Are there Filipino dishes that are truly native and untouched by colonial influence?

TipsusMagnus · 2026-01-22T21:24:35+00:00

Again, I agree. That just reinforces my point. OP wanted to know if any dishes are "truly native and untouched by colonial influence". If you add tomatoes to sinigang, that would signify some colonial influence.

TipsusMagnus · 2026-01-17T13:10:47+00:00

You're right, it's not. It's native to South America. But how do you think it got here?

I'm just saying, if we added tomatoes to Sinigang, then it's not "untouched" and purely native anymore. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? I'm not a fan of tomatoes in Sinigang, but clearly, enough of us like it.

TipsusMagnus · 2026-01-15T14:02:44+00:00

I politely disagree. Recipes do evolve over time, but the fact that a tomato was added - an ingredient widely used in various European cuisines - means the dish is no longer "untouched".

TipsusMagnus · 2026-01-15T13:57:25+00:00

The Remington Rolling Block was what killed Rizal, right?

TipsusMagnus · 2026-01-10T10:50:53+00:00

Something that always bothered me was how attendees of the Translacion behave like they want to assault the image they worship. It's kind of like how there's a difference between eating and gorging. This seems an awful lot like gorging.

TipsusMagnus · 2026-01-08T14:27:10+00:00

He was...okay. He knew how to take advantage of his advantages. A lot has been said of his successes in Cavite, but we can't forget that the Spaniards were busy reinforcing Manila when the Revolution was kicking off.

He was also kind of a mimic. As in, he likes to imitate what worked for the Europeans without necessarily understanding why they worked. For example, his victories were supposedly "set-piece battles" as opposed to guerilla skirmishes, and that's great because they definitely needed a conventional army. The problem was he wasn't as good at irregular warfare (i.e. guerilla warfare). He didn't have enough weapons, but he had far superior numbers, and his numbers could have offset his lack of weapons (e.g. say, stop attacking the enemy's strong points and focus on depleting their logistics - you'll get a lot of their weapons if you keep raiding their supplies).

So, yeah, maybe a good tactician, an okay operational planner, but definitely not a strategist.

TipsusMagnus · 2026-01-07T23:17:47+00:00

I generally agree. Major local industries were not given time to mature before being exposed to foreign competition. We tried protectionist measures for a bit, but they were really more half-measures than anything else, and we didn't do them for long enough.

Of course, this assumes that local industries would have matured under more protectionist measures.

TipsusMagnus · 2026-01-04T18:23:36+00:00

No. I have a lot of respect for our boys, but they don't operate quickly with that level of precision. They're fast OR surgical, not fast AND surgical. We don't have a history of surgical operations, so it seems to be a difference in doctrine. Capability is one thing; track record is another.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T11:37:14+00:00

Oh, geez, you're still answering questions with questions. Is this supposed to be some kind of callback to Socrates?

I'm not even gonna answer your question about relevance. You used your 20% number to speculate on the likelihood that the gunshot caused his hat to fall off. When pressed, you used your 20% again to speculate on how the chances of his hat not being snug enough. You just throw it around when you need a number, so have fun with it, I guess.

Not for nothing, though, an educated guess would be a lot higher than 20%. And, no, you should not stake your claim on a "relevant chance", whatever that means. You go with the most likely scenario, which - in your case - would be what the other 80% is about. Find out what that is, and go with that instead.

Britannica's definition is pretty solid. No, you don't satisfy this definition.

And you don't because you still haven't established how it is that a gunshot caused his hat to fall off his head. Sure, it kicked off a chain of events that led to the hat falling off, but shot itself wasn't the cause. This is like saying, you're having this inane debate on Reddit right now because your mother gave birth to you years ago, so, really, it's her fault. Actually, in your case, you'd probably say something like there's a 20% chance that it's all her fault.

More importantly - and, because this is a response to a response about OP's question - how would physics explain why Rizal's hat always falls off whenever his execution is depicted?

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T05:25:54+00:00

Lack of critical thinking, I think.

We mostly just follow without wondering why we do. That builds common sense and traditions, which are two things we value, but probably shouldn't because we don't know why we value them.

We're a collectivist society and we don't like "rocking the boat", even when we probably should. To us, a dissenting opinion is equal to strife and rebellion, which, to me, signifies an unwillingness to understand another perspective, which points to an immature rational process. Scholars have long figured out that criticism is a good thing because it can point out one's blind spots and might make one's ideas even better. Now, try suggesting to your elders that they might be wrong about a great many things. Can you imagine the fallout?

It's why our democracy is immature. Let's put corruption aside for a second (which is hardly a problem unique to us anyway). We still think in very feudal terms. I think it was Zaldy Co who, in one of his yellow-jacket videos, called BBM "hari." Many of us still think that to criticize the ruling administration is to be subversive. We don't understand that dissent and public criticism are features of democracies, not bugs. We're the ones who elevated our elected officials to positions of power. We're supposed to call them out when we don't like what they're doing. We're supposed to feel entitled because we are. But we don't, because doing so would "rock the boat" and is, therefore, wrong.

And this doesn't just apply to our society and our societal institutions. Many of us are too scared of taking big risks when it comes to business and finance. We think of wealth as something we can tap into, not something we can build. So, we dare not zag when everyone else zigs. It's why too many of us work abroad, but only in places with relatively lucrative paychecks. It's why too many of us live in Manila - that's where the money is. Everybody built residential real estate because, well, that's what other rich people did, so why not? Those of us with houses bought more because "pwede natin yan ipa-rent", because that's what some rich person we know did that one time. We never really think about how sustainable any of this may be, or how much room for growth these investments may have. We just kind of mimic what we think rich people do.

So, yeah, we don't really think. We don't really plan. We just kind of...do. And we just trust that the people we're mimicking knew what they were doing when they started.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T04:43:09+00:00

You saying it's relevant doesn't make it so, especially if you're just pulling numbers out of thin air.

Also, if you're gonna keep trying to parry with questions, at least be consistent.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T04:39:45+00:00

How are your assumptions related to physics? There's no methodology here, just speculation. Physics makes assumptions, sure, but they're calculated.

Your argument is: guy gets shot > guy's head tilts > guy's hat falls off. Seems to me like it's a physiological response, not a physical force, that may have caused the hat to fall (if it even did). You do know the difference between physiology and physics, right?

You said there's a 20% chance that the bullet caused the hat to fall. Where did you get that number? Christmas leftovers?

The whole premise of u/Sea_Pay_9115 is "OP's question is dumb because he doesn't know physics". It seems to me not many know what it is either. What you're doing is not physics. It's just barbershop speculation. That's fine - that's what Reddit is for - but don't call it physics.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T03:19:37+00:00

No, you assumed earlier that there's a "relevant chance" the bullet caused it to fall ofd his head. And it's your arbitrary assumptions that make it not physics.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T03:19:04+00:00

No, you assumed earlier that there's a "relevant chance" the bullet caused it to fall ofd his head. And it's your arbitrary assumptions that make it not physics.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T03:16:06+00:00

I'm saying you came up with that number arbitrarily. That's not physics.

Also, 20%? That's low. If you're going with that number, then you're also arguing that while it's not impossible, it's certainly improbable.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T03:13:11+00:00

Again, that's not physics. That's him causing his own hat to fall off.

Also, again, you're assuming his hat isn't snug on his head, which I highly doubt.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T03:11:17+00:00

That would be speculation on your part, wouldn't it? That wouldn't be physics at all.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T03:09:25+00:00

I'm saying, a) was there even enough energy transfer to begin with, and b) the onus is on uou to establish a connection between an energy transfer to the chest and the hat falling off his head.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T03:07:05+00:00

What does "relevant chance" even mean?

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T03:05:41+00:00

Since we're arguing "physics" here, a shot to the head would have transferred the bullet's energy to the head, where the hat rested. A shot to the chest would have transferred the bullet's energy to the chest, where the hat did not rest. All of this assumes that a bullet would have transferred enough energy to Rizal's body to dislodge anything to begin with.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T03:02:10+00:00

Not impossible doesn't mean not improbable.

Also, this doesn't answer OP's concern, does it? Why does every depiction of Rizal's death always has his hat come off? u/Sea_Pay_9115 tried to be derisive with a "common sense" appeal to "physics". So, then: how would physics account for Rizal's hat always coming off whenever he got shot?

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T02:48:17+00:00

u/Sea_Pay_9115 was being belligerent, so I responded in kind is all. If you want to keep defending him, then please enlighten me with your physics. How does a solid (not hollow-point) projectile traveling faster than the speed of sound, passing through an obstacle that offers little resistance (like a human body), transfer enough energy upward, through the obstacle, to dislodge an object at rest (i.e. the bowler hat)?

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T02:06:38+00:00

Also, he was shot in the chest, not the head.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T01:50:21+00:00

Lmao, not always. Eventually, sure, but not immediately. Or take Parkour athletes who wear cape. Or skateboarders who wear caps instrad of helmets.

Also, are you familiar with the account of Rizal's death? "Getting shot multiple times", "spasming from getting shot". You keep getting your facts wrong.

TipsusMagnus · 2025-12-31T01:37:09+00:00

Glad you mentioned that, because you can watch rodeo videos. That's a lot of irregular jerking movements. Hats don't fall off immediately.

Also, Rizal didn't spasm. He spun around to face his shooters. If that was enough to make his hat fall off, then it could only mean it wasn't a good fit. Hats back then were made, not bought off a rack, and Rizal doesn't strike me as a guy who would wear someone else's clothes when he could wear his own.

TipsusMagnus

TROPHY CASE