But - I'm Not Chinese (Are Pilipinos Really Asian?)

Interesting! So when it comes down to filling out forms and applications, what box do you check off, Asian or Pacific Islander? It had always bothered me in trying to figure out which one I HAD to categorize myself as. I've come to notice nowadays that more forms and documents offer "Filipino" as category by itself, probably heeding to the uncertainty/ambiguity/indecision among us. But for those that don’t give me that “Filipino” option, I personally choose whatever I feel like at the time. Is it bad to be considered Asian? Why is it better to be considered Pacific Islander? It’s unfortunate that we have to choose one or the other because our ethnicity has become such a melting pot of many different cultures it’s one that should stand on its own.

I admit that I can't help but feel pretty cool when that paper has a box with just "Filipino" next to it.

In my 5 years in America I've been called a Pacific Islander only once. Most of the people that I actually met asks me right away "are you Filipino." As for the question whether if one is Filipino enough, I say your Filipino when you know your one even if you don't look like one.

simply. i just say filipino.
where i live, i'm surrounded by mainly mexicans and whites. people call me 'thats asian girl' or 'filipina' or my guy friends, 'asian sensation' i would label myself as pacific islander because somewhat, it has some truth to it. although Japan and Taiwan are obviously considered 'asian' i allow people to label me as asian because its just much more easier to explain than pacific islander or going into depth as to how filipinos are not asian. simply enough, i say filipino. &let those who wish, to call me asian. so much easier in my opinion.

Growing up in a racially diverse neighborhood of Mexican Americans, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Cambodians, and Samoans, your heritage isn't exactly a hot topic on the playground. However, when I moved to California's Central Valley, I was immediately aware that I stuck out like a sore thumb. Because I looked "Asian" to many, that's what I became to them. And when some of my classmates heard I was Filipino, they wisened up and reasoned, "No, no, she's a Pacific Islander." And back and forth they would debate, while I would sit idly by and reflect on what being either REALLY means.

And now as I sit here typing this, I realize it means NOTHING. We are Filipino, that is all, and if one wants to identify him or herself as Asian or Pacific Islander, that is entirely up to them and how they were raised. We already have our own bubble to fill in for the SATs and Census...do we really need to debate a useless category?

Also, I've always believed something that DOES need to be discussed is why some Filipino-Americans are so adamant to be called "Pacific Islanders" and actually get offended when they are referred to as "Asian"? Why is being called "Asian" a bad thing? Has anyone else ever noticed this? Or am I just the only one who has friends with identity crises?

I'm half Samoan, and from that, i can say that Samoans don't like it whn Filipinos claim Pacific Islander.
Filipinos are Asian. If you're uncomfortable with it, then just stick to Filipino. Simple as can be.

It's as simple as that.

i commented on how one can choose whatever identity they want to below, but just wanted to post a point on the pacific islander side (beside the whole "technicality" or the "its cool" points).

the philippines has a relationship to the united states unlike any other country in asia. as a former colony, to a neocolony in practice, we have a lot more in common with guam, hawaii, american samoa, puerto rico, cuba, etc, then we do with mainland asian countries.

huge american cultural influences with the macdo's and the commercialism, the presence and activity of military bases, and american economic and political control; we are just as oppressed as many current pacific island nations and can understand their struggles better than taiwan or japan or other considered islands in the pacific.

I think that we're Asian simply because of our close proximity to the mainland continent of Asia. We're not that far. Call me really dumb, but it seems like thats the case for Taiwan and Japan. I really don't understand why people would be so cheeky as to say that Filipinos are Pacific Islanders. Yes, we are descended from the same people. However, centuries of mating with different groups of people have separated Filipinos from real Pacific Islanders. I also understand that we're in the Pacific Ocean. That's true, but wouldn't that mean the same thing for Japan and Taiwan.

I know that this has been reiterated over and over again in previous posts, but the term "Pacific Islander" only refers to those who are within the boundaries of the regions of Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia. Namely, these regions include Guam, Hawaii, Fiji, Tonga, Australia, New Zealand and other extremely small countries in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The Philippines is not within those boundaries.

Simply put, because of our separation from real Pacific Islanders, our close proximity to Asia, and the fact that the Philippines is not in Oceania, we are indeed Asian.

People who are from the Philippines generally identify as Southeast Asian. It's what is taught in Civics and Culture class since primary school. The nation has a strong presence on the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), and compete in the ASEAN Games (similar to the Olympics. There is no question of Asian-ness for most Filipinos in the Philippines.

When I moved to San Francisco, I became confused because some people used the term Pacific Islander, which to be perfectly honest (no disrespect) I had never heard before. I would correct my Filipino-American friends, then gradually came to realize that there really is no difference. Why can't Filipinos be both?

The peoples of Micronesia, Melanesia are Malayo-Polynesians descended from the peoples of Asia who simply migrated to the Pacific Islands. These are the same descendants of the first inhabitants of the Philippines, theorized to be from Malaysia, China, Indonesia.

Physically speaking, it's very difficult to differentiate between Cambodians, Laos, Indonesians, Malaysians, Burmese, Thai (non-Chinese), Vietnamese (non-Chinese), and Filipinos. Then again, the same can be said for Hawaiians, Guamanians, Filipinos, and the other ethnic groups mentioned above.

My theory? In the United States, most people automatically associate "Asian" with East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean), so that persons of Southeast Asian, South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Nepali), or Central Asian (Afghani, Mongolian, Tibetan, Bhutanese) descent aren't necessarily included in the common perception. Because of this, some Filipino-Americans might choose to identify as other than Asian.

I've always identified with being Asian, specifically a Southeast Asian especially since I grew up in PI. It wasn't until I moved here that people told me I was something else. I guess it all boils down to what people perceive who Asians should be, which is usually the "stereotypical Asian."

i think that one can claim whatever background they want, to whatever the situation, as long as they are properly informed, and don't have malicious or political reasons for choosing a "side" or "sides". categories are comforting for our simple [human] minds as most people like to deal with absolutes rather then a continuum, or multiple identities. take gender (not sex) for example; most folks take to truth that someone is a male or a female, whereas in many cultures there is often 3 to 5 genders. if person "b" does not fit into a designated category, others (like person "a") are unsure of how to deal with them and this makes person "a" uncomfortable and no longer in control of their social world. this is the phenomenon of social constructs (e.g. gender, race). we like to deal with absolute categories so that we can rely on stereotypes/assumptions/etc (from whatever sources) on how to deal with and approach people. there is an innocence to it, though often an ignorance to it as well (more often then not).

i've been trying to understand the asian vs pacific islander thing for a while now. ever since my first regional filam conference in 2003 til now, and ive almost concluded that it is up to the individual as long as they (i reiterate) are well informed of history, politics, struggles, census use, etc, and to not take everything so literal, so absolute. why not claim the continuum, the multiple identities, the halo halo that is p/filipino, the relativity of the notion of identity?

we are at a crossroads from a geopolitical/cultural standpoint just as any peoples are. we cant really ask the what(e.g what sterotypes do i fulfill), but instead the why's; why do we choose to identify with a larger group or many groups, why cant we be part of many groups simultaneously, why are people obsessed on defining us? belonging to one group alone does not solidify our identity, it weakens it, makes it exclusive, separate. we should rather look to the similarities between our histories and cultures, in respect to other nations and ethnicities, and through those similarities build the bridges empower everyone.

we are geographically in asia, but we have a more similar political relationship to the united states as pacific island nations. our culture and our genetic makeup is a blend of everything from malay, to latino, to european, to american...

we are ethnically ambiguous, and its not a bad thing.

p.s. for pc/census definitions, API is no longer a group in the US government's eyes. asian is separate from pacific islander which is now NHOPI (native hawaiian and other pacific islanders). so then are we "a" or "nhopi" now? haha.

pps. for every argument there is a counter argument, and always an exception to the rule.

I've only been mistaken for Japanese/Okinawan Asian-wise. One time I was mistaken for a Mexican due to my darker complexion. But I believe we are definitely Asian, being that the Philippines is apart of the Asian continent. Not only that, it's nearer to Asia compared some of the other Pacific Islands.

I count Pacific Islanders as people from the smaller archipelagos in the Pacific like Samoa, Tahiti, Hawaii, etc.

Also being that, that means Pakistanis, Iraqis, Israelis, all those East-Asia countries are also Asian - not just Middle-Eastern.
Doesn't matter your skin type, eye shape, or religions, but I guess to where your originating-country sits on the world.

Thanks for this article, Jonathan!

I have had more than my share of discussions with different people over the years about this exact topic. My whole point is that since the Philippines is a part of Southeast Asia, Pilipinos are Asians.

But, all things considered though, I guess what it all boils down to is that it is a personal preference what each individual chooses to identify with in regards to being labeled.

I've always been one of those people that claimed to be "Pacific Islander." I don't consider myself Asian mostly because I don't feel the cultural connection there. A lot of my friends wondered why I had to be so difficult and just call myself Asian already... but honestly I'm proud to call myself Pacific Islander. That's just who I am.