country and nationalism of Filipinos which fuelled the Spanish Revolution (Lumbera,

“Towards a Revised History of Philippine Literature” 15). The Katipunan would establish the

vernacular Tagalog as its official language, which became associated with revolutionary

literature and patriotism (16).

After the declaration of independence in 1898, Spain handed us over to America at the

price of $20,000,000 through the Treaty of Paris. With the country under new management,

America established the United States Ethnological Survey of 1902 which was responsible for

3
the collecting of cultural and indigenous data in the islands. Because of this, a number of

ethnologists flocked to the Philippines. These Americans exclusively studied only those non-

Christian peoples (Lopez, “Philippine Folkloristics: A Survey” 9).

The Balagtas and Rizal literary traditions from the Spanish era were reconciled in Lope

K. Santos’ work, Ang Pangginggera, a novel in verse published in 1912. This will become his

mark on Philippine literary history (Lumbera, “Towards a Revised History of Philippine

Literature” 29).

The Americans established the public school system, with the University of the

Philippines as its pioneer institution, and made English the medium of instruction (Lopez, “A

Brief Cultural History of the Philippines” xxix). Educational materials covered foreign folktales

and cultures. However, in 1920, Camilo Osias published The Philippine Readers which

comprised of seven volumes. This was the first reader series that had folklore written by a fellow

Filipino (Eugenio, “Folklore in Philippine Schools” 176). Folktales, legends, songs, and other

related literatures were recorded in English to comply with the education system. These were

used not only in elementary literature classes but also in physical education, music, and industrial

work. In the secondary level, there was a noticeable reduction of folklore texts for the students

(177). However, folkloristics flourished in the tertiary level. Dean S. Fansler, editor of the

Filipino Popular Tales that contained 64 folktales and 18 legends, established two folklore

courses in the University of the Philippines (179). In addition to this, the Governor General at the

time, William Cameron Forbes, released the Executive Order No. 2 which instructed municipal

and provincial officials to collect documents and material relation to their local histories (179-

180). This further enriched the local interest in folklore studies among academics. Among these

academics, Henry Otley Beyer is recognized as the most prolific researcher on Philippine

4
Anthropology, having published 20 volumes of “Philippine Folklore, Customs and Beliefs,”

which is, in itself, merely a small part of his bigger ethnographic research “The Philippine

Ethnographic Series” with a total of 150 volumes (Eugenio, “Philippine Folktales: An

Introduction” 159).

In the 1930s, the president of the University of the Philippines, Jorge Bocobo, deigned to

found a committee that will collect non-literature folk material from all over the Philippines. It

was in this decade when Philippine nationalism was aimed towards the violence of the Spanish.

Folklore materials began to be written in the different regional languages of the country (Lopez,

“Philippine Folkloristics: A Survey” 15-16). Along with this, President Manuel L. Quezon

decided to reiterate the Executive Order No. 2 from 1911 under then United States Governor

General William Cameron Forbes that orders the local officials of provinces and municipalities

to collect local folklore materials (16).

During this time, Jose Garcia Villa started to solidify the stature of Philippine literature,

specifically poetry, in English, having studied overseas in the England and the United States. His

politics, or lack thereof, paved the way for the art for art’s sake movement in the country, a

movement that deeply went against the Rizal tradition of writing for a cause (Lumbera, “Towards

a Revised History of Philippine Literature” 19).

In the midst of the Pacific War, the Japanese Authorities during the Japanese Occupation

in Manila encouraged the use of Tagalog as a National Language and strived to quieten the use of

English. In this period, the production of literature in English stopped and made the use of

Tagalog flourish in short stories and poetry (29). In the three years that the Japanese occupied the

Philippines, it introduced the country to Japanese loan words, folk games, folk meals, and folk

songs (Lopez, “A Brief Cultural History of the Philippines” xxx).

5
 After the war, in the early 1950s, folklore studies have attracted a growing population of

graduates produced by the American education system. This began the widespread recording of

folklores, myths, legends, songs, and traditions (Eugenio, “Philippine Folktales: An

Introduction” 159). This was further propelled by the Executive Order No. 486 issued by

President Elpidio Quirino that instructed the gathering of histories of every unit of society

starting from the barrio up until the provincial level and of folktale collections. This led to the

blossoming of Philippine nationalism in the academe (Lopez, “Philippine Folkloristics: A

Survey” 17).

Post-war ties between America and the Philippines grew stronger and led to the

introduction of New Criticism into the local literary landscape by the Tiempos. New Criticism

validated Villa’s aestheticism and led to the total straying from the writing tradition of Rizal, the

Propaganda Movement, and the Revolutionaries of 1896. However, New Criticism allowed

writers to focus on their craftsmanship and attention to detail (Lumbera, “Towards a Revised

History of Philippine Literature” 31).

In the 60s, the native intelligentia, after being deeply immersed in the American brand of

criticism in the advent of the post-war era, sunk to the masses and were made aware of the social

injustices and grew more and more discontent with the current situation of corruption in the

country. Universities slowly became aware of students’ rights which allowed them to question

the institutions they were in (Lumbera, “Breaking Through and Away” 58).

Alongside the rise of this criticism bloomed three different strains of new poetry: Villa,

championing the aesthetic movement and autonomy of art from outside forces, Amado V.

Hernandez, who embodied the Rizal tradition of writing social commentaries that will educate

them, or Alejandro G. Abadilla, who met both Villa and Hernandez midway, only getting what he

6
thought was good from both schools of thought and discarded the rest. (Lumbera, “Towards a

Revised History of Philippine Literature” 31). This marks the rise of the cosmopolitanization of

Tagalog poetry with the intervention of Virgilio Almario which continues to this day (35).

The introduction of New Criticism brought forth the importance of writer and critic and

added an unforeseen third party into the discourse: the audience. This gave rise to socialist and

Marxist criticism which places importance on the audience as a “definite social class” that is less

privileged than the native intelligentia (Lumbera, “Breaking Through and Away” 58). This calls

for a revision of the current mode of criticism in our literary landscape. New Criticism only

covers English, Tagalog, and Spanish—the most widely used languages in the country. What

Bienvenido Lumbera asks for is a revolutionary criticism that would involve all the 80+

languages in the country and become a tool to finally remove the marks of colonial mentality that

persistently plague the Filipino Identity (59).

If the new revolutionary criticism would come through, what remains now is the question

of what language to use. Since this supposed school of criticism is supposed to elevate all the

other languages in the country to the level of the most widely used ones, does this mean we can

return to the English transcriptions of cultural and folklore studies and revert them to their

original and respective languages?

If we follow postcolonial critic and poet J. Neil Garcia’s three stages of postcolonial

identity in his essay “Reclaiming the Universal: Postcolonial Readings of Selected Anglophone

Poems by Filipino Poets,” 1) identification, 2) counter-identification, and 3) dis-identification,

we can assume that we are already in the final stage of dis-identification (Garcia, 169-196). If so,

then Garcia’s legendizings in his 1996 poetry book Our Lady of the Carnival is a postcolonial act

because they take the perspective of the voiceless, dispossessed, and marginalized in Filipino

7
legends—an act of dis-identification from the colonial identity to the postcolonial identity of the

poems (Garcia, “Of Legends and Poetry” 39).

Statement of the Problem

As already established in the previous segment, majority of our earlier literatures and literatures

concerning our early ancestors were written and published by colonizers using their foreign

tongues. The earliest vernacular text by a Filipino was even drawn from a western religion. The

colonial identity is rooted deep in our history. The call for nationalism became stagnant after the

Spanish Revolution in 1896 and resurfaced only in the late 1960s in the midst of the Martial Law

Era. Because of this, there is a scarcity of texts that document our history in the vernacular.

Whatever texts we try to root in our culture are already twice removed from its true native form,

having been transcribed and hushed into permanence by the foreign languages of colonizers.

J. Neil Garcia’s poems in Our Lady of the Carnival in the chapter “Legends” present this

problem clearly. Philippine legends originally passed down from generation to generation

through oral tradition were documented by foreign academics in a foreign language. This foreign

language, now institutionalized in the country to the point that it is recognized in the Constitution

as an official language, is used to retell the “original” legends in the form of poetry through the

eyes of the othered or subaltern characters in these legends. Is Garcia’s legendizing an act of

colonialism or anti-colonialism, given that it is told in a foreign tongue and that it is rewritten in

a certain way that takes the perspective of the subordinate characters?

To uncover this, we must unpack the text through postcolonialism. The text will be

subject to the scrutiny of whether a cultural text retold in a foreign language is derivative of the

8
original text. Local critics’s different takes on postcolonialism, J. Neil Garcia and Isagani Cruz,

and on the use of the vernacular, Gemino Abad, Bienvenido Lumbera, and Virgilio Almario, will

supply the criteria necessary for the chosen poems to qualify as a colonial or anti-colonial text.

Insight from the author, Garcia himself, on his poetics will also be considered in analyzing the

texts.

This study aims to answer the following questions

1. Where do the legendized poems stand in the colonial/anti-colonial dichotomy within

postcolonialism?
2. What makes the legendized poems anti-colonial or colonial?
3. What characteristics of the legendized poems make them anti-colonial or colonial?
4. How can this new legendized poems be reconciled with the original vernacular

version?

Significance of the Study

The author of this text perceived a lack of discourse on retellings of legends, myths, and folklore

and whether the language in which they were created (English) are valid postcolonial acts that

either affirm or deny colonialism. There have been discussions on the use of English versus the

use of the vernacular. These discussions, however, only address this issue regarding independent

texts that do not fully rely on native aspects. This study will provide a discussion that overlaps

the postcolonial subject of the text, Philippine folklore, specifically legends, with the discussion

whether Philippine literature written in English can ever be truly considered Filipino in nature.

Scope and Limitations

9
The scope of this study is the section of J. Neil Garcia’s book, Our Lady of the Carnival, labelled

as “Legends” that have available prose counterparts that were originally transcribed by the

agents of American documentation that happened in the 20th century in the Philippines. The

section contains ten poems in total: Legend of the Mango, Legend of the Babaylan, Legend of

Dama de noche, Legend of the Bamboo, Legend of the Ylang-ylang, Legend of the Camia,

Legend of the Pineapple, Legend of the Lizard, Legend of the Squash, and Legend of the

Seafoam. Out of these, only the Legend of the Mango has no available original text found in

readers and anthologies. The study will not cover this poem and will thus only cover and discuss

the remaining nine poems throughout this paper.

Theoretical Framework

This paper will endeavour to trace the problem of the study through the articulated postcolonial

theories of Homi Bhaba, Franz Fanon, and J. Neil Garcia. Postcolonial theory, in its simplest

form, is a critique on any subject that has been under the “political domination” of a more

powerful or privileged body (Tyson, 417). Different concepts under postcolonialism will be

applied on the texts, such as mimicry, unhomeliness, double consciousness, decolonization, and

hybridity, to determine the postcolonial message of the poems. These discussions will be

intersected in contrast with historical fact—what is known and acknowledged by the academic

community, about the circumstances of the poetic situation in the legends—and with discourse

on the use of English language instead of the vernacular. With these tools, the study will arrive at

a conclusive point that justifies the agency of these legendizings, the critical stance of the text,

10
whether it is colonial or anti-colonial, and the justification or otherwise of the use of the English

language as a tool to retell these legends.

Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

In order to properly meet the designed objectives of this paper, the author decided to divide the

texts into four sections: the history of literature in the Philippines; postcolonial texts and essays:

poetic agency on the choice of taking the perspective of the “subaltern” in the retelling of the

legends; the decision to use the English language instead of the vernacular; and poetics, both in

general and the personal poetics of the author J. Neil Garcia.

Philippine Literary History

To provide a substantial foundation of the study, the literary history of the Philippines has to be

discussed to establish what came before and after colonial influence arrived in the country.

Damiana L. Eugenio, a scholar of the early American public education system, collected one of

the most diverse compilations of Philippine folk literature from myths to legends to native

customs and everything in between. Her work has been an important reference in multiple

folklore studies because of its vast content and detailed classification of tropes and cataloguing in

each entry, including their place and/or culture of origin. Volume 2 of her Philippine Folk

Literature Series focuses on myths and efficiently provided the sources for the prose counterparts

of the poems that have been legendized in this study.

11
 Eugenio had also published multiple articles in renowned journals both here and abroad

regarding the study of Philippine folklore. Two of these works are included in the method of this

paper. Her paper in the Philippine Studies journal from Ateneo de Manila University in 1987,

entitled “Folklore in Philippine Schools,” provided details on the folklore collections published

from the beginning of the American education system and discussed the importance of teaching

folk literature in enriching the knowledge of the youth on their cultural identity (175-190).

In another journal, Asian Folklore Studies, Eugenio provided brief definitions for the

different kinds of folk literature—namely myth, legends, and folktales (155-177). The paper also

shines a light on the methods of acquiring and gathering them before considering the materials

gathered to be classified as genuine folk literature. The final part of the article is the different

classifications and characteristics of each classification of folk literature which was what she also

applied in cataloguing the multi-volume folklore compilations. The terms and definitions laid out

in this paper help the further analysis of the original texts and the legendized poems.

Another contribution to this part of the analysis is Miguel A. Bernad’s paper in the Budhi

journal from the Ateneo entitled “Philippine Literature: A Twofold Renaissance” (35-59). His

take on the history of literature and literacy in pre-colonial and Spanish colonial eras of

Philippine society is important in illustrating the defence of the use of English in the

legendizings as a valid postcolonial tool in decolonizing the text.

To provide a broader approach to Philippine literary history, Mellie Leandicho Lopez’s A

Handbook of Philippine Folklore provides a general history that is not nuanced by political

ideologies and focuses only on the text and the context (xxi-53). This is important when

juxtaposed with Bienvenido Lumbera’s “Towards a Revised History of Philippine Literature”

from his book, Revaluation: Essays on Philippine Literature, Cinema, and Popular Culture

12
where his analysis of Philippine literary history is peppered with nationalist perspectives (3-49).

This provides us with an introduction to the next topic to be applied on the text.

Postcolonial Criticism and Nativism

Lumbera’s selected essays from Revaluation provide us with a bridge that connects three

concepts: criticism, poetics, and history. His essays highlight and emphasize a focus on the

masses as a tool to decolonize the mind and the language.

On the other hand, the J. Neil Garcia’s essays on postcolonial criticism, taken from The

Postcolonial Perverse and At Home in Unhomeliness, provide us with postcolonial theory

applications on local texts and thus provide a cornerstone for the analysis of the poems in this

paper.

The middle ground between Garcia and Lumbera is David Bayot’s book, Isagani Cruz

and the Other Other, which treats the postcolonial theory as text and deconstructs it to enable the

author to utilize the method on the legendized poems in this study (1996). He removes the theory

from the text and the text from the context to deliver the barest theory which can be effectively

used on the main text of this study.

Translation: English versus Vernacular

Gemino Abad’s essays provide different strands of discourse for this topic where the colonized or

the subaltern decolonizes the language of the colonizer and makes it their own. Conversely, F.

Sionil Jose’s essay provides us with a nationalist perspective where the language a people use

13
defines them (12-16). These two will be discussed in Garcia’s many essays concerning

translation and the use of English as a medium.

Poetics

Abad’s poetics on literature in English provides a guide on how to best read the text without

forgetting that it is a postcolonial subject being subjected to another postcolonial subject (the

author). While Garcia’s poetics share some of this sentiment, his poetics are more concerned

with the impetus for the conception of the poem until its final birthing onto the paper.

14
Bibliography

Abad, Gémino H. "And the Long." Imagination's Way: Essays Critical and Personal. University
of Santo Tomas Publishing House, 2010,17-67.
———. "The Poem is the Real: a Poetics." Likhaan: the Journal of Contemporary Philippine
Literature, vol. 2, 2008, 205-209.
———. "To Write." Likhaan: the Journal of Contemporary Philippine Literature, vol. 5, 2011,
149-153.
Bayot, David Jonathan Y. "Introduction: Theme and Variations on a Representation of Isagani R.
Cruz." Isagani Cruz and the Other Other: Intervention in Philippine Kritika. The
Mandarin Edition, 1996, 1-12.
———. "(In)conclusion." Isagani Cruz and the Other Other: Intervention in Philippine Kritika.
The Mandarin Edition, 1996, 123-125..
———. "Introduction: Theme and Variations on a Representation of Isagani R. Cruz." Isagani
Cruz and the Other Other: Intervention in Philippine Kritika. The Mandarin Edition,
1996, 1-12.
———. "Mapping Theory, Breaking Ground: Deconstructing the Other Other." Isagani Cruz
and the Other Other: Intervention in Philippine Kritika. The Mandarin Edition, 1996,
103-122
———. "Textualizing Cruz in the Con-text of the Other Other." Isagani Cruz and the Other
Other: Intervention in Philippine Kritika. The Mandarin Edition, 1996, 13-38.
———. "Textualizing Cruz in the Con-text of the Text as Teksto and Texto." Isagani Cruz and
the Other Other: Intervention in Philippine Kritika. The Mandarin Edition, 1996, 85-102.
Bernad, Miguel A. "Philippine Literature: a Twofold Renaissance." Budhi: a Journal of Ideas
and Culture, vol. 5, no. 3 6.1, 2002, 35-59.
Curaming, Rommel A. "Postcolonial Studies and Pantayong Pananaw in Philippine
Historiography: a Critical Engagement." Kritika Kultura, vol. 27, 2016, 63-91.
Demeterio, F. P. A. "Some Useful Lessons from Richard Rorty's Political Philosophy for
Philippine Postcolonialism." Kritike, vol. 2, no. 2, 2008, 5-30.

15
Eugenio, Damiana L. Philippine Folk Literature Series, vol. 2. The University of the Philippines
Press, 1987, 69-70, 83-84, 93-94, 345, 410, 379, 409-410, 423-424,447-448, 453-455,
457-463, 464, 466.
———. "Folklore in Philippine Schools." Philippine Studies, vol. 35, no. 2, 1987, 175-190.
———. "Philipine Folktales: an Introduction." Asian Folklore Studies, vol. 44, no. 2, 1985, 155-
157.
Garcia, J. Neil C. "Filipino Gay Writers Villa, Montano, Perez: Postcolonial Resistance and
Hybridity." Budhi: a Journal of Ideas and Culture, vol. 11, no. 1, 2007, 131-168.
———. "Filipino Postcolonial Poetics: Preliminary Notes." The Postcolonial Perverse:
Critiques of Contemporary Philippine Culture, vol. 1. The University of the Philippines
Press, 2014, 3-25.
———. "Katutubong Kaakuhan: a Critique of Virgilio S. Almario's Nativist Poetics." The
Postcolonial Perverse: Critiques of Contemporary Philippine Culture, vol. 1. The
University of the Philippines Press, 2014, 26-67.
———. "Myth and Meaning." Closet Queeries. Anvil, 1997, 103-107.
———. "Myth and the Poetics of the Self: the Critical Corpus of Gémino H. Abad." Kritika
Kultura, vol. 26, 2016, 262-771.
———. "Of Legends and Poetry." Myth and Metaphors. University of Santo Tomas Publishing
House, 2002, 39-63.
———. "Reclaiming the Universal: Postcolonial Readings of Selected Anglophone Poems by
Filipino Poets." The Postcolonial Perverse: Critiques of Contemporary Philippine
Culture, vol. 1. The University of the Philippines Press, 2014, 168-199.
———. "The Spirit (Not the Letter) of the Word: Poetry, Myth, and Spirituality." Likhaan: the
Journal of Contemporary Philippine Literature, vol. 9, 2015, 280-296.
———. "Translation and the Problem of Realism in Philippine Literature in English." Bright
Sign, Bright Age: Critical Essays in Philippine Studies, edited by J. Neil C. Garcia, The
University of the Philippines Press, 2017, 287-318.
———. "Translational Poetics: Notes on Contemporary Philippine Poetry in English." Likhaan:
the Journal of Contemporary Philippine Literature, vol. 7, 2013, 177-194.
Lopez, Mellie Leandicho. "A Brief Cultural History of the Philippines." A Handbook of
Philippine Folklore. The University of the Philippines Press, 2006, xxi-xxxiv.

16
———. "Philippine Folklore: a Definition." A Handbook of Philippine Folklore. The University
of the Philippines Press, 2006, 30-53.
———. "Philippine Folkloristics: a Survey." A Handbook of Philippine Folklore. The University
of the Philippines Press, 2006, 1-29.
Lumbera, Bienvenido. "A New Spirit in Literary Studies." Revaluation: Essays on Philippine
Literature, Cinema, and Popular Culture. University of Santo Tomas Publishing House,
1997, 84-86.
———. "Breaking Through and Away." Revaluation: Essays on Philippine Literature, Cinema,
and Popular Culture. University of Santo Tomas Publishing House, 1997, 55-60.
———. "From Cosmopolitanism to Nationalism." Revaluation: Essays on Philippine Literature,
Cinema, and Popular Culture. University of Santo Tomas Publishing House, 1997, 67-
69.
———. "The Nationalist Literary Tradition." Revaluation: Essays on Philippine Literature,
Cinema, and Popular Culture. University of Santo Tomas Publishing House, 1997, 73-
83.
———. "The Rugged Terrain of Vernacular Literature." Revaluation: Essays on Philippine
Literature, Cinema, and Popular Culture. University of Santo Tomas Publishing House,
1997, 87-93.
———. "Towards a Revised History of Philippine Literature." Revaluation: Essays on
Philippine Literature, Cinema, and Popular Culture. University of Santo Tomas
Publishing House, 1997, 3-49.
José, F. Sionil. "Language and Literature." Why We Are Hungry: Rats in the Kitchen, Carabaos
in the Garden. Solidaridad Publishing House, 2008, 12-16.
———. "Racism as Colonialism: Jefferson, Obama and Us." Why We Are Hungry: Rats in the
Kitchen, Carabaos in the Garden. Solidaridad Publishing House, 2008, 192-198.
———. "Romancing Colonialism and the Colonized Mind." Why We Are Hungry: Rats in the
Kitchen, Carabaos in the Garden. Solidaridad Publishing House, 2008, 173-178
Tupas, T. Ruanni F. "Postcolonial English Language Politics Today: Reading Ramanathan's the
English Vernacular Divide." Kritika Kultura, vol. 11, 2008, 5-21.
Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: a User Friendly Guide. United States of America, 2006,
417-449.

17
18