Jump to content

"My Family's Slave"


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I'm sure guilt played it's part of course. Also love, confusion, cultural history, cultural clashing. And yes even prevention. I certainly didn't get a sense of him trying to portray himself as a hero surrounded by evil, nor as himself as evil either.

Well where I grew up there were always rumors and stories about this happening with immigrants from the middle east. Where one guy would come over and start a business and send for his cousins or friends to come over too then treat them as essential slaves. Very few of us ever said anything, the ones that did were not taken seriously and not much was done about it from what I heard. Maybe that's why I jumped to Alex defense because it's a lot easier to chastise others for not being a superhero than it is to be one yourself.

I adore the confession in the Episcopal book of common prayer - copied below.  Omission, leaving things undone, is as much of a conscious act as doing something (and leave out the God stuff if you don't like it - you can replace with "humanity" or "neighbors" or "the world" - sentiment applies).  As I said, I have a lot of uncomfortable empathy for Alex and his siblings, because I too often look the other way, leave things undone, when I should do something.  It's easier that way.  That doesn't make it right, or ethical or correct.  And so, I am able, at the same time, consciously try to understand why the young Tizons did not do what they did not do, and not think that they are or were evil, or beyond forgiveness, but at the same time acknowledge that what they did and more importantly did not do was wrong, and its consequences evil, emphatically and absolutely.  We all can and should strive to be the better versions of ourselves, even knowing that we will fail ourselves and others.

Most merciful God, we confess that we have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done, and by what we have left undone. We have not loved you with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. We are truly sorry and we humbly repent, for the sake of your Son Jesus Christ, have mercy on us and forgive us; that we may delight in your will, and walk in your ways, to the glory of your Name. Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HouseVelaryon said:

As someone from the country Alex and Lola are from, the Philippines, my opinion on it is that the media and even people here on this forum are going overboard with the whole slavery thing without understanding the context of what Lola's situation was.

First of all, all this stupidity about "Lola" being her slave name is just outrage without knowledge. Lola is meant as a term of respect to those older than you. Literally it means grandmother. I call my grandmother Lola and if anyone in my family older than me heard me refer to her using her first name I would get a smack on the head.  In the Philippines these things are very important. Lola was meant as a sign of respect and if the author ever called Lola by by her first name, he would have offended her, not because she was "brainwashed" but because in our culture that's the equivalent of saying he didn't respect her. 

Second, yeah even in our culture what his parent's did would have been considered wrong and this article is blowing up in the Philippines just as it is in the United States, although without the same vitriol towards the author. You have to understand the context before you pass judgment. The Philippines is an overpopulated but rather small country. We have around 120 million people living in a country that's less than half the size of Texas. We have a very high poverty rate as well. This means that labor is cheap since supply of labor is high and because of that there are many who seek out jobs as "Katulongs" or helpers for wealthier families. This is a legitimate and needed industry in the Philippines as millions would be unemployed without it. Many times these katulongs, particularly the ones assigned to take care of the children, become part of the family to the point where they are included in family photos. It really is in many cases a symbiotic relationship between employer and employee. The employer hires a katulong so that they are freed of more time from house work or taking care of the kids and are able to spend more time working. The employee requires the employer for free housing (most katulongs live in their employers house), free food, salary, and in some cases a free education as some employers will send their katulongs to college or pay for them to go back and finish high school. They can also resign from their jobs whenever they want and are in no way coerced into working for a particular family. 

Now going back to Lola's story, it's important to note that the author's views and opinions are shaped by the fact he grew up in the United States and thusly see what was happening to Lola as slavery due to the fact that he grew up in a country where that was really the only comparable thing that he would be shown. I'm not disputing the fact that Lola was maltreated and even in my country his parent's would probably be in jail but calling it slavery is trying to apply an American context to something that is very un-American.

It's also unfair in this situation to blame the author for complicity. In a filipino household you do not ever question your elders. Ever. No matter how wrong you think they are. The same cultural mindset that required the author to call their helper "Lola" ironically also inhibited him from standing up to his mother in defense of her and, if you know the context, you can tell that this is something the author was grappling with. 

It would take too long for me to explain the context of how American and European Colonialism in the Philippines affected the power dynamic between employer and katulong but that played a factor as well. 

Terms of endearment can still be used in an insulting and exploitative manner and they aren't always appropriate.  Perhaps Eudacia would wish the world to refer to her as  Lola, but she's not here to comment one way or another.  Therefore, it's not appropriate all of us random strangers to be using the name - endearment or otherwise - that was foisted on her as a slave.  

 I think people have been very sympathetic to Alex.  But it doesn't change the facts here. He was complicit.   I don't accept cultural relativism when it comes to the big stuff - murder, genital mutilation, slavery, etc.  You describe a symbiotic mutually beneficial relationship with katulongs.  Great.  If they are allowed free movement and to leave when they want, then that's not slavery.  Eudocia was not allowed to leave for nearly 6 decades.  That's slavery.  Period.  Calling it something different and trying to apply cultural standards doesn't change what is it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't think I'm a perfect super hero and I don't think the author is the epitome of evil but he was complicit and he isn't above criticism. And I'm sorry but I don't know if I'm willing to accept the "you don't understand the culture" when talking about this specific story because calling this any other name than slavery doesn't change that it was slavery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone's cultural peculiarities may include what looks like slavery. My cultural peculiarity is condemning those that   apologize for slavery. You follow yours and I will follow mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is above criticism here, even us readers we can still be doing more to stop slavery rather than selfishly living our lives or watching that show, or listening to that song, or etc etc we could be out preventing and stopping slavery. My issue is mainly with those accusing the author of romanticizing the situation or not seeming repentant enough for his own role in what happened. No one is coming out and saying it wasn't slavery. The freaking title is "our family slave", there's no sugar coating there on what he decided to call it.
But I think understanding of the context of culture and history is in order before those fingers start pointing. Because the more of a grasp you can wrap your mind around it the less the authors role in the story becomes important. Because to me the author should be the last one on trial for this, and to mention an opinion of his guilt without this context to me just looks like virtue signaling at it's worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Someone's cultural peculiarities may include what looks like slavery. My cultural peculiarity is condemning those that   apologize for slavery. You follow yours and I will follow mine.

That's cultural relativism and it's bullshit.  Essentially anything could be considered ok if you just claim "MY CULTURE!"  I mean, in some Catholic circles, it's a cultural peculiarity to rape little boys.  So your whole "You follow yours and I will follow mine" doesn't fly.  Doesn't fly with slavery either.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Terms of endearment can still be used in an insulting and exploitative manner and they aren't always appropriate.  Perhaps Eudacia would wish the world to refer to her as  Lola, but she's not here to comment one way or another.  Therefore, it's not appropriate all of us random strangers to be using the name - endearment or otherwise - that was foisted on her as a slave.

It isn't exactly a term of endearment or a name. It isn't the equivalent of them saying "We will call you Lola now" which I believe is what people assume when they call it a "slave name" it's a term used to refer to everyone of a certain age. It's more the equivalent of Sir or Mam than it is to a nickname in that it's just something that goes before your name and is usually shortened. In the Philippines you don't call people older than you by their first names it's just not done. Lola is just a shortened form of Lola Eudocia. This even applies to people who you have never met before. For example if your dad introduced you to one of his friends named Jeff then to you that person would instantly be Tito Jeff or more commonly just Tito (which is the word for uncle). Lola was never meant to be her name it's just something that the author refers to her as as a sign of respect. Referring to her as Lola Eudacia is perfectly fine it's even more respectful than referring to her as just Eudocia, given her age.

 

26 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 I think people have been very sympathetic to Alex.  But it doesn't change the facts here. He was complicit.   I don't accept cultural relativism when it comes to the big stuff - murder, genital mutilation, slavery, etc.  You describe a symbiotic mutually beneficial relationship with katulongs.  Great.  If they are allowed free movement and to leave when they want, then that's not slavery.  Eudocia was not allowed to leave for nearly 6 decades.  That's slavery.  Period.  Calling it something different and trying to apply cultural standards doesn't change what is it.

I think what the author's parents did and how Lola was treated was despicable. The reason why I'm hesitant to call it slavery is due to the fact that I think language is important and the term slavery is used when referring to people as property to be bought or sold. I don't think that the author or even his parents viewed Lola Eudocia as their property.  

I also don't think the author was trying to make himself seem like the hero at all because of the language he used being deliberately incendiary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airing the family's dirty laundry among Pinoys is verboten because the family is going to lose face and that would be apocalypse. In a way, I commend Tizon for writing this because it goes against what we were taught - it certainly opened a giant Pandora's box among Pinoys in the US and elsewhere, including the Philippines. This is not to defend what happened to Lola - she was a slave, she was trafficked, and criticism vs the Tizons are fair, I think. Different culture yeah, but still slavery. A lot of Pinoys become apologists for this and they get very emotional about it, citing the fact that the house helpers are part of the family (being the poor relations). This is true in most cases, but it is also an excuse to not properly pay them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Powerful stuff.  I was too busy all week to read it until now.  As much as I (we all?) dislike internet heroes, I'm glad that it has provoked this much reaction.  

Personally, I found myself experiencing the story through the eyes of Eudocia/Lola rather than the author, despite the obvious issue of the author's voice and me being closer in generation and culture to the author.  Even without really knowing her cultural or generational context, her tragedy took precedent over the author's dilemma.  

Cultural relativism is always a challenging topic for me.  It has been such an important counterbalance to ethnocentrism and the residues of colonial attitudes, but it cannot IMO supersede a basic humanist moral code.

 

Tangent: whenever I read an ethically uncomfortable situation, I find it a powerful reminder to step outside of my own complacency & familiarity and try to look at everything I know as though it were reported to strangers.  While I've nothing to compare to this, or to Enron, or any of the other big news stories enabled by good people doing nothing, I can still find petty examples of complicity where I need to ask myself should I have done differently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Eyelesbarrow said:

Airing the family's dirty laundry among Pinoys is verboten because the family is going to lose face and that would be apocalypse. In a way, I commend Tizon for writing this because it goes against what we were taught - it certainly opened a giant Pandora's box among Pinoys in the US and elsewhere, including the Philippines. This is not to defend what happened to Lola - she was a slave, she was trafficked, and criticism vs the Tizons are fair, I think. Different culture yeah, but still slavery. A lot of Pinoys become apologists for this and they get very emotional about it, citing the fact that the house helpers are part of the family (being the poor relations). This is true in most cases, but it is also an excuse to not properly pay them.

Hasn't this also been a topic of emerging discussion/acknowledgement to various extents in countries throughout South and SE Asia? Especially as a new educated/liberal upper middle class in developing economies wrestle with their use and treatment of extremely low paid servants.  It's easy to criticize the exploitative traditional landlord class until you start behaving like them. 

I have lots of friends from countries in the region that say they are very uncomfortable now when they visit home and encounter live-in servants on very low wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HouseVelaryon said:

I think what the author's parents did and how Lola was treated was despicable. The reason why I'm hesitant to call it slavery is due to the fact that I think language is important and the term slavery is used when referring to people as property to be bought or sold. I don't think that the author or even his parents viewed Lola Eudocia as their property.  

I also don't think the author was trying to make himself seem like the hero at all because of the language he used being deliberately incendiary. 

Whether or not someone views their slave as a slave has little bearing on whether or not the person is a slave.  ISIS calls their female slaves "Wives". Still slaves, though.  It's been discussed already, slavery today doesn't look like the slavery of yesterday.  

I didn't say the author was trying to make himself a hero.  I think he was complicit.  As everyone has already stated, I'm sympathetic towards him.  One can feel sympathy towards a person while also being appropriately critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Hasn't this also been a topic of emerging discussion/acknowledgement to various extents in countries throughout South and SE Asia? Especially as a new educated/liberal upper middle class in developing economies wrestle with their use and treatment of extremely low paid servants.  It's easy to criticize the exploitative traditional landlord class until you start behaving like them. 

I have lots of friends from countries in the region that say they are very uncomfortable now when they visit home and encounter live-in servants on very low wages.

There is a law protecting domestic workers enacted in 2013 so there were discussions about it. I know a lot of people who are not rich and who employ helpers/ nannies for low pay while providing other benefits (they pay for their education, allow them to train for other work) and treating them really like family. It is an uncomfortable truth even for the ones living in the Philippines but for a lot of people, it's the only way to earn money as the state does not provide childcare, longer parental leaves, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article about Alex's neice. One of the many children raised by Lola Eudocia. Seems many of the children raised by her had no clue that she was a slave.


https://www.google.com/amp/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/05/19/lola-slavery-story-alex-tizon-shocks-bay-area-relative/amp/

"Yeah, ‘slave’ doesn’t fit to me. She was our grandma,” she said.

“Them finding out was probably a struggle of ‘We know that she came here under circumstances she couldn’t control. But she’s our mom. She raised us.’ So what do you do with that?” Martinez said. “And I think my uncle did the best that he could. He would be the first to admit it wasn’t enough.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Interesting article about Alex's neice. One of the many children raised by Lola Eudocia. Seems many of the children raised by her had no clue that she was a slave.


https://www.google.com/amp/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/05/19/lola-slavery-story-alex-tizon-shocks-bay-area-relative/amp/

"Yeah, ‘slave’ doesn’t fit to me. She was our grandma,” she said.

“Them finding out was probably a struggle of ‘We know that she came here under circumstances she couldn’t control. But she’s our mom. She raised us.’ So what do you do with that?” Martinez said. “And I think my uncle did the best that he could. He would be the first to admit it wasn’t enough.”

So even his relative I saying he would have thought he didn't do enough so I don't know why you're having such a problem with people in this thread saying the same, often at the same time as explaining that they feel sympathy for him.

Eta: 

Adding this because I dnt want to look like I'm trying to score Internet points - this story is too important anf devastating for that. I'm just saying that you can have sympathy for someone and their situation and understand why they did what the did and still criticise them. He just isn't above criticism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's Alex's daughter commenting. And many home photos of lola.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/newsinfo.inquirer.net/897747/look-alex-tizons-family-shares-loving-memories-of-lola-2/amp


"What makes her story so painful to read is that I remember Lola a little differently:

I remember Lola smiling in her garden; wearing a floppy sunhat and slip-on sandals.

I remember Lola watching her melodramatic Filipino soap operas and asking, “Why are they always crying?!”

I remember Lola enthralled in her word-search puzzles.

I remember walking into the house to always be greeted with, “Did you eat??”

I remember seeing the joy on Lola’s face when she watched us devour her magical cooking.

I remember Lola laughing hysterically at the most inappropriate times of a scary movie.

I remember Lola reminding us again and again (and again) to put a jacket on.

I remember Lola loving me, my sister, my parents, my aunts, uncles, cousins, and every single person that walked into our house with her whole heart.

And it was a big heart.

The best I’ve ever known, and (no doubt) ever will.

I remember Lola as, for lack of a better word, an angel. To read this story makes my soul hurt. But it is a story that needed to be told.

For my family, it goes without saying, but for others, it might not be so obvious: we loved Lola immensely. Endlessly. Today is a heavy day because not only am I remembering Lola, but I am remembering my father."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Whether or not someone views their slave as a slave has little bearing on whether or not the person is a slave.  ISIS calls their female slaves "Wives". Still slaves, though.  It's been discussed already, slavery today doesn't look like the slavery of yesterday.

Of course agree with you in that ISIS wives are definitely slaves but their situation is very different from Lola Eudocias. There are numerous examples of captured ISIS members themselves admitting that their "wives" were bought and sold and referring to them as "slave girls". It's clear that they considered them property which is the essence of slavery. 

And to be clear I'm not using cultural relativism as a blanket defense or saying this is something who someone from a different culture can never understand, however, studying the culture is required in order to see the underlying problem of the way she was treated which is a culturally flawed and systemic power dynamic between employer and employee. Just referring to the problem under the blanket definition of slavery and leaving it at that would end the conversation and wouldn't fairly illustrate how deeply rooted the problem that Lola Eudocia and many Filipinos who are put in similar situations overseas face.

I feel very strongly about the word slavery because, similar to the South of the United States, we're no stranger to slavery in the Philippines. We were a Spanish colony for 300 years ending only when we were, as an entire country, literally purchased from Spain by the United States for $20 million in 1898 which was decades after slavery in the US was officially abolished in 1865. We then continued as a colony of the US until just 1946. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eyelesbarrow said:

Airing the family's dirty laundry among Pinoys is verboten because the family is going to lose face and that would be apocalypse. In a way, I commend Tizon for writing this because it goes against what we were taught - it certainly opened a giant Pandora's box among Pinoys in the US and elsewhere, including the Philippines. This is not to defend what happened to Lola - she was a slave, she was trafficked, and criticism vs the Tizons are fair, I think. Different culture yeah, but still slavery. A lot of Pinoys become apologists for this and they get very emotional about it, citing the fact that the house helpers are part of the family (being the poor relations). This is true in most cases, but it is also an excuse to not properly pay them.

thank you for this. I know it's been a tough discussion within your community. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Interesting article about Alex's neice. One of the many children raised by Lola Eudocia. Seems many of the children raised by her had no clue that she was a slave.


https://www.google.com/amp/sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/05/19/lola-slavery-story-alex-tizon-shocks-bay-area-relative/amp/

"Yeah, ‘slave’ doesn’t fit to me. She was our grandma,” she said.

“Them finding out was probably a struggle of ‘We know that she came here under circumstances she couldn’t control. But she’s our mom. She raised us.’ So what do you do with that?” Martinez said. “And I think my uncle did the best that he could. He would be the first to admit it wasn’t enough.”

I found the mention in that article that he'd been trying for years to get the story published a bit gobsmacking. Nobody would publish this story by a Pulitzer author? Not the main story by any means, but a wrinkle in the overall mosaic. 

It also shows clearly this wasn't meant to be posthumous. The author expected to be around for the reception the story received. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ants said:

I found the mention in that article that he'd been trying for years to get the story published a bit gobsmacking. Nobody would publish this story by a Pulitzer author? Not the main story by any means, but a wrinkle in the overall mosaic. 

It also shows clearly this wasn't meant to be posthumous. The author expected to be around for the reception the story received. 

I think that might be miswritten as I've seen other articles with comments from his wife saying that he'd tried for years to write the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...