My friend Sonni forwarded me the link to this Huffington Post entry of what George W. Bush said during the social call of our fave, President GMA.
What to say?
Well, firstly, I already expressed my thoughts on GMA’s going through with her junket even while there’s a major tragedy in the country caused by Typhoon Frank in a previous entry.
Secondly, I’m sure, even with that remark by W, GMA still lapped it up. Some acknowledgment is better than no acknowledgment, right?
The comments section says it all. You actually don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the leadership example provided here by both of them.
7 Comments
June 26, 2008 at 6:20 am
Whats the problem with the exchange? He complemented Filipino-Americans in general, and the chef specifically. Being a chef requires skill, especially at that level. He not some cook in some corner fast food place. He is an artisan. While he wasn’t eloquent, he got his point across. GMA also responded well (enough), setting aside the issue of whether she should’ve gone.
My problem is that we don’t know what the point of her trip is. Surely it can’t be to meet the US president — everyone knows that Bush can’t do anything anymore. is GMA the same (a lame duck)?
Also, about being around after a natural disaster, my reaction is the opposite of yours. A president visiting a disaster area should be largely symbolic. IF it isn’t, then that means it takes a president to deliver aid, which is a bad sign — we should have institutions that can deliver aid. IF it is symbolic, then her being there is a glorified photo op at worst, a source of inspiration (not to be scoffed at) at best. But can GMA really be a source of inspiration, after everything she’s been involved in? Hence to me, it doesn’t matter if she goes, and if her US visit can generate trade/foreign investment, or other deals, then its worth it.
thanks, if u can enlighten my logic, please do.
June 26, 2008 at 8:34 am
followup — she did/will do alot of interesting things (at least from RG’ Cruz’s blog):
http://www.rgcruz.com/?p=744#more-744
June 26, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hi Gabby.
Using your argument on a president visiting a disaster area. You’re right, it’s more of symbolic. But it’s symbolism at its most important, when it is most needed. It doesn’t matter if the people love or hate the president. The point is, it was a major ferry disaster. And where was she? She was abroad, on a trip that as you pointed out, did not have a clear or important significance.
Also, she is on another trip yet again when she has not yet explained the unaccounted for expenses on previous junkets. I think I discussed this in a previous entry which linked a GMA 7 news article on palace expenses for 2007.
If she wishes to generate foreign investments, is the US the right country to do it at right now, with all the economic and political problems that the US is facing? Why the US? Why not a country in Europe? Or one of our Asian neighbors? I’m no economist, and I’m not as up to date on the details of policy as I would like but even a non-economist can see that it doesn’t make economic sense.
Let me not get started on the exchange. It’s a whole post that has to delve into the history of Filipinos and Americans and I don’t have the energy to go into that. Suffice it to say, if indeed W’s intentions were to compliment Filipinos and use his chef as an example, he majorly blew the delivery part.
Hope that helps.
June 26, 2008 at 3:32 pm
okie. if u can elaborate on that history thing u mentioned, maybe privately when u have the time, please do so. isn’t his comment like an important filipino saying: “I’m reminded of the greatness of the american spirit whenever i eat at mcdonalds”. Is this an insult? On the one hand, it is, if u think mcdonalds is a poster child of bland food (which it is). On the other hand, if u think mcdonalds is one of the most successful restaurant brands in history (which it also is), then its high praise. Parang ganito ba? the assumption is service is demeaning? That historically, all we do is serve, and somehow all kinds of service is bad? if u can comment, thanks,
i feel like i’m missing something important here.
oh btw, the link from rg cruz has the US itinerary. Looks pretty important, and stuff that would be good for the country if she made it happen. I’m no GMA defender — i just want her to do her job and be where she can do the most good. but i understand ur symbolism point too…. Bush was criticized for not visiting the midwest immediately after the flooding. The joke is, ala Kanye West… “Bush hates white people” (the Daily Show)
June 26, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Hey Gabby.
Sure. Let’s save it for a future discussion, preferably when we’re in the same place. I don’t have the energy to delve into it in writing. Hehe.
But just a quick point. Filipinos have a history of servitude in connection with the US. From the manongs who were shipped over as farmers in Hawaii and California, to the WWII Filipino veterans who were promised, but not given, equal rights with their US soldier counterparts now, to the house help and caregivers. If I was not mistaken, Filipinos were parodied and often referred to in the mid-seventies as houseboys in film and literature in the US.
In W’s case, he made the compliment sound wrong by attaching it to his dinner prep. It’s not service is demeaning per se, it’s the historical connotation of service between the two cultures, me thinks.
Re GMA’s itinerary, oh I’m sure it sounds important. They have to make it sound and look important to justify it. With the right handlers, one can make anything sound pressing and important. Doing her job is relative, depending on who you ask about what they think her job is.
But at the end of the day, the fact remains, she has no pressing need to be there in the US now, having gone to the US twice before in her presidency (I might be mistaken, I didn’t look this up). Maybe she should have saved it with the election of the new president if she really wanted to garner good vibes for the country.
I just made a long speech there. Time to rest…
June 26, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Hi Gabby.
Read Village Idiot Savant’s take on the matter here:
http://villageidiotsavant.blogspot.com/2008/06/absent-president.html
June 27, 2008 at 3:38 am
thanks. i went to the site, and asked the same question. in addition, i said, if bush said, lawyer or doctor, would it have been better? are we just prejudiced against cooks and waiters, but love professionals?
about the historical context: that is a very interesting argument! interesting thing — Speaking of WWII vets, GMA was in Washington to lobby 4 them. Probably didn’t do anything (the issue for US congress is how to get the money), but that was part of the itinerary.
I’m so glad u raised the historical argument, because this is a favorite argument by so many people. (this is one of DJB’s big arguments). I’d love to engage anyone on this issue, but since ur tired, u don’t have to reply.
a few points:
1) Such derogatory remarks exist in the 70s, or in colonial times. But we know that such generalizations are wrong. Smart americans know that its not true. The only ones that might continue to think this way are the ignorant. Why do we care about what the ignorant think — we know better, and knowledgeable people know better. Isn’t this like the advice we give to people when people insult us? That the truth will eventually win out, sticks and stones will hurt but words won’t, etc?
2) How can we move beyond the stupidity of 30 years (or more!) ago, if we continue to cling to it, and give validity to people who believe in antiquated beliefs?
3) an example is the rise of obama, proof of points 1 and 2. Whenever someone calls obama monkey man, or secret muslim, etc… we know — its either a joke OR the person saying it is a retard (no offense to the mentally retarded). Other than the strange media people (talking heads at cable news) giving these comments credence/validation (coz they need to talk about something), we ALL know its wrong.
The point of 1-3 is, when bush says he’s reminded of the greatness of phil-ams when he eats dinner (coz of the cook), as a people, how should we interpret this?
My interpretation: we know that a racist interpretation that pinoys are ONLY lowskilled servants is literally wrong (coz chefs are skilled), but its also inappropriate to connect it to racist opinions because they are racist/ignorant and that the people who are knowledgeable knows better.
thanks, i’m trying to develop a sensitivity to the historical argument, but i have this sense that interpreting everything negatively via racist beliefs does no one favors, especially the former victims. To be succesful, we have to take complements, correct misimpressions, and be proud of ourselves. GMA could have replied, “yes thanks, indeed we are very proud of our culinary workers for being some of the finest artisans worldwide and are service workers dedicated to perfection… etc…”