In the 1970s, the word Moro was re-appropriated by Muslims in Mindanao from its colonial and derogatory origins (Angeles 2010, 50). While Chinese Filipinos would refer to themselves as lán-lâng, or ‘our own people’, coining an appropriate official ethnic identifier in place of ‘Intsik’ would transpire in the Chinese Filipino community in 1987, when the term ‘Tsinoy’ was coined, combining Tsino (Chinese) and Pinoy (Filipino) (Chu 2021, 3). The terms gave way to new meanings, and a renewed sense of identity and autonomy coupled with increased access and availability of publications and other media would provide room for counternarratives. The 1990s, for instance, was characterized by increased Moro self-representation in national dailies, alongside traditional fears of Moros that would continue to appear in opinion columns (Angeles 2010). The same would transpire with the Tsinoys, when an opinion column questioning the loyalty of Chinese Filipinos received strong criticism and critique from the intelligentsia and other columnists (see Hau 2018).
Cultural pluralism in the Philippines, however, is not merely limited to the Moros and the Tsinoys, but extends to linguistic and regional cultural communities, lumads, and the many demographics spawned by globalization: dual citizens, balikbayan, third culture children, and so on, each with their own unique backgrounds and discourses. Being able to situate these identities in prejudiced and strategically-grounded colonial discourses allows not only for a more reflective approach to cultural diversity, but also provides an opportunity to transcend divisive rhetoric towards dialogue, understanding and the pursuit of common interests.
4. Bibliographic references. Please follow Chicago manual of style 17th edition author-date for the intext citations and the bibliography
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html
Angeles, Vivienne SM. 2010. “Moros in the Media and beyond: Representations of Philippine Muslims.” Contemporary Islam 4: 29–53.