If you can't tell a difference between an American and Filipino cry, you have no business refuting anything.
I think you are well intentioned, but your choice of descriptive language, superlatives and broad characterizations echo the language used by less well intentioned people of the colonial era, which is why it comes across the way you yourself described it.
If you read colonial ethnographies, you will find descriptions written in the same tone.
> If you can't tell a difference between an American and Filipino cry, you have no business refuting anything
It's entirely unclear what you mean by American here. Big diverse country after all.
My wife, a dark villager, is a starkingly beautiful person, who knows everything. Hole in your shirt? She'll sew it. Found an unknown plant? She'll identify it and tell you how to grow it. I had a weird bump on my arm that wouldn't go away...she said it's an infection and cut it out...and now it's gone. I could probably list a hundred remedies she has.
She's the most amazing person in the world I've ever met, please don't treat me like some carpet bagger or colonist. I ran the entire thing by her before posting, and she, as a person with experience in both worlds, agrees.
But, we'll leave it to you, a presumably white person, to tell us both how to feel. So please, educate us.
Bad presumption. I'm 100% not white. I passed no judgement on you or your beliefs, but rather on your ethnographic writing tone. You seem intent on making that about your family, which is irrelevant to my comments.
I understand the colonial tones, but bear in mind those folks always have something in mind. Slavery, resource extraction, invasion. I have absolutely no ill will or intentions, which I hope makes some difference. I truly find beauty and interest in people's differences.
I hope that my comments about your writing tone can help others better understand you as you are and not the way you say you are often perceived.
I wrote nothing more than generalizations based on -my- observations. It's not meant as a fact, and obviously doesn't fit every person
Patronizing? Please.
It's not hard, describe without superlatives and hyperbole. Don't use phrases like. "they are the most X".
It's not wrong, but it's also not universally true. That's how observations usually work.
https://archive.is/CYLFm "Do Babies Cry in Different Languages?"
> Quantitative acoustic analysis of these recordings has produced further insights into the factors that shape a baby’s first sounds. Newborns whose mothers speak tonal languages, such as Mandarin, tend to produce more complex cry melodies. Swedish newborns, whose native language has what linguists call a “pitch accent,” produce more sing-songy cries.
It's not that far fetched to imagine that adults can vary in the way they cry for many reasons, and this variation be consistent across populations.
How do "Americans" cry exactly? Perhaps the Americans you know, or what you've seen depicted in movies, but you can't generalize about all Americans, not at the least because that term isn't defined at all by things like how people cry.
> They are the friendliest, and by far the most spry people.
I'm sure you meant nothing but the best, but using superlatives, even positive sounding ones, to describe an entire population, especially one as diverse as those of the Philippines, echoes colonial perspectives that denied the cultures that they subjugated the right to be complex.
It's akin to how white Americas would often essentialize blacks as inherently rhythmically or musically gifted, ostensibly as praise, but in doing so casting them as incapable of doing things that whites did.
I have no doubt that your own personal experiences with them are as you describe, but they are just that - your experiences, and not generalizable.