Group 1

Globalization and Cultural and Multicultural Literacies

OBJECTIVES

At the end of this chapter, you should be able to develop a clear

and practical understanding of the following:

 globalization and its implications on both the national and

individual level;
 cultural and multicultural literacy in the Philippines; and
 one's personal level of cultural and multicultural literacy.

Globalization is the process of interaction and integration between

people, business entities, governments, and cultures from other
nations, driven by international trade and investment and supported by
information technology (Levin Institute, 2017).

To better illustrate this, consider two people from different

countries, for example, the Philippines and South Korea. Let us say they
meet in college and become good friends, so that the Korean comes to
be treated like a member of the Filipino's family. After some time, the
Korean returns to her own country, but something has changed-she
notices an aspect of her culture that she finds herself wishing to be
more Filipino. She knows very well that she cannot change Korean
culture as a whole, so she decides to just change herself. She does not
change everything, of course-just a little thing here and there; she is still
obviously Korean, but she just does a few things differently from those
who have never been to the Philippines.

Now suppose a little more time passes and the Korean is very happy
with the changes she has made to her life that makes it just a little more
Filipino. Let us say some of her colleagues notice how she does some
things differently and they become curious, so she tells them about her
experiences in the Philippines and how that in some ways, she wishes to
do things the way the Filipinos do. Her colleagues decide to give it a try,
and they find that they like this different way of doing things, too.

Now let us say that when we look at the person from the
Philippines, something similar has taken place: the Filipino, while still
being Filipino through and through, has made a few changes in her life
as a result of her experience of Korean culture through her friend during
their years in college. Some of her friends have also noticed it and have
made similar little changes in their own lives.

Because our exposure to the concept of globalization has largely

been through an economic lens, it is tempting to limit globalization as
something that concerns economists and businessmen. But
globalization and its effects go beyond import or export and Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI). Notice that in our illustration, the friends of the
two people in question were affected by their interaction, even if they
themselves had never been to Korea or had not met a Filipino. Now
scale this up to the point where it is not just two people from two
different nations interacting, but millions of people, from nearly two
hundred different countries, where we are no longer integrating just
languages or mannerisms or food recipes, but everything from styles of
clothing, forms of entertainment, education, technology,
manufacturing, ways of doing business, ideas, and whole worldviews.
This is globalization as we know it today.

Globalization as a phenomenon is not new. Nations and cultures

have been interacting and integrating with one another for millennia.
Consider how ancient Greek culture was so widespread across the
Mediterranean that even the Egyptians could speak their language, and
how Rome was so inspired by Greek culture that they adopted it
wholesale. Consider how so much of the Chinese, Arab, and Indian
cultures have become part of our own; these interactions and
subsequent integrations did not happen recently, but even during
centuries before there was even a political entity known as the
Philippines.

What is different now, however, is the speed at which globalization

is happening, its overall scope, and its effects on the lives of ordinary
people. Not only are we interacting with, learning from, and integrating
knowledge gleaned from other cultures and nations at an
unprecedented rate, there is now also a sense that no matter where
one lives or how limited is one's face-to-face interaction with members
of another nation or culture and how limited one's time is spent online,
globalization and its effects are inescapable. Even remote villages will be
exposed to the latest KPOP hit, if they have access to a radio. If they
produce rice, they will also feel the effects of more affordable rice
imports from Thailand and Vietnam. If they have access to a kerosene
stove, they will feel the effects of the fluctuations in oil prices
originating from Arab nations. All these things take place without having
to know anyone from or anything about Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, or
the Middle East.

The Effects of Globalization

The effects of globalization are multi-dimensional. As shown earlier,

they range from economic to cultural, on both national and individual
levels.

Meyer (2000) summarizes the effects of globalization as follows:

 economic, political, and military dependence and

interdependence between nations;
 expanded flow of individual people among societies;
 interdependence of expressive culture among nations; and
  expanded flow of instrumental culture around the world.

Economic Dependence/Interdependence

When the term globalization entered the Philippine public

mindset in the early 90s, it was popularly understood to be a mainly
economic phenomenon, and a negative one at that. The idea that
foreign-owned businesses could come into the country and freely "set-
up shop," thereby choking-out local industries was not a welcome
thought, even though it was erroneous.

While Philippine society has come to realize that this early

perspective represented a shallow understanding of globalization, the
fact of the matter is that globalization has brought economic
development to our society as a whole. By attracting Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI), new technologies, employment opportunities, and
money have come into the country. The phenomenon of a taxi driver
owning multiple smartphones to browse social media while stuck in
traffic because of the rise of the number of vehicles on our roads is
testament to this fact.

This does not mean, however, that there have been no negative
effects of globalization. Kentor (2001) notes that foreign capital
dependence increases income inequality in four ways: (1) It creates a
small, highly paid class of elites to manage these investments, who
create many but usually low-pay jobs; (2) Profits from these
investments are repatriated, rather than invested in the host country,
therefore inhibiting domestic capital formation: (3) Foreign capital
penetration tends to concentrate land ownership among the very rich;
and (4) Host countries tend to create political and economic climates
favorable to foreign capital that in turn limit domestic labor's ability to
obtain better wages. In simple words, "the rich become richer, and the
poor become poorer."

Hout (1980) observes that international dependence (another

word for globalization) tends to suppress adult wages, which in turn
perpetuates the role of children as economic necessities (the familiar
saying "Kapag maraming anak, maraming katulong sa hanapbuhay"),
leading to explosive population growth.

In a chain reaction of negative effects, this explosive population

growth creates a large sub-sector of society that is insulated from
economic development yet competes for resources with the rest of the
population. Coupled with the economic inequalities in which this society
is couched, this encourages political instability, resulting in policies that
favor the redistribution of income, which in turn discourages
investment, which then slows economic growth.

Political and Military Dependence/Interdependence

A survey conducted in late 2018 found that three in five

Filipinos believe that the United States would intervene on behalf of the
country in case of war (Viray, 2018). Despite the current very
conservative stance of the US on its foreign policies, this can be taken as
evidence of the Philippines' dependence on both the political and
military power of the US in order to maintain its sovereignty as a nation-
state in the Southeast Asia region. Similar things can be said of Russia
and the many communist nations throughout the world.

The point is that where there are some forms of economic

dependence/ interdependence, political dependence/interdependence
is not far behind, as the participating nations strive to protect their
investments and interests in one another.

Expanded Flow of Expressive and Instrumental Culture

 Expressive culture, as the term suggests, deals with how a
particular culture expresses itself in its language, music, arts, and the
like. Globalization encourages the monetization of these cultural
artifacts and their import/export among participating cultures; the
increased consumption of which changes the consuming culture. Case in
point, KPOP music and culture was a relatively niche occupation ten
years ago, with very few people aware of its existence, let alone actual
fans. Today it is practically ubiquitous in Philippine society, alongside
the consumption of all things Korean, from skin-care products to instant
noodles.

Instrumental culture, on the other hand, refers to "common

models of social order" (Meyer, 2000)—that is, models or ways of
thinking about and enacting national identity, nation-state policies both
domestic and foreign, socio-economic development, human rights,
education, and social progress. A simple example of this is the Philippine
educational system: Closely patterned after the American educational
system, education leaders in the country closely follow the educational
trends in America and select European countries, perceiving them to be
the global leaders in the field. While this has served us to an arguably
satisfactory degree thus far, it is interesting to observe that the
problems and difficulties in American education eventually show-up in
Philippine education, albeit five to ten years removed.

Expanded Flow of People among Societies

The fact that globalization encourages the movement of people

between nation-states should come as no surprise to us. The Philippine
Statistics Authority (PSA) estimates that there were 2.3 million Overseas
Filipino Workers (OFWs) during the period of April to September 2017,
who were responsible for up to 205.2 billion pesos in remittances
(Philippine Statistics Authority, 2018).
 Meyer (2000) observes three reasons for this: socio-economic
migration, political expulsion, and travel/tourism.

Socio-economic migration explains the Philippines' OFW

phenomenon. Filipinos travel abroad to find better economic
opportunities for themselves and their families for lack of said
opportunities here.

Political expulsion, on the other hand, has more to do with

trying to escape the political climate of a particular country, thereby
forcing an individual to seek asylum (and ultimately, resettlement) in
another more favorable country.

Travel for the sake of leisure (i.e., tourism) is a strong indicator

of economic development as more and more Filipinos are able to
finance short-term travels abroad, fueled by curiosity that is fed by
social mtrr edia and enabled by globalization.

Cultural Literacy

Cultural Literacy is a term coined by Hirsch (1983), referring to

the ability to understand the signs and symbols of a given culture and
being able to participate in its activities and customs as opposed to
simply being a passive (and outside) observer. The signs and symbols of
a culture include both its formal and informal languages, its idioms and
forms of expression, entertainment, values, customs, roles, traditions,
and the like-most of which are assumed and unstated. Thus, they are
learned by being part of the culture, rather than by any formal means.

To illustrate this, consider the following statement: "The

classroom was in absolute bedlam." Without any sort of background,
the reader is forced to guess the meaning of the word "bedlam" from its
context within the sentence. As it turns out, "bedlam" refers to a scene
of uproar, confusion, and chaos. The term is British in origin, referring to
a psychiatric hospital in London by the name. of St. Mary Bethlehem
that was once representative of the worst excesses of insane asylums
during the 14th century and "bedlam" is a corruption of the word
"Bethlehem" in the name. While it is one thing to know that meaning of
the word, note that it is knowledge of its cultural origins that better
enables a person to both appreciate and participate in conversations
and activities.

Of course, by its very definition, cultural literacy is culture-

specific, but it is not limited to national cultures, contrary to what many
people assume. The culture of one workplace can be very different from
another, just as the culture of a particular school can differ widely from
another school nearby.

There are far too many cultures for any one person to be
literate in all of them. As more and more Filipinos travel-both
domestically and abroad-as the result of globalization and the increased
opportunities it brings, the need to develop new cultural literacies
comes to the fore.

Cultural Literacy in the Philippines

The National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) is the
government body tasked with the documentation, preservation, and
dissemination of Philippine culture, both locally and abroad. Part of how
the NCCA is addressing this and related matters is through the
establishment of the Philippine Cultural Education Program (PCEP),
which "envisions a nation of culturally literate and empowered
Filipinos" (NCCA, 2015). Designed to make cultural education accessible
to all sectors of Philippine society, the PCEP held national consultative
meetings, conferences, workshops, art camps, and festivals on culture-
based teaching and good governance from 2003 to 2007. As a result of
Republic Act 10066 (2010), PCEP has been designated as the body,
together with the Department of Education (DepEd), tasked to
"formulate the cultural heritage education programs both for local and
overseas Filipinos" that are to be an integral part of Philippine education
in all its aspects.

Cultural education-and thus cultural literacy-in the Philippines is

quite a challenge, given that Philippine culture is a complex blend of
many indigenous and colonial cultures and varies widely across regions,
and the average citizen is almost as ignorant of other Philippine cultures
as foreigners are. To point out, consider the question, "What makes
something or someone 'Filipino'?"

The average reader will be hard pressed to pin down a definite

answer. De Leon (2011) argues that this is in part due to a colonial
mindset among Filipino artists that inhibits the full development and
realization of Filipino artistic creativity a kind of artistic and cultural
creativity that is fully Filipino.

De Leon (2011) coins this propensity for Filipinos to look at their

culture and themselves through Western lenses as the Doña Victorina
Syndrome, a kind of inferiority complex wherein anything and
everything natively Filipino is considered by the Filipinos themselves as
being inferior, backward, and worthless in comparison to their Western
counterparts, and therefore a source of embarrassment and unease. As
De Leon puts it, our low self-esteem borders on self-contempt, the
results of which are doubt in the Filipino capacity for achievement,
perverse delight in belittling ourselves, lack of respect and even outright
contempt for one another, and blind dependence on foreign goods,
concepts, techniques, approaches, and expertise (2011). The biggest
challenge then, according to him, is the deconstruction of the negative
self- images and notions of ourselves that we have imbibed over
generations through "a workable, effective program of education that
can make Filipinos more responsive and sensitive to Filipino dignity,
needs, values, and cultural potentials and assets."
 For De Leon, it is excellence in the arts-via an expression that is
truly Filipino-that can form the core of national unity. Of course, this
remains to be seen.

Challenges for Cultural Literacy in the Philippines

As Applebee (1987) observes, interesting discussions on cultural

literacy give rise to some very difficult questions which are particularly
important to a multicultural and multilingual nation like the Philippines.

 What kinds of knowledge constitute cultural literacy? Is it

knowing facts, names, and dates, or is it something more
experiential like being familiar with a story or a particular song?
 If culture is more "caught than taught," should cultural literacy
be one of the goals of education? If yes, how does one teach it?
 Whose cultures must we be literate in to be considered
"culturally literate"? Who decides which cultures are included
and which ones are excluded, and on what bases?
 Is cultural literacy education simply a means for the dominant
culture to express its dominance over minority cultures?
 How is cultural literacy to be assessed and evaluated? How can
we know someone is "culturally literate"?

As of the writing of this book, no definitive answers to these

questions exist

in the literature.

Multicultural Literacy

As cultures begin to mix and change as a result of globalization,

conflicts inevitably arise over identity, values, and worldviews. This
situation consequently needs for a literacy that enables us to quickly
and easily identify and resolve such conflicts, preferably before they
even begin. This has come to be understood as multicultural literacy.
 Multicultural Literacy as a set of skills and knowledge is difficult
to define because of how it changes depending on the contexts in which
it is discussed. For example, multicultural literacy as defined in American
literature is different from how it is deployed in a more European
context.

In America, multicultural literacy has very strong leanings

toward knowing or identifying the poly-ethnic origins of knowledge with
the express goal of fostering equality, diversity, and social justice. This is
in direct response to the "Euro-centric" and "white-dominant" traditions
of education that in the eyes of American cultural minorities
(particularly the blacks) is a form of racial injustice. This is very foreign
to the Philippine context, which, despite having our own deeply
ingrained traditions of discrimination, does not have the same issues of
discrimination as in the United States, nor the same amount of hostility.
Nevertheless, the fact that the perceived need for multicultural literacy
stems from a slighted sense of justice for "the other" (that is, any
individual, group, or culture that another individual. group, or culture
considers "not of us," for any reason) cannot be ignored in our attempts
to pin down a functional definition of multicultural literacy for
ourselves.

Meanwhile, in Europe, multicultural literacy comes more in the

form of intercultural communication competence (ICC), which is defined
by Dusi, Messetti, and Steinbach (2014) as a composite of skills, abilities,
attitudes, personality patterns, etc. necessary for clear and productive
communication with cultures other than our own. Similarly, Fantini
(2006) defines it as "a complex of abilities needed to perform effectively
and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically
and culturally different from oneself."

Clearly, the broader and more magnanimous European

definition of multicultural literacy is more fitting for the Philippine
context, even if the exact definition of what ICC consists of is still being
hotly debated. For the purposes of this book, it would also be wise to
include how justice contributes to the literacy; that is, there would be
no discussion on multicultural literacy if not for the lack of justice in a
multicultural discussion or discourse.

We define multicultural literacy here as the knowledge and skills

necessary to ensure that any communication with a culture different
from our own is clear, productive, and respectful such that their
differences are celebrated and neither culture is demeaned or treated
as inferior.

It is important to realize that under this definition, a "different

culture" is not just limited to "someone from another country," but
could also include someone whose gender, economic background,
religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or even sense of fashion is different
from our own.

The skills and knowledge required for one to be multi-culturally

literate communication are not mere language skills, since it is assumed
that some medium of communication already exists between two
cultures. Rather, true multicultural literacy consists of perspectives,
attitudes, and beliefs about other cultures that affect the manner in
which we communicate and the motives behind our communication.
Here are some examples:

1. Be selfless - An attitude of selflessness-one that is less

concerned with how I feel and more concerned with how I am
making others feel is crucial to multicultural literacy, as so much
of the offense and conflict associated with the meeting of
different cultures is the result of a "me first" attitude: I should
be accommodated, you should be the one to adjust to me, I
should feel comfortable with you before I make efforts to make
you feel comfortable, etc. Such selflessness is not instinctive to
 people, and is especially difficult when one feels insecure of
oneself and identity.
2. Know that good and useful things can (and do) come from
those different from us - Hand-in-hand with a dismissive
attitude toward another culture is the idea that nothing good
can come from them. Furthermore, there is a tendency to
ignore or outright dismiss evidence to the contrary. Simply
acknowledging that good ideas and products have come from
cultures we might not like goes a long way in preparing our
minds to perceive them as being equally valuable.
3. Be willing to compromise - Any significant interaction with
someone from a different culture is governed by the principle of
"He/She wants something, and I want something." In other
words, cultures do not interact out of pure magnanimity. If both
of you are willing to give the other what they want, well and
good. But what happens when one or both are unwilling to give
what the other wants? There must be a compromise: a
reciprocal adjustment of demands and expectations to
accommodate what the other party is willing to give.
4. Accept that there are limits - At some point however, one or
both cultures will be unwilling/unable to adjust their wants for
the sake of the other any further. Beyond this point, the
productivity of the interaction drops and one must either
change the purpose of the interaction or walk away, accepting
that what you want cannot be had from that particular source.
Attempting to force the other party to adjust (when you refuse
to do the same) only results in misunderstanding, hurt, and
conflict. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can set
realistic expectations of one another.
Issues in Teaching and Learning Multicultural Literacy in the
Philippines

A number of important issues stand in the way of Philippine

educators attempting to learn multicultural literacy for themselves and
teach it in turn to others, which are different from what can be found in
Western literature, particularly those of the United States.

Conflicting Requirements for Peace

When all is said and done, the heart of multicultural literacy is

peace among different cultures-that is, productive and non-violent
interaction. It is easy to assume that all cultures value peace to the
same degree and are therefore willing to make the same compromises
in order to attain it, but this is not necessarily true.

Take for example the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which is really

a conflict over territory: Both sides desire peace, but they do not desire
it enough to be willing to compromise. In a very real sense, both sides
would rather live in perpetual conflict with one another rather than
give-up their claim to the land which each side believes is rightfully
theirs.

On a more personal, immediate front, I am reminded of an

activity a fellow teacher conducted in her class where she asked her
students to write down how they defined "peace." One student
revealingly wrote: "Peace is when I get what I want."

Nationalistic and Regionalistic Pushback

The increasing demand for multicultural sensitivity, inclusion,

and diversity in the recent years has also given rise to resistance from
groups who believe that their identity is being "watered-down" by the
needed compromises.
 Case in point is the very recent proposal of "Ortograpiya ti
Pagsasao nga Ilokano" by officials of the Komisyon ng Wikang Filipino
(KWF) in October of 2018. The proposal was met with intense backlash
from group of Ilokano writers and language advocates over the
"incompetence in preparing the llokano orthography that didn't
conform with the existing orthography being used by the Ilokano writers
and experts," claiming that the proposed orthography was based on
Tagalog and not Ilokano and that the commission's attempts to compel
the regional language to conform to the standards of the Ortograpiyang
Pambansa (National Orthography) would "destroy the identity of the
Ilokano language" (Dumlao, 2018).

In the ensuing online firestorm, one particular individual

commented on how such regional pride is out of step with modernity,
particularly with our need to be united as a country. Now this sentiment
is consistent with the multicultural literacy of being able to put aside
differences for the sake of a common goal, but notice how for the
Ilokanos, national unity (as far as language is concerned) is not worth
the cost of giving-up their ability to determine the orthography of their
language for themselves.

Such issues become even more complex and clouded when they
come to a head with economics, social justice, and religion. What is to
be done when accommodating the idiosyncrasies of another culture
means decreased economic opportunities for other members of my
culture? What about when we must decide between gender equality
and retaining a venerable, historical institution like the Boy Scouts of
the Philippines? What about if, for the sake of that peace is worth it, but
what if the other culture believes otherwise?

We see here that while multicultural inclusiveness is by and

large a good thing, it comes at a cost. Part of the identity of the host
culture becomes diluted and lost-the inevitable result of the
compromises necessary for it to have some form of multicultural
understanding. In effect, pushing for multicultural inclusion might very
well be asking some cultures to decide which has more value: Inclusion
or Identity?

We must be aware that these questions are easier to answer for

the culture that wants to be accommodated (because it will cost them
nothing), rather than the one that must do the accommodating.

The Persistence of the Problem

On the surface, multicultural literacy might seem to just be a

matter of "good common sense," and understandably so, no one
actively desires to experience discrimination regarding what they know
and what they can and cannot do simply on the basis of race, ethnicity,
or in the case of the Philippines, region of origin. It therefore makes
perfect sense to collectively refrain from such behavior under the
assumption that "If you don't do it to me, I won't do it to you." And yet,
to our horror and shame, the practice persists. Worse, we sometimes
find ourselves participating in and justifying such discriminatory
behavior-if only online and not in real life (as if anything written or
posted online is not, in fact, in real life).

Therefore, the primary issue that educators face in teaching

multicultural literacy to their students and learning it for themselves is,
"Why does this problem persist?" Or to put it in another way, "Despite
all out advances in science, technology, and culture, why is this still a
problem today?"

Boutte (2008) suggests that issues of discrimination in all its

forms (racial, religious, tribal, cultural, etc.) are really issues of hatred,
which she defines in an educational setting as "the lack of compassion
and lack of respect for the rights of others," and that such hatred must
be fought and its roots must be attacked, because for as long as hatred
exists in the human mind, real peace will be impossible (Vreeland,
2001).

If this is true, then it leads to some interesting questions: For

one, what is the root of this hatred? Boutte (2008) suggests that, at
least in an educational context, such hate is often unintentional, but is
usually the result of a lack of education. Now if a lack of education is to
blame, then a lack of education in what, exactly? Is it awareness of the
existence of those different from us? Is it awareness that those different
from us are worthy of respect?

The former is unlikely: Thanks to the Internet: we are very much

aware of the existence of people and cultures that are fundamentally
different from Us, yet this has done nothing to mitigate the hatred that
Boutte speaks of. The latter question is more promising, but presumes
that something exists in all individuals-regardless of color, language,
religion, education, social status, etc.-that is worthy of respect. If this is
true, what is this something? How do you teach it?

To date, no literature exists within academia that gives a

definitive, authoritative, and final answer to these questions.

The Question of Value

Another issue in teaching and learning multicultural literacy is

better posited as a question: "Why should I treat people of another
culture with respect?"

It might seem that the answer to the question is a simple one:

for peace. But as we have seen earlier, not everyone values peace to the
same degree. What if, for a certain culture, it is easier to just destroy
anyone who opposes them rather than expend the effort needed to
come to a mutual understanding?

Such statements might sound crass, but only if we believe that

we, as a society, are above such things. How many times have we
broken "small" laws and rules of etiquette-running red traffic lights
"because no one is there to catch me," or asking a vendor at a flea
market or tiangge to list a different price on the receipt than what an
item is worth-because it is more convenient than to do otherwise? How
many times have we been selfish in our decision-making, not thinking
about, not caring about its implications for others? And how many times
have we justified such behavior "because of the circumstances" of
"because everyone else is doing it"?

In other words, "Why should I value another culture, another

society, another person more than myself and my own?" If we subscribe
to Dawkins' (2016) concept of a "selfish gene"- where on a genetic level,
the more two individuals are genetically similar to one another, the
more sense it makes to behave selflessly toward one another and
selfishly toward others who are different-then we can easily frame the
issue of discrimination of cultural discrimination and injustice as one of
both genetics and survival. This means that the injustice you experience
is necessary for my survival, and therefore it is in my best interests
(genetic and otherwise) that I maintain the status quo-or reverse it, as
the case may be. Educators like Freire (2000) have recognized and
written against such a monstrous perspective-and rightly so-but have
also admitted that when the oppressed are freed from their oppression,
they inevitably become the new oppressors.

If such perspectives seem horrible to us (and they should), it is

because the question of the value of humanity, both individually and
collectively as a culture, makes no sense without subscribing to some
absolute moral standard- one that is true and right for all people,
regardless of race, color, or creed. But in today's society where such
absolutes are reduced to matters of perspective, there remains no final
and sensible answer to the question.

Enhance

A majority of research on multicultural literacy stems from the

West, specifically the United States, and focuses on teaching teachers to
be more multicultural in their pedagogies.

 Learn about other cultures. Banks (1991a) posits that the first
step to teaching multiculturalism is knowing about cultures that
are not your own. It follows that if you, the teacher, know only
your own culture, then you will be unable to teach your
students to appreciate a culture that is different from your own.
 Familiarize yourself with how discrimination and prejudice
appear in your own culture. Boutte (2008) and Banks (1991b)
agree that teachers must be able to identify and confront
patterns of discrimination and prejudice in their own lives
before they can teach their students to do the same. For
example, when someone you just met says he or she is from
Mindanao, what words immediately come out of your mouth in
response? Do they express genuine acceptance, or do they
betray some long-held preconceptions about people from the
region?
 As you are, so will you behave. Key to genuine multicultural
literacy is core values-that is, what you, the teacher, really
believe about people who are different from you; not the kind
of belief that you can just say you possess when talking to your
class, but the kind that determines your behavior when you
think no one is watching.
 Simply put, if you do not truly believe that those who are
different have value equal to your own, it will show, and your students
will detect it. It will be seen in the words you use, in the expression on
your face, in the change of your behavior when you think no one can
see, etc. The converse is also true: do believe others have value equal to
your own, no matter their social class, educational background, skin
color, or regional accent, it will show; and what is shown is what
students will learn.