Sunday, February 21, 2010



Last time, I read an online Inquirer post, made last august 22 2008 entitled "No to fascism, yes to fashionalism" made by a desparate bourgeois writer named Talz Diaz. This kind of writeup somehow seemed interesting, since it emphasised much of nationalism as a means of fashion statement rather than a means to inculcate the popular thought. And somehow it carries a word that seemed bourgeois in that appeal, especially in the shirts being spoken upon:
"...These shirts are but an example of a growing pop culture trend that finds fashion cohabitating with patriotism, producing offspring with a catchy name: Fashionalism..."

But then,
Upon reading that post, that desparate writeup seemed to be un-nationalistic despite its nationalistic tone. Cosmopolitan rather in that sense and at the same time advocating a sense which is contrary to the apirations of the masses of ages ago-of a different social system and instead? Preserving the status quo which caters to the elite and of the imperialists.

One quotation seemed to be an example of bastardising nationalist sentiment, coming from a bourgeois "nationalist":
“...Fashionalism is the thrust of our My Pilipinas series,” shares Eala. “We’ve infused fashion, art, and nationalism into our clothing line. We want to make nationalism hip and relevant to today’s generation...”
Is that'so?
Making nationalism hip and relevant to today's generation through fashion instead of social liberation? Well... I in fact look at it as pleasing but still carries less content despite saying it promotes national pride in an organic way.

Then that writeup again speak of its beat:
"...Now here’s the caveat: When does fashionalism become more of “fashion” and less of “statement?” Will the symbol eventually outweigh its substance? Will Ninoy’s face become the local equivalent of Che Guevara’s stylized image—a counterculture symbol that has overshadowed the revolutionary’s principles?..."
This desparacy of that beat seems to be as same as what the clothes bearing "nationalist sentiment" show. Remember, 21st century nationalism is not the nationalism of the bourgeoisie like those of Lamartine or any other leader of that time; for 21st century nationalism, like the 20th, bears a new kind which is based on the aspirations of the many, like Mozambique, Cuba, China, Vietnam and even today's Nepal. And Mao Caps, Ho Chi Minh liberation sandals, and even Keffiyeh of the Arab struggle showed genuine popular sentiment unlike those coming from the elitists who advocated "fashionalism".

And another,
Pilipino pride is not through that kind of sense, of their "fashionalism" and of "hiphop" and any kind of that "suicidal" cosmopolitan tendency made by the west though its wholesale westernization. why not go to the people instead of contenting in those attire? Does it change, uplift the nation from poverty? Even Ninoy Aquino (if he lives) may think of it as a cheap message although he may find it amusing to see dresses featuring his glasses. But still, Pilipino pride, this time driven by the national democratic aspirations of the working people means social liberation and genuine social justice in order to make a nation attaining peace, land, bread, freedom all with dignity. And in case of fashion, mirrors the sentiment of the many which is genuine and realistic in both style and content and not of a bannerish kind.

If all of them continue doing so, of wearing "I AM NINOY" or "PILIPINAS", they're just wasting their time barrering alongside the ones doing armchar activism.

for the article: