Read on Twitter
Thread. While the question itself of whether Filipinos are Asian wasn't asked until recently, the evidence to make that assertion is millennia old even if putting it all together has been a slow process, as this author describes well. https://twitter.com/agasramirez/status/1038232003231928320
The prevailing hypothesis for the expansion of Austronesian peoples begins in Formosa and spreads southward, crossing from Batanes into Luzon and then in uncoordinated movements south, west, and east. Eventually it encompassed lands from Madagascar to Easter Island.
Linguistic and genetic evidence both support the idea that Island SE Asian groups are primarily descended from these Austronesian mariners. This movement was uncoordinated in that there was no universal political unity. With so much available land, groups could relocate often.
Still, Austronesians weren't always the first inhabitants in these islands. Australo-Melanesians or Negrito peoples (Aeta/Ati/Agta/orang asli) often already lived there and gradually adopted languages of surrounding migrants. Many are still politically marginalized.
The dominant Austronesian groups were in frequent contact with each other and various mainland Asian societies, like China and Vietnam. Archaeological evidence in the Philippines particularly suggests that ports like Manila, Cebu, and Butuan saw Asian traders regularly.
All these ports lay on the southward trade route from the Fujian coast to Sulu, Ambon, and the Moluccas, where Chinese would come for spices (cloves, nutmeg, mace, etc) that could only be bought there. They also came for tortoiseshell, wood, gold, and slaves.
While there, they met crews of Javanese, Buginese, Borneans, Indians, and I wouldn't be surprised if traders from New Guinea and Polynesia appeared in these markets too.
So yes, the modern construction of the Philippines (post-1521 but especially post-1946) and of SE Asia is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question stated above in light of 20th century geopolitics.
Going back to about 3000 BCE complicates things a bit since Polynesians are also Austronesian and Asian-descended in that sense. However, that doesn't muddy the waters so much that Filipinos aren't Asians by every metric you'd care to use.
Of course I say all that knowing that some Filipinos question whether or not they should mark themselves as Pacific Islander on census forms and honestly that's not something I'd tell them what to do about one way or another. That one's definitely not my call to make.
If you want to read more, the original thread mentions Hall and Coedes, which are some of the foundational SE Asian histories along with Wolters.
Info on Austronesian languages mostly comes from Robert Blust and David Zorc, the latter of whom is a Philippine specialist.
Info on Austronesian languages mostly comes from Robert Blust and David Zorc, the latter of whom is a Philippine specialist.
Ricklefs' New History of SE Asia and Leonard and Barbara Andaya's History of Early Modern SE Asia are good regional overviews which are more recent.
More on Philippine history and nationhood:
Rafael: Contracting Colonialism
Thomas: Orientalists, Propagandists, and Ilustrados
Scott: Barangay (more a summary of what the Spanish found when they arrived)
Rafael: Contracting Colonialism
Thomas: Orientalists, Propagandists, and Ilustrados
Scott: Barangay (more a summary of what the Spanish found when they arrived)
There's also my books if you're looking for fantasy and sci-fi instead of history. https://www.amazon.com/David-Gowey/e/B013DPSVUE/
Hey this thread is getting attention again so if you scrolled all this way and still have questions I'd suggest this book by Anthony Ocampo
He talks about more than just identification as Pacific Islander but it is included
https://www.amazon.com/Latinos-Asia-Filipino-Americans-Break-ebook/dp/B01AD6TFVU/
He talks about more than just identification as Pacific Islander but it is included
https://www.amazon.com/Latinos-Asia-Filipino-Americans-Break-ebook/dp/B01AD6TFVU/
