(Acc. to Blumentritt, this was the best portraiture of Rizal)Was Rizal a Chinese mestizo? He himself said he was not, that he was a pure Malay.
This topic naturally interested me when I found out about the efforts to give Rizal's image a makeover as a Chinese hero. It's like the parable of Nathan's sheep all over again, but this time China is taking away from poor Filipinas the only thing left to her to love and make herself proud: Rizal.
Here is a very long essay that is worth reading (though I would add: speed reading), and my own opinion at the very end.
The
Wonderful World of Hammurabi
|
|
|
|
Jose Rizal's Chinese Lineage
Genealogy and History
Published in Cebu Daily News on 30 December 2002
When I visited the Bahay Chinoy at Intramuros two summers
ago, the first thing that
caught my eye was a family tree of Jose Rizal.
The interesting thing here was that the family tree traced
only the Chinese
ancestors of our national hero (obviously, as I was inside a
Chinese heritage museum!).
Only a few Filipinos are aware that Jose Rizal's
great-great-grandfather was a pure
Chinese from the Fujian province of mainland China. (Thanks
to Gregorio F. Zaide's
biography of Rizal).
As we celebrate today the martyrdom of Jose Rizal, let us
also celebrate the story of the
people who came before him and contributed to his greatness.
After all, what we are
now is due also to the heritage which we inherited from our
forebears.
In the Rizal family tree found at the Bahay Chinoy, at least
four of Jose Rizal's
ancestors are described as having Chinese blood in them.
His maternal great-grandmother, Regina Ochoa, is described
as a Spanish-Chinese
mestiza. His father's side of the family tree is dotted with
many people described
as either "Chinese" or "mestizo
Chinese." His most illustrious Chinese ancestor,
Doming Lam-co, was born in China in 1662 and whose original
Chinese name was
Cue Yi-lam. This lolo of Rizal had an even more
distinguished ancestry in China.
CUA CLAN
Domingo Lam-co belonged to the Cua clan of south China. The
surname Cua is
considered today as the 44th most common name in China. It
is a variant of the family name CAI, which also has variant
transliterations that include Tsai, Choi, Choy, Chua, Cue, and Chye. The
Cuas are considered today as one of the most prosperous families in South
China and in other parts of Asia. The Cuas are a very ancient line, which
can be traced to how many generations ago back to times when unified China
was still non-existent.
They are the descendants of Shu Du, the 5th son of Zhou Wu
Wang, the political genius who started the Chou dynasty. Shu Du was later
made the duke of Cai (Shangcai of Henan), and was known as Cai Shu. He was
an active member of the royal court and was one of the "Three
Guards" during the first years of the Chou dynasty. It was 600 years
later when his descendants finally formalized the usage of the surname Cai.
As already stated, the Cuas today continue to enjoy the same
status that they did hundreds of years ago. Taiwanese billionaire Tsai
Wan-Lin of the Cathay Life Group and Chua To-Hing of Gudang Garam Group of
Indonesia are two of the richest Cua descendants today, according to Forbes
magazine.
Domingo Lam-co, Rizal's great-great-grandfather, was the
19th generation descendant of the Cai Shu Du. At the age of 35, Lam-co was
baptized in June 1697, in the Parian Church of San Gabriel. He took the
name Domingo since he was baptized on Sunday. Lam-co then became Domingo
Lam-co.
SETTLED IN LAGUNA
In his baptismal record, his parents were simply listed as
Siong-co and Jun-nio. He settled in Bi an, Laguna on the Dominican estate
called San Isidro Labrador. Domingo married Inez de la Rosa, a girl very
much younger than he was. She was the daughter of his friend, Agustin
Chinco, a rich Chinese merchant, and Jacinta Rafaela, a Chinese mestiza of
Parian.
Domingo's son was Francisco, the first in the line to use
Mercado as a surname. The name Mercado, a Spanish word for market, aptly
described the livelihood of Domingo's family as they were entrepreneurs.
Later, Francisco's grandson and namesake, Rizal's father, changed the
family name to Rizal to suit his farming business, since Rizal is derived
from the Spanish ricial, which means green fields.
Despite the persecution that the Chinese and the Chinese mestizos
suffered from the Spaniards, the ancestors of Rizal were fearless people
who ensured the survival of their family and their livelihood. From this
strength of character, no doubt, Rizal got his ability to remain calm and
composed even in the face of adversaries.
I decided today that, unlike most people, I would not extol
on the virtues and the values of Jose P. Rizal and instead pay tribute to
the men and women who came before our national hero. Most of us are already
quite familiar with Rizal's greatness anyway.
Besides, like Ambeth Ocampo, I believe that heroes must be
presented as human beings and not like gods. When we see that our heroes
are just like us, we tend to get more encouraged to emulate them. After
all, a hero is just an ordinary person doing extraordinary things in extraordinary times.
|
Enter supporting content here
|
|
|
|
The
Wonderful World of Hammurabi
|
|
|
|
Jose Rizal's Chinese Lineage
Genealogy and History
Published in Cebu Daily News on 30 December 2002
CUA CLAN
Domingo Lam-co belonged to the Cua clan of south China. The
surname Cua is
considered today as the 44th most common name in China. It
is a variant of the family
name CAI, which also has variant transliterations that
include Tsai, Choi, Choy, Chua,
Cue, and Chye. The Cuas are considered today as one of the
most prosperous families
in South China and in other parts of Asia. The Cuas are a
very ancient line, which can
be traced to how many generations ago back to times when
unified China was still
non-existent.
They are the descendants of Shu Du, the 5th son of Zhou Wu
Wang, the political
genius who started the Chou dynasty. Shu Du was later made
the duke of Cai
(Shangcai of Henan), and was known as Cai Shu. He was an
active member of the royal
court and was one of the "Three Guards" during the
first years of the Chou dynasty.
It was 600 years later when his descendants finally
formalized the usage of the surname
Cai.
As already stated, the Cuas today continue to enjoy the same
status that they did
hundreds of years ago. Taiwanese billionaire Tsai Wan-Lin of
the Cathay Life Group
and Chua To-Hing of Gudang Garam Group of Indonesia are two
of the richest Cua
descendants today, according to Forbes magazine.
Domingo Lam-co, Rizal's great-great-grandfather, was the
19th generation descendant of
the Cai Shu Du. At the age of 35, Lam-co was baptized in
June 1697, in the Parian Church of San Gabriel. He took the name Domingo
since he was baptized on Sunday. Lam-co then became Domingo Lam-co.
SETTLED IN LAGUNA
In his baptismal record, his parents were simply listed as
Siong-co and Jun-nio. He settled in Bi an, Laguna on the Dominican estate
called San Isidro Labrador. Domingo married Inez de la Rosa, a girl very
much younger than he was. She was the daughter of his friend, Agustin
Chinco, a rich Chinese merchant, and Jacinta Rafaela, a Chinese mestiza of
Parian.
Domingo's son was Francisco, the first in the line to use
Mercado as a surname. The name Mercado, a Spanish word for market, aptly
described the livelihood of Domingo's family as they were entrepreneurs.
Later, Francisco's grandson and namesake, Rizal's father, changed the
family name to Rizal to suit his farming business, since Rizal is derived
from the Spanish ricial, which means green fields.
Despite the persecution that the Chinese and the Chinese
mestizos suffered from the Spaniards, the ancestors of Rizal were fearless
people who ensured the survival of their family and their livelihood. From
this strength of character, no doubt, Rizal got his ability to remain calm
and composed even in the face of adversaries.
I decided today that, unlike most people, I would not extol
on the virtues and the values of Jose P. Rizal and instead pay tribute to
the men and women who came before our national hero. Most of us are already
quite familiar with Rizal's greatness anyway.
Besides, like Ambeth Ocampo, I believe that heroes must be
presented as human beings and not like gods. When we see that our heroes
are just like us, we tend to get more encouraged to emulate them. After
all, a hero is just an ordinary person doing extraordinary things in extraordinary
times.
|
Enter supporting content here
|
|
|
|
Jose Rizal's Chinese Lineage
https://sites.google.com/site/thehesperos/joserizal%27schineselineage
http://evrizalchiniscoat.blogspot.cl/
2010年1月18日 星期一
RIZAL’S
CHINESE OVERCOAT
by Tu Yiban (塗一般)
first published as 《黎剎的中國外衣》 in the Chinese Commercial News (Manila), 《讀與寫》 (Reading and writing) supplement, 14-18
February 2005
translated into English by Daniel Ong
Tu Yiban (塗一般), pen name of Alfonso O. Ang (伍哲燦); born in Binondo district, Manila, Philippines;
Filipino citizen; businessman by profession; history and culture enthusiast, life
member of the Philippine National Historical Society; freelance writer and
contributor to local Chinese dailies; has so far authored and published two
books in Chinese: 《博土經》上下卷 (Bo Tu Jing Books 1 and 2)
Daniel Ong (王英華), an ethnic Chinese of Philippine citizenship; officially an
ophthalmologist by profession; non-medical interests include history,
linguistics, anthropology, and religion
Author’s Recommendation: Since this essay is pretty much a critique of the book
《黎薩爾與中國》
[Rizal and China], it would be best if the reader has a copy of the book at
hand. Interested readers may contact the Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran, Inc., corner
Anda and Cabildo Streets, Intramuros, Manila, Philippines, with phone numbers
63-2-5266796 to 98, and 63-2-5276083.
Prologue
The confirmation that Jose Rizal’s Chinese ancestors hailed from 上郭 Shangguo Village in southern Fujian
province sparked the recent “Rizal fever” in the Chinese-Filipino community.
[Translator’s note: Shàngguō is the Pinyin rendering of the Mandarin
pronunciation of 上郭, while Siong-ke is a rendering of the pronunciation in Minnan or
Hokkien—the speech of southern Fujian and Taiwan, and of
majority of the Chinese in the Philippines. Shangguo was once a village of 羅山鎮 or Luoshan Town. Due to changes in the
administrative divisions of Fujian, Shangguo has become a community under the
Xintang Subdistrict of Jinjiang City (晉江市新塘街道辦事處上郭社區). “Chinese-Filipino” refers to ethnic Chinese or people of Chinese
ancestry in the Philippines.] The joint research done by Mr. Melanio Cua
Fernando, board member and columnist of the Chinese Commercial News [translator’s note: Chinese Commercial News or 《商報》, a Chinese daily broadsheet newspaper
published in Manila], members of the Ke (Cua) and Cai (Chua) clans in Shangguo,
and a number of other notables, has shown that the name of Ke Yinan (Domingo
Lamco), Rizal’s great-great-grandfather, is found in the “Genealogy
of the Ke Clan of Shangguo” (《上郭柯氏族譜》), thus proving that Rizal was of Chinese
ancestry(Note 1). This has created quite a stir within the Chinese-Filipino
community, which attaches much importance to ancestry and bloodline. This
writer, however, has not found any trace of Rizal’s identification with China
in his voluminous writings. In fact the contrary is true: Rizal’s writings
abound with rejection and criticism of the Chinese. In spite of this, the Rizal
family, led by Rizal’s grandniece Asuncion Lopez-Rizal Bantug, has visited their
ancestral hometown of Shangguo(Note 2). This “pilgrimage” of sorts, which would
not have been to Rizal’s liking, has nevertheless brought some consolation to
Chinese-Filipinos. While we rejoice over this newly affirmed kinship with the
national hero, we seem to have conveniently overlooked a new trend in
mainstream Rizal studies.
Chinese-Filipino history experts with a grasp of English and Tagalog would know
that the focus of mainstream “Rizalism” has shifted from the old “deification”
to the current treatment of Rizal as a human being. On the contrary,
Chinese-Filipino history gurus who favor assimilation [translator’s note: i.e.,
assimilation of local Chinese into Philippine society] have gone out of step
with mainstream society. Not only have they continued to “whitewash” Rizal,
they have even hid him beneath a tailor-made “Chinese overcoat,” transforming
him from the rabid anti-Chinese that he was into a “true friend of the Chinese
people who had the greatest appreciation for Chinese culture.” As this writer
had mentioned elsewhere(Note 3), Rizal had been made to don the “Chinese
overcoat” to “foster Philippine-Chinese relations.” 《黎薩爾與中國》 [Rizal and China; original in Chinese,
title rendered in English by translator], the 13th book in the Center for
Overseas Chinese Studies Series of Peking University, was published for the
express purpose of carrying out this “political mission.” The intention may be
noble, but publications bearing political agenda are rarely fair and just. The
problem is compounded by the portrayal of Rizal as the representative of
Philippine-Chinese friendship—a portrayal which rests on shaky foundations. The
dead certainly cannot voice out their objections over ill-fitting “overcoats”
forcibly given them, but we the living can judge if certain ideas attributed to
them truly reflect their beliefs. Better yet, we could even cut down these
bulky overcoats to size and enable the historical figures beneath to emerge
anew. Such is this writer’s purpose for writing this essay, and this writer
finds moral support in the ideal of “intellectual honesty,” which appears to be
lacking among our politically motivated authorities on history.
The book Rizal and China, which carries the label of Peking University, has
three editors. The first is Mr. Zhou Nanjing, an expert in the history of China
and of Southeast Asia, the history of overseas Chinese, and the history of
Chinese and Southeast Asian relations. He is currently a professor of the
Institute for Afro-Asian Studies of Peking University and director of the
university’s Center for Overseas Chinese Studies. The second is Mr. Ling Zhang.
Since the start of economic reforms in China in 1978, Mr. Ling has devoted
himself to the study of literature, particularly Philippine and Singaporean
literature. His main interest is the study of Rizal, the Philippines’ national
hero and literary genius. Since his retirement, he has served as deputy
director of the Overseas Exchange Center of the Association of Returned
Overseas Chinese of the Academy of Social Sciences. The third editor is Mr. Go
Bon Juan, a former Chinese-Filipino banker and newsman. Mr. Go was one of the
founders of the organization Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran and is considered an
authority on local Chinese affairs. [Translator’s note: Kaisa Para Sa
Kaunlaran, Inc. is a Philippine non-government organization established in 1987
with the aim of promoting understanding between ethnic Chinese and non-Chinese
and promoting integration of ethnic Chinese into mainstream Philippine society.
See the website of the organization, www.kaisa.ph.] He now pens the daily
editorial column 《菲律濱縱橫》 [The Philippines in its length and breadth; title of
column rendered in English by translator] of the local newspaper World News.
[Translator’s note: World News or 《世界日報》 is a Chinese daily broadsheet newspaper published in
Manila.]
This writer will now proceed to discuss Rizal’s
disdain for the Chinese and expose certain enigmas in the book Rizal and China.
As Mr. Go Bon Juan is a清流qīngliú or “clear stream” and
is not a stickler for formalities, hereafter he will not anymore be addressed
as “Mr.” and will simply
be referred to as Go Bon Juan. [Translator’s
note: 清流 is one of the
pennames of Go Bon Juan. The characters “清流” qīngliú mean “clear stream,” and, by extension, “uncontaminated
person”—one who is concerned with political matters but
remains aloof from those in power.]
Rizal’s Refusal to Acknowledge His Chinese Ancestry
In his work 《對發現黎剎祖籍地有感》
[Reflections on the discovery of Rizal’s ancestral hometown; title rendered in
English by translator](Note 4), Go Bon Juan, editor of Kaisa’s weekly Chinese
language supplement 《融合》 (“Yong Hap” or “Integration”) published by the World News, obviously could not
hide his elation over the fact that Austin Craig, an early American biographer
of Rizal, had stated in his Lineage Life and Labors of José Rizal, Philippine
Patriot: A Study of the Growth of Free Ideas in the Trans-Pacific American
Territory (published 1913) that Rizal’s great-great-grandfather Lamco was from
Shangguo Village of Luoshan Town in Jinjiang, Fujian Province. Researchers in
modern-day Jinjiang City have confirmed, based on genealogical records, that
Lamco had been born in 1662, and had been baptized as a Catholic in the
Philippines in 1697 at the age of 35. In the latter part of his work, Go writes
that this is “an important piece of historical material and pleasant tale (佳話) from the standpoint of the history of
Philippine-Chinese relations and the history of the Chinese in the
Philippines.” This writer agrees that this is indeed an important fact of
Chinese-Filipino history, but disagrees that this constitutes a pleasant tale.
For the crucial point is this: That Rizal was a Chinese mestizo was not a
secret even during his lifetime, and was known even by the Spanish colonial
authorities; but had Rizal ever acknowledged or taken pride in his supposed
Chinese ancestry? Let us clarify this issue by consulting a number of
authoritative biographies of Rizal.
In 1968 the Oxford University Press published Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and
Martyr, possibly the most widely read biography of Rizal. The author, Austin
Coates, an American, was acquainted with the family of Rizal’s sister Narcisa;
as such, the details he reported in his book have a greater degree of
credibility(Note 5). On page 311 of his book, Coates recounts the protest made
by Rizal before his execution—a protest which obviously will not be to the
liking of Chinese-Filipinos:
“When the document was shown him, he drew attention to the fact that he was
incorrectly described as a Chinese mestizo (one of the aims of Spanish
governmental publicity on the subject was to pretend that he was not even a
real Filipino), saying that he was an indio puro.” [Translator’s note: “Indio
puro” means “pure indio.” The document that was shown to Rizal was the
notification of his death sentence, which he was required to sign.]
During the 1889 Paris World Expo, the performance of the American Indians drew
cheers of “Indians brave! Indians brave!” from the French crowds, and stirred
the sense of national pride in Rizal. The next day Rizal met with his Filipino
friends in Paris and proposed the creation of an organization to be called Los
Indios Bravos.
“Indios” was used by the Spaniards as a derogatory term for the native
inhabitants of the Philippines. Rizal decided to convert this derogatory term
into a badge of honor. He proclaimed: “Let us wear the name indio as our badge
of racial pride! Let us make the Spaniards revise their concept of the indio—we
shall become Indios Bravos!” (Note 6)
There is yet another Rizal biography, entitled The First Filipino, which won
the first prize in the 1961 Rizal biography writing competition sponsored by
the José Rizal National Centennial Commission. The author was Filipino lawyer
and diplomat León Ma. Guerrero. This book records an even more scathing
rebuttal from Rizal on his being labeled as a person of Chinese descent(Note
7):
“I do not agree. This is unjust! Here it says that I am a half-breed, and it
isn’t true! I am a pure Filipino!”
Rizal had always taken pride in being a Malay native, and had never identified
with the Chinese. On page 16 of Indio Bravo, a biography of Rizal written by
his grandniece Asuncion Lopez-Rizal Bantug which is replete with family
anecdotes, one reads a positive description of the family’s Chinese roots—a
description that would have met with Rizal’s disapproval:
“José’s parents traced their ancestry back to men who had a hand in shaping the
nation. His paternal relatives were proud of their Chinese blood from Domingo
Lam-Co, a learned man who enjoyed prestige in the Chinese community….”
Considering all these, it seems impossible that Rizal had not known of his
Chinese ancestry. Should he then be categorized as 數典忘祖 shŭdiǎn-wàngzŭ? [Translator’s note: The Chinese expression 數典忘祖 shŭdiǎn-wàngzŭ means “to forget one’s
origin or ancestors.”] This writer thinks that he did not “forget” his ancestors,
but rather “refused to acknowledge” his
ancestors. From the standpoint of the Chinese concept of filial piety, the
latter is a sin worse than the former. The feudal-minded Chinese of Rizal’s day
would have considered it so. As such, Rizal would not have appreciated all the
recent efforts spent on unearthing his Chinese roots. This is certainly not any
pleasant tale as Chinese-Filipinos believe; this is nothing more than foolish
talk.
This brings us to the first mystery of Rizal and China. Rizal’s vehement denial
of his Chinese ancestry is well documented in various Philippine biographies,
but why is it never mentioned in Rizal and China? Rizal’s denial of the fact of
his Chinese ancestry is an important component of his overall “relationship”
with China. Although this, in a sense, constitutes a “negative relationship,” it
has greater value for academic analysis. In order to highlight the significance
of the title “Rizal and China,” the book should honestly record all the facts
pertaining to Rizal’s relationship—both positive and negative—with China.
The Hero’s Portrayal of the Chinese
Rizal’s novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo [translator’s note:
usually abbreviated Noli and Fili] exposed the ineptitude and corruption of the
Spanish rulers, denounced the ruthless oppression of the people, and ridiculed
the hypocrisy and overbearing attitude of the Catholic friars. Although Rizal
was personally against violent revolution, his novels fanned the flames of the
people’s fury and sparked the eventual armed rising. Unfortunately, his novels
are also replete with insults and scorn for the Chinese immigrants in the
Philippines. Quiroga, the subject of Chapter 16 of the Fili, “The Tribulations
of a Chinaman,” was none other than Carlos Palanca Tan Quien Sien (陳謙善), who was then the leader of the Chinese
community. Artificial in manner, hypocritical, cunning, a bootlicker of
government officials, engaging in business speculations, intent on nothing but
profit—such was Rizal’s portrayal of Quiroga. It should be noted that Rizal’s
derision of this man who became the first Chinese consul to the
Philippines(Note 8) was not entirely without basis, because history clearly
records Palanca’s involvement in disreputable businesses like opium importation
and the monopoly on cockfighting arenas (Tagalog sabungan)(Note 9). In contrast
to Lin Zexu, the Chinese official who confiscated and destroyed the opium
stocks of foreign traders in Humen, Guangdong Province, Carlos Palanca was an
unethical merchant and pseudo-philanthropist, a disgrace to the Chinese, and
the pioneer of the 蓋幫 gàibāng (cover-up
gang)(Note 10) in the local Chinese community! [Translator’s note: The author coined the term 蓋幫gàibāng as a play on words. It is homophonous with 丐幫, variously translated as Beggar Clan or
Beggar Sect, a popular fixture of Chinese martial arts novels and movies.
However, 丐 (“beggar”) is replaced
with 蓋, which means “to cover up or conceal.”]
(PHOTO ELIMINATED BY BLOGGER.COM PLATFORM)
Carlos Palanca—great philanthropist, or
monopolizer of opium and cockfighting den businesses? An examination of the
historical records will reveal the truth. Photo from Edgar Wickberg, The
Chinese in Philippine Life 1850-1898 (New Haven & London: Yale University
Press, 1965; republished ed., Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press,
2000), p. vi.
If Rizal had limited his attacks to heartless Chinese merchants, we could even
praise him for being impartial, since he exposed the evils even of those of his
own kind. Unfortunately, Rizal generalized his observations to Chinese of all
classes.
As Mr. Rizal Yuyitung [translator’s note: former publisher of the Chinese
Commercial News] wrote in his introduction to the first published Chinese
translation of the Fili:
“…towards the Chinese immigrants, [Rizal] applied defamation and ridicule to
the utmost degree. We can understand his dislike for the “overseas Chinese
community leader” Quiroga, but when he pokes fun at small-time vendors and
Chinese restaurants, we certainly have to take exception. We cannot believe
that he was not able to find a single good Chinese immigrant or person of
Chinese descent to serve as a symbol of Chinese contribution to Philippine
agriculture, arts and crafts, and commerce. As a person of Chinese descent
living in the present-day Philippines, one should especially be alerted by the
fact that the author [Rizal] had never even once mentioned the enterprising
spirit, diligence, and endurance of the Chinese. Have we never succeeded with
our diplomacy? Have we not yet nullified the schemes of the Spanish rulers
aimed at fomenting dissension between Chinese and Filipinos?”
Let us see how Rizal describes the situation of the Chinese merchants in the
lower deck of the steamship Tabo in the second chapter of the Fili: “In one
corner, crowded together like corpses, asleep or trying to sleep, were some
Chinese merchants, seasick, pallid, drooling through their half-open lips, and
immersed in the dense sweat escaping from all their pores.”
There is worse yet to come. In the beginning of Chapter 14, Rizal describes
some pupils who, while playing sipa, accidentally hit a Chinese vendor who was
selling “a hodgepodge of foodstuffs and indigestible pastries.” [Translator’s
note: Sipa is a traditional native Philippine game in which players kick either
a metal rivet washer plumed with thin colored paper, or a ball made of rattan
or wicker. See Artemio R. Guillermo and May Kyi Win, Historical Dictionary of
the Philippines, 2nd ed., Historical Dictionaries of Asia, Oceania, and the
Middle East, no. 54 (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2005), p. 376.
However, according to one annotator of the Fili, sipa was played with a ball
made of small strips of bejuco or guaco, a Central and South American vine-like
plant. See José Rizal, El Filibusterismo, Edición Centenaria del Martirio
del Dr. José Rizal (Manila: Instituto Histórico Nacional, 1996), Apendices, p.
22.] The children then “pulled on his
pigtail…snatched a pastry…and inflicted countless deviltries on him.” Rizal did
not express disapproval of the actions of the children, nor did he write any
words of consolation for the vendor. In fact, he even described the helpless
cries and expressions of the vendor in a tone characteristic of one who gloats
over others’ misfortunes. Rizal’s flawed moral standards and racially-biased
sense of justice are quite evident.
Moreover, in the final part of Chapter 22, the suggestion that “a banquet like
that of inmates,” “a banquet” with “all in mourning and delivering funeral
speeches” be held at “a pansitería where the servers are shirtless Chinamen,”
is an indication of contempt for the image of the Chinese immigrant, but Rizal
passed off this “insult” as a humorous remark. [Translator’s note: Pansitería,
spelled “pancitería” by the Diccionario de la Lengua Española (22nd ed.,
Madrid: Real Academia Española, 2001), is a restaurant where pansit (pancit) or
rice noodles are served.] Aside from this, there is Rizal’s jeering of the
Chinese posture of having “one leg flexed and raised and the other dangling and
swinging.”(Note 11) All these clearly indicate that “not only was Rizal ashamed
of identifying with the Chinese, he even considered their behavior to be so
foreign, so strange and weird and so utterly disgusting, that he was eager to
dissociate himself from them.”(Note 12)
Objective Reasons for Rizal’s Anti-Chinese Sentiments
Taking into account the principle of cause and effect, this writer had given an
objective analysis of Rizal’s anti-Chinese sentiments(Note 13):
“Rizal was born on June 19 in the year 1861—19 years after China’s defeat in
the Opium War and the signing of the Treaty of Nanking (Nanjing). During this
time, the Manchu dynasty in China faced a myriad of difficulties: internally,
the shock of the Taiping Rebellion, and externally, the encirclement of the
Great Powers. Chinese were the sick men of Asia, globally notorious as opium
smokers. In Chapter 16 of El Filibusterismo, Rizal, employing the device of
double entendre, described the smell inside the house of the wealthy Chinese
immigrant Quiroga as ‘a mixture of joss stick, opium, and preserved fruits.’ It
can be concluded from the above that opium was widely used at that time by the
Chinese immigrants, and it is not hard to imagine that the terms ‘Chinese’ and
‘opium’ were inseparable then…. Should we expect Rizal to show respect for a
nation of opium addicts? Should we force him to have a kinder opinion of these
sick men of Asia, bereft of culture and coming from a backward country?
“Perhaps the cause of Rizal’s animosity towards the Chinese is the fact that
aside from opium addicts, the Chinese community then was comprised mostly of
menial laborers; even the most illustrious members were no more than
profit-seeking traders like Quiroga. If the Chinese community had individuals
the likes of Sun Yat-sen who had been able to interact with Rizal—educated and
dignified intellectuals in Western attire and not sporting pigtails, perhaps
Rizal would have had a better impression of the Chinese and would have been
kinder with his portrayals!”
(PHOTO ELIMINATED BY BLOGGER.COM PLATFORM)
Opium addicts in a Binondo opium den
during Rizal’s time. Chinese opium addicts contribute to negative image of the
Chinese. Photo from Lorelei D.C. de Viana, Three Centuries of Binondo
Architecture 1594-1898: A Socio-Historical Perspective (Manila: University of
Santo Tomas Publishing House, 2001), p. 145.
In addition, it should be noted that a great wave of parochial nationalism was
sweeping through the country at that time; thus, it would not have been
surprising that the people harbored anti-Chinese sentiments. The Chinese were
living in constant fear for their lives and properties. Andres Bonifacio,
leader of the armed revolution, had related in a letter how his troops once
“raided some twenty Chinese stores and emptied them of their food
supplies.”(Note 14) [Translator’s note: Andres Bonifacio (1863-97) was the
founder of the Katipunan, the secret society which instigated the Philippine
revolt against the Spanish colonial government in 1896. See The New
Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed., Micropædia, s.v. “Bonifacio, Andres.”] There
was a direct connection between the people’s anti-Chinese sentiments and the
role of the Chinese. The Canadian scholar Edgar Wickberg, an authority on the
history of the overseas Chinese, revealed that(Note 15): “Anti-Chinese
incidents accompanied the Revolution from its first day….The Manila Chinese
were immediately concerned about the fate of some Chinese laborers working for
the Spanish armies, whose services had been arranged for by the Gremio de
Chinos in Manila. More broadly, indio hostility toward Chinese laborers working
for the Spanish seemed to prefigure indio hostility toward all Chinese. There
were stories that the revolutionaries intended to kill all Spaniards and all
Chinese.” [Translator’s note: The Gremio de Chinos de Binondo was “a kind of
combined municipal governing corporation and religious sodality” founded in
1687 by the Chinese Catholics and (Chinese) mestizos in Binondo. In 1741, the
mestizos broke away and formed their own Gremio de Mestizos de Binondo. Later,
around the year 1800, a new Gremio de Chinos was established and eventually
came to represent all the Chinese of the Manila area, Catholic and
non-Catholic. See Edgar Wickberg, The Chinese in Philippine Life 1850-1898 (New
Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1965; republished ed., Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2000), pp. 19, 180, 190. The Spanish term
mestizo originally meant a person whose parents were of different races,
especially one with a White parent and an (American) Indian parent (Diccionario
de la Lengua Española, 22nd ed. (Madrid: Real Academia Española, 2001)). Since
the term indio was also applied by the Spaniards to natives in the Philippines,
children of mixed Spanish-indio or Chinese-indio unions were also called
mestizos. Regarding the term mestizo as used in the Philippine setting,
Wickberg offers a clear explanation in page 7 footnote 9 of The Chinese in
Philippine Life: “In the Philippines there were both Chinese mestizos and
Spanish mestizos. But since the number of Spaniards in the islands was not
large, Spanish mestizos were never as numerous as Chinese mestizos. Nor were
they as important. The unmodified term mestizo, as used herein, refers to the
Chinese mestizo.”]
Thus Rizal’s anti-Chinese position was not an isolated case. His antagonism
towards the Chinese was largely a product of the cultural and political
situation of his time. By then most of the Chinese mestizos had already
“forgotten” their Chinese ancestry and had become indistinguishable from the
“natives.” Moreover, there were significant political, cultural, and economic
contradictions between these mestizos and the so-called pure-blooded Chinese.
Some two weeks after writing the above, this writer had the good fortune of
coming across a book by Dr. Caroline S. Hau (Note 16), a Philippine-born
Chinese-Filipino scholar currently connected with the Center for Southeast Asian
Studies at Kyoto University. Dr. Hau and this writer were in agreement on this
point (Note 17):
“Rizal himself was of Chinese ancestry; it was not until his father’s time that
the Mercados changed their legal status from “mestizo” to “natural” (native).
Rizal’s own residual sense of his “mestizoness” may explain his ambivalence
toward the Chinese, an ambivalence evident in the chapter on el chino Quiroga
in El filibusterismo. The Quiroga chapter also sheds some light on the
mechanisms by which the mestizo was highlighted and effaced in nationalist
discourse, while the “Chinese” became the marker for the alien who stands
outside the nationalist imagination.”
If we brush aside considerations of blood ties [translator’s note: i.e., blood
ties between mestizos and Chinese], do we find any basis for the “close
Chinese-Filipino fraternal relationship” supposedly existing during Rizal’s
time, which some Chinese-Filipino historians are wont to emphasize?
The Silence on Rizal’s Anti-Chinese Position
Rizal was truly anti-Chinese in both word and deed. In a letter to his mother (Note
18), he had written: “I had a lawsuit with the Chinese and I vowed not to buy
any more from them, so that sometimes I find myself very hard up. Now we have
almost neither dishes nor tumblers.”
That was in 1895, while he was in exile in Dapitan in Mindanao, in the southern
Philippines. Rizal was filled with righteous indignation at the “exploitation”
of the natives by the Chinese traders, and appealed to the local residents to
boycott the Chinese shops. He also opened a small sari-sari store to compete
against the Chinese. [Translator’s note: The sari-sari store was a general
merchandise store. These were first established in the Philippines by the
Chinese. See Edgar Wickberg, The Chinese in Philippine Life 1850-1898 (New
Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1965; republished ed., Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2000), p. 73.]
Even Ambeth Ocampo, who is still a regular columnist of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer [translator’s note: a Philippine English language broadsheet
newspaper], does not deny that Rizal was anti-Chinese. Ocampo noted that:
“Despite his Chinese ancestry, the continental Rizal harbored anti-Chinese
feelings because of a Chinese sari-sari store owner in Dapitan.” (Note 19)
Nick Joaquin, the late Philippine cultural icon, even praised Rizal’s actions (Note
20): “And because Chinese financiers had a stranglehold on native agriculture,
Rizal set up the Cooperative Association of Dapitan Farmers, a pioneer in
economic nationalism. Those who now dismiss Rizal as a bourgeois champion of
bourgeois interests should here note how he ignored even his ethnic roots to
champion Filipinism, the small traders, the peasants.”
To state it simply, Rizal’s anti-Chinese feelings were clearly expressed in his
writings and in his correspondence with friends. Not stopping at mere words, he
put his written ideas into action, engaging in anti-Chinese activities—a fact
well known by Philippine historians. In his book Rizal and China, Professor
Zhou Nanjing, an authority on Philippine history, called for “a complete
historical evaluation of Rizal,”(Note 21) and proposed such questions as “Was
Rizal a bourgeois revolutionary?” and “Did Rizal betray the revolution; can he
be considered a national hero?” However, his book makes no mention of Rizal’s
interactions with the Chinese immigrants. It would seem that the question “Was
Rizal anti-Chinese?” should have been the foremost puzzle addressed by a book
purporting to describe the relationship between Rizal and China. Professor
Zhou’s silence on this important and sensitive issue constitutes another
mystery of the book Rizal and China!
And wonder of wonders! We find that Prof. Zhou’s silence on Rizal’s
anti-Chinese stance has a duplicate. In the article 《笑中有淚 笑中有怒》 [Tears and rage amidst the laughter; title rendered
in English by translator](Note 22), Prof. Ling Zhang, another editor of Rizal
and China, lauded Rizal’s art of satire. According to Prof. Ling, Rizal “was
adept in the use of the subtle but expressive descriptive techniques of
ridicule and humor to achieve his aims of satire and appraisal.” Prof. Ling
also emphasized that such a style of writing was “like numerous soft whips
lashing the bodies of the Spaniards” and noted that Rizal “criticized corrupt
officials so subtly, managing to sketch in a few lines the revolting
countenance of Kapitan Tiago.” Prof. Ling was also full of praises for Rizal’s
chapter in his Noli describing “Padre Salvi peeking at the bathing ladies,” saying
that Rizal had “exposed the sinister soul and true nature of a maniac in
priestly garb like Padre Salvi.” He also cited Rizal’s taunting description of
other characters, like “the various hypocrites, false Samaritans, and foreign
lackeys of high society,” “the ugly Doña Victorina, who married a Spanish quack
doctor,” etc. Surprisingly, Prof. Ling seems to have forgotten the negative
portrayal of the wealthy Chinese trader Quiroga in Chapter 16 of Rizal’s Fili,
“The Tribulations of a Chinaman.” Despite being a Chinese himself, Prof. Ling
has gallantly endured Rizal’s scathing remarks against this Chinese immigrant
“who was aspiring to the creation of a consulate for his nation” and has not
made any comments. On the one hand, Prof. Ling praises the witticisms directed
against Spaniards and their lackeys as the “art of satire”; on the other hand
he is silent about the insults and slanders directed against lowly Chinese
immigrants. We cannot help but ask: What is the reason for this double
standard? What secret motive does Prof. Ling have up his sleeve?
To quote Dr. Hau (Note 23) again: “Rizal remains our best guide to the issue of
the Philippine Chinese. His El filibusterismo, which contains a chapter devoted
to “el chino” Quiroga…, offers a paradigmatic depiction of the Chinese that
skillfully weaves together the major thematic motifs of the discursive
construction of the Chinese in the Philippines.”
Obviously, only the dealings of the natives with Quiroga, the erstwhile leader
of the Chinese community, could have represented the kind of Philippine-Chinese
relationship that Rizal had in mind. Why was such a key figure not mentioned in
Rizal and China? The drooling Chinamen in the lower deck of the Tabo, the
wailing Chinese vendor being abused by schoolchildren, the Chinese trader who
was sued by Rizal for “exploiting Filipinos”…are these not enough to reflect
the emotional contradictions between Rizal and the Chinese?
Rizal Unacquainted with Guan Yu?
The late historian Gregorio F. Zaide was an outright Rizalist. Using
contemporary Chinese political jargon, he would certainly qualify as a “黎剎凡是派” “Rizal fánshìpaì” (“Rizal is always
right fanatic” or “Rizal worshipper”). [Translator’s note: The original phrase in Chinese
was an allusion to the policy of Hua Guofeng, successor of Mao Zedong as
Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. “凡是派” fánshìpaì literally means
“‘whatever’
faction.” Hua’s policy,
enunciated in 1977 and abbreviated as “兩個凡是” or “two whatevers,” meant: “We
firmly uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and we unswervingly
adhere to whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave.” Hua was later eased out of power by the faction of
Deng Xiaoping. See Fredric M. Kaplan and Julian M. Sobin, Encyclopedia of China
Today, 3rd ed. (New York and Hong Kong: Eurasia Press, Inc., 1982), p. 420.]
Reading Zaide’s works as a student, this writer had regarded the 36 titles of
“expertise” Zaide conferred upon Rizal as a “preposterous joke.”(Note 24)
Rizal as described by Zaide was a virtual “superman”! However, one “positive”
point about Zaide was that he forgave Rizal’s anti-Chinese record and “almost”
never mentioned it. This was probably done to whitewash the negative side of
Rizal’s racism and preserve his “saintly” image. It would be more appropriate
to call Zaide’s account of Rizal’s life a “hagiography” rather than a
biography.
This writer later discovered, thanks to Rizal and China, that Zaide had
actually conferred another title on Rizal, that of “Sinologist.” Within the
local Chinese community, the doctrine of “Rizal the Sinologist” found favor
with Go Bon Juan. Aside from reprinting an essay by Zaide with the title “Rizal
as Sinologist,” Go has also personally affirmed that Rizal was a Sinologist in
the article 《黎剎對麻逸的考證》 [Rizal’s
research on Mayi; title rendered in English by translator](Note 25), which he
published under the penname Li Fei.
Taking into consideration Zaide’s tendency
towards exaggerated writing, this writer’s personal suspicions of Go’s
intellectual honesty (Note 26), and Prof. Zhou Nanjing’s criticisms of Go being
“disorganized, never completing a systematic treatise” and failing “to include
footnotes and indicate references,”(Note 27) this writer hereby declares that
he is casting aside his previous reservations and now decides to “reject”
outright the suggestion that Rizal was a Sinologist. The following is the
explanation for this writer’s objections:
The obvious reason for Rizal’s research on the 《諸蕃志》 (Zhu Fan Zhi) was to investigate the origins of the
early names of Philippine islands, like Mayi. [Translator’s note: The Zhu Fan Zhi or Record of Foreign Peoples
was a work completed around 1225 by the Chinese official Zhao Rugua (趙汝适), then inspector of foreign trade at
Fujian Province. Being a comprehensive account of China’s overseas trade, it
contains brief descriptions of East, Southeast, and South Asia, and fragments
of information about the west coast of Africa, the Middle East, and the
Mediterranean. See Encyclopedia of Asian History (New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1998), s.v. “Zhao Rugua,” by David K. Wyatt.] This he did because he
wanted to show that indigenous cultures had already flourished in the
Philippine islands before the Spanish occupation, and certainly not because of
any personal interest in studying ancient Chinese texts. Li Fei (Go Bon Juan)
himself surmises that the Zhu Fan Zhi text which Rizal used “was probably not
the Chinese text, but rather an English translation by German and American
Sinologists,” but later makes the paradoxical statement that such research
“could not have been done by someone without any foundation in Sinology.” By
the same argument, anyone who develops a deep interest in Rizal’s Spanish
writings must already be an expert in Spanish studies!
Rizal’s records of the stage techniques of Chinese opera, which he had seen
while in Hong Kong, were extolled by Zaide as “research on China done in Hong
Kong.” During his sojourn in Hong Kong, Rizal was said to have “studied the
Chinese language and culture”; and “because of his God-given talent for
languages, he learned to speak Chinese within a short time of intensive
study.”(Note 28) It is known that Mandarin Chinese has never been the main
speech variety in Hong Kong. So this writer, out of curiosity, would like to
ask our local Chinese historian who hails from Hong Kong: If Rizal did learn to
speak Chinese, as claimed by Zaide, did he speak Cantonese or Mandarin?
If Rizal was indeed interested in studying Chinese opera, as is claimed, then
it is quite funny that he made an ignorant and hilarious description of a very
important character in Chinese opera:
“Nor was there a lack of Chinese [woodblock] prints on sheets of red paper,
depicting a seated man of venerable and peaceful aspect, smiling, and standing
behind him his servant—ugly, horrifying, diabolical, threatening, armed with a
spear having a broad and sharp blade; some of the indios call him Mohammed;
others, Santiago [St. James]; we do not know why; even the Chinese do not give
a clear explanation of this popular duo….”
Such a description, found in the second paragraph of the chapter on Quiroga in
the Fili, can hardly represent the insights of a Sinologist. Even the novice
Sinologist would have heard about the popular Chinese classical novel 《三國演義》 (Romance of the Three Kingdoms). Even
without reading the novel, no Sinologist worth his mettle would be unfamiliar
with Guan Yu, the character who has come to be revered by Chinese all over the
world as a god and an epitome of righteousness. The Fili was published on
September 18, 1891, some three and a half years after Rizal’s first voyage to
Hong Kong (February 1888). Therefore, it is clear that Rizal did not realize
that Guan Yu was popularly worshipped in Hong Kong, and did not bother to investigate
the matter further. Go Bon Juan quotes Zaide(Note 29):
“…In Calamba, Rizal was in daily contact with the Sangleyes (Spanish term for
Chinese), whose children were among his childhood playmates.
Rizal continued his observation of the Chinese way of life in Manila during his
college days. He acquired intimate knowledge of the Chinatown and its
picturesque stores. He spent many delightful hours in the homes of Sangley
mestizos (Chinese half-breeds)….”
Despite all this, Rizal still had no idea of “the popular respect accorded to
the two painted figures (Guan Yu and Zhou Cang).” It is impossible that “even
the Chinese do not give a clear explanation”; it is more likely that the
Chinese were not able to express themselves clearly because of their poor command
of Spanish and Tagalog. Was Rizal not “especially interested in learning about
the relationship between China and the Philippines,” as emphasized by Zaide and
Go? Why then did he not seek to learn the identity of the two figures, whose
paintings can be seen everywhere in Chinatown? Why then did he not apply the
same diligence that he had shown in his investigation of the Zhu Fan Zhi? On
the other hand, Rizal may have truly familiarized himself with the ins and outs
of Chinese houses and shops. Otherwise, he would not have been able to discern
the “certain odor particular to the Chinese home, a mixture of joss stick,
opium, and preserved fruits” in Quiroga’s house, nor would he have had such a
lasting impression of the posture of the Chinese immigrant seated “as in their
shops, with one leg flexed and raised and the other dangling and swinging”!
Unfortunately, when Go reprinted Zaide’s article “Rizal as Sinologist,” he
failed to indicate the original source, as usual. [Translator’s note: Rizal and
China does indicate that the Chinese translation of “Rizal as Sinologist” was
first published in 《融合》 (“Yong Hap” or “Integration”) supplement, Issue No. 487, 1996. The said issue of “Yong Hap”
mentions that Zaide’s original article was published in The Fookien Times
Yearbook 1960.] This amnesia does not help resolve the issue of Rizal being a
Sinologist, and even opens Go to charges that he is using Zaide’s reputation to
propagate his own beliefs.
A Specially Fabricated Intimate Relationship
At last! In 《黎剎抨擊美國歧視華人》 [Rizal denounces American discrimination
of Chinese; title rendered in English by translator](Note 30), Go Bon Juan
finally indicates his source—a letter of
Rizal from London. [Translator’s note: On April
13, 1888, Rizal boarded the English steamer Belgic at Yokohama for the United
States. The steamer docked at San Francisco on April 28. Rizal later wrote from
London to his friend Mariano Ponce, describing the events which transpired upon
his arrival at San Francisco. See Gregorio F. Zaide and Sonia M. Zaide, Jose
Rizal: Life, Works, and Writings of a Genius, Writer, Scientist and National
Hero, 2nd ed. (Quezon City: All-Nations Publishing Co., Inc., 1999), pp. 133,
137.] This is probably no fluke, and must reflect Go’s acceptance of Prof.
Zhou’s criticisms. It is regrettable, however, that this article seems to be
bending the truth and inventing the image of Rizal being concerned for the
Chinese, by making far-fetched interpretations of the facts. The reader is
invited to peruse the following analysis:
In his letter, Rizal described the situation upon their arrival: “They placed
us under quarantine because our ship carried eight hundred Chinese, and since
there were elections then in San Francisco, the government, in order to win
votes, made a show of adopting harsh measures against the Chinese to gain the
sympathy of the people. We were informed verbally of the quarantine, with no
mention of how long it would last…We were in such a condition for some 13 days
or less;…the Japanese and Chinese in the 2nd and 3rd [class] remained under
quarantine for an indefinite time….” [Translator’s note: Rizal’s words in this
and in the succeeding paragraph were translated from his letter of 27 July 1888
from London to Mariano Ponce, in Biblioteca Nacional de Filipinas, Epistolario
Rizalino, 5 vols. (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1930-38), vol. 2 (1931), letter
186: De Rizal a Ponce, pp. 34-35. However, in a letter to his friend Ferdinand
Blumentritt dated 30 April 1888 (when Rizal was still in the ship docked at San
Francisco), Rizal wrote that the ship had 643 Chinese passengers. See
Epistolario Rizalino, vol. 5 pt. 1 (1938), letter 42, p. 245 (German original)
and p. 248 (Spanish translation). For the English translation, see National
Historical Institute, The Rizal-Blumentritt Correspondence, 2 vols. (Manila:
National Historical Institute, 1961; 2nd printing, 1992), vol. 1, letter 66, p.
167.]
(PHOTOS ELIMINATED BY BLOGGER.COM PLATFORM)
Left: Chinese arriving at San Francisco port. Right: Chinese on board the
steamship Alaska bound for America. Photos from 胡垣坤 [Hu Yuankun], 曾露凌 [Zeng Luling], 譚雅倫 [Tan Yalun], eds., 《美國早期漫畫中的華人》 (The Chinese in early American cartoons) (Hong Kong:
Joint Publishing (H.K.) Co., Ltd., 1994), pp. 25 and 26.
Finally, Rizal wrote these comments: “America is undoubtedly a great country,
but it still has many defects. There is no true civil liberty. In certain
states, a Black man cannot marry a White woman, nor can a Black woman marry a
White man. The hatred of Chinese has resulted in other Asian foreigners, like
the Japanese, being confused with the Chinese by ignorant people, and being
likewise seen in a bad light….”
The key statement is the last one. This writer’s explanation is as follows:
Rizal was personally grumbling against being wrongfully involved in the
anti-Chinese discrimination, and was blaming the Americans for confusing
Chinese with other Asians, even suggesting latently that the Chinese deserved
being hated!
On the contrary, Go Bon Juan’s conclusion is: “Through this letter of Rizal,
not only can we understand the erstwhile American discrimination against the
Chinese, we can also see Rizal’s indignation at the American discrimination
against Chinese and other Asians…He had even exposed the repulsive face of
American government—a government which persecuted the Chinese for the sake of
votes.”
It is correct that this letter affords us a glimpse of the anti-Chinese
discrimination in America, but Rizal’s “indignation at the American
discrimination against Chinese” is just a wishful addendum by Go. It is clear
from the text of the letter that Rizal was actually dissatisfied with American
discrimination against other Asians “because of their hatred for the Chinese”;
he was not “denouncing American discrimination against Chinese.” The truth is,
Rizal simply described the politicians’ tactic of persecuting the Chinese to
win votes as “making a show.” His tone of writing was rather mellow, and he
never used words like “persecution” or “repulsive face” (嘴臉). It appears that Go had so much more
overflowing emotions than Rizal had. Go makes this final praise, which leaves
one at a loss as to whether to laugh or to cry:
“We certainly have never imagined that there exists in
Rizal’s hundred-year-old letter such valuable data pertaining to his
relationship with the Chinese. Rizal had a truly intimate relationship with us
Chinese.”
Granting that this is indeed “valuable” material on Rizal and the Chinese, the
praise that “Rizal had a truly intimate relationship with Chinese” is really an
absurd distortion, but literary gymnastics such as this are nothing new to the
loyal readers of Go’s works. Although the local Chinese community has such a
one who misleads by “altering the mentality” of historical figures, we should
rejoice that mainstream Philippine society has produced a scholar who has
perceived Rizal’s anti-Chinese consciousness and has spoken out on behalf of
the Chinese—none other than Dr. Floro C. Quibuyen of the Asian Center,
University of the Philippines. Dr. Quibuyen keenly points out that even Rizal
was not free of prejudices, as he had never given much thought to the “issue of
Chinese immigration.”(Note 31) Regarding the vacillating immigration policy of
the Spanish government (which repeatedly carried out massacres of the Chinese
and afterwards was repeatedly faced with a scarcity of Chinese workers to build
the islands), Rizal had this surprising reaction(Note 32):
“The coming of the Spaniards to the Filipinas, and their government, together
with the immigration of the Chinese, killed the industry and agriculture of the
country. The terrible competition of the Chinese with any individual of another
race is well known, for which reason the United States and Australia refuse to
admit them….”
Rizal’s comments expose his “understanding and agreement” with the anti-Chinese
policies of the US and Australia, as “the Chinese immigrants had killed the
industry and agriculture of [the Philippines].” Such a position is clearly
reflected in his actions in Dapitan against the “Chinese immigrants who
exploited the Filipinos.” On the surface, the conflict appears restricted to
the economic sphere, but its true nature does not escape the ingenious
perception of Dr. Quibuyen, who hits the nail on the head with the following
comment:
“Rizal does not consider the deep-seated racism that underpinned the
anti-Chinese immigration policies of both the U.S [sic] and Australia during
his time—although he had seen it during his visit to the U.S. in 1888 and wrote
about it in his diary. Moreover, Rizal could have entertained the contrary
view—that Chinese immigration had in fact enriched the culture and technology
of the host country.”
Surely, anyone familiar with the history of Chinese discrimination in America
will not find it hard to understand Rizal’s mentality. To safeguard their jobs,
the Blacks and Native Americans were incited to join the ranks of the
Workingman’s Party, led by the Irish immigrant Dennis Kearney with the slogan
“The Chinese must go.”(Note 33) That struggle was evidently caused by mixed
economic and racial contradictions. Rizal undoubtedly saw himself as an “indio”
struggling against the Chinese, adopting a mentality quite similar to that of
the Blacks and Native Americans. It would also not be wrong to say that Rizal
adopted the position of the Whites; given that he had always had the highest
regard for European culture, and given the prevailing trend of anti-Chinese
aggression and persecution among the European powers, it was but natural that
Rizal’s sentiments towards the Chinese would be similar to those harbored by
Europeans. This is verified by the fact that not a single biography of Rizal
mentions that he had denounced European aggression in China. This fact further
proves that Rizal had no feelings whatsoever for China.
As for Go Bon Juan’s feeling that “Rizal had a truly intimate relationship with
Chinese” (which really gives one the creeps), Dr. Quibuyen did not get the same
impression upon reading Rizal’s letter. In fact, Dr. Quibuyen is of the opinion
that Rizal’s anti-Chinese prejudice caused Rizal to ignore the historical facts
about Chinese contributions! At this point, the truth regarding “Rizal
denouncing American discrimination against Chinese” is revealed as nothing but
a “big orchestrated lie”!
Apart from the “big lie,” in Rizal and China one also finds a “big joke,”
called:
Rizal the “Clone”
Being of Chinese ancestry, we of course find consolation in other peoples’
praises for the Chinese. This is but part of human nature. However, this writer
thinks that we should dismiss exaggerated, untrue commendations. Taking pride
in unjustified admiration will only turn us into a laughingstock of future
generations.
In 1956, Dr. Isidoro Panlasigui, retired Dean of the College of Education of
the University of the Philippines, wrote the article “Dr. Jose Rizal’s Chinese Ancestry”
in The Fookien Times Yearbook 1956, wherein he stated that “Rizal…was the most
important and most significant Chinese contribution to the Philippines.”(Note
34)
In 1964, the historian Esteban A. de Ocampo parroted the views of Panlasigui in
his article “Chinese Greatest Contribution to the Philippines—The Birth of Dr.
Jose Rizal.”(Note 35) Since Zaide described Ocampo as a colleague(Note 36),
Ocampo was also a top-notch Rizalist. As such, being a “Rizal is always right”
fanatic or Rizal worshipper (黎剎凡是派),
it is not surprising that he would extol Rizal to high heavens, but for normal
people like us, reflection on the matter grants us a different perspective.
Cai Lun of ancient China invented paper, and thus paper is said to be Cai Lun’s
“contribution” to mankind. Alexander Graham Bell of Scotland invented the
telephone, and so the telephone can be considered Bell’s “contribution” to
mankind. Some years ago, scientists successfully cloned a sheep using the
principles of genetics; therefore cloning technology is a breakthrough
“contribution” of these scientists. When we speak of “contribution,” we usually
refer to products of human effort or research, or some material or spiritual
“gift” to society. So, if “Rizal was the greatest contribution of the Chinese
to the Philippines,” does this mean that Rizal was “intentionally cloned” by
Chinese immigrants for the welfare of the Philippines? Apart from such an
explanation, this supposed statement of “praise” has no basis and is totally
illogical. The idea of “cloning” did not even exist yet at the time, and so
this statement is just “one big joke”!
And yet, not only had Go Bon Juan repeatedly expressed agreement with this
statement in Rizal and China, he also quoted it in his article 《黎剎傑出華裔菲人獎》 [Dr. Jose P. Rizal Awards for Excellence; title
rendered in English by translator] in his column of August 5, 2004 in the World
News. In that article, Go also encouraged each Chinese-Filipino to emulate
Rizal’s patriotism and become “an important figure or man of purpose like
Rizal.”
Rizal’s own contributions to the Philippines are beyond question. He is a great
national hero, but he was certainly not “the most important and most
significant Chinese contribution to the Philippines.” Even if we set aside the
ill logic of this statement, the facts of history show that not only had Rizal
never identified with the Chinese, he had even borne a bitter hatred for them.
Rizal’s patriotism is indeed worth emulating, but before we try to become like
Rizal, it must first be clarified whether the idol we are imitating is the
“anti-Chinese” Rizal of historical fact, or the “whitewashed, Chinese-loving”
Rizal created by the local Chinese community’s authority on history. We should
also not condemn Rizal simply for being “anti-Chinese.” If he had “hated” only
those “Chinese” the likes of Quiroga, and had felt compassion for the mass of
Chinese who toiled laboriously for their living, then he would be much more
deserving of our respect and emulation.
Of course, it was impossible for Rizal to have been prenatally “cloned” to
become the most important contribution of the Chinese to the Philippines, just
as the achievements he had in his lifetime had nothing to do with the Chinese.
However, it is possible to “clone” his image posthumously to suit the needs of
a particular ethnic group or the interests of certain political entities.
Several such “cloning projects” have been successfully accomplished; one of
these is a book compiled and edited by a self-styled Rizal-like history expert
in the Chinese-Filipino community. Another mark of success of this “cloning
project” is the construction of a monument to Rizal in Fujian’s Shangguo
Village.
The Historical Basis for the Rizal Monuments
On December 30, Rizal Day (the day of Rizal’s execution), 2004, an unveiling
ceremony was held for the new memorial plaque installed at the residence along
Shelley Street in Central District where Rizal had lived when he sought refuge
in Hong Kong. The ceremony was sponsored by the Hong Kong Antiquities and
Monuments Office and the Philippine consulate. Rizal had practiced medicine in
Hong Kong from December 1891 to June 1892. His ophthalmic clinic at D’Aguilar
Street in Central District no longer exists, but it has been reported that a plaque
has already been installed at a building on that site (Note 37).
(PHOTO ELIMINATED BY BLOGGER.COM PLATFORM)
Rizal’s business card during his medical practice in
Hong Kong. Note that “Dr.” was rendered in Chinese as 醫生 (physician), and not 博士 (one with a doctoral degree). Photo from
Alfredo Roces, ed-in-chief, Filipino Heritage: The Making of a Nation, vol. 7,
The Spanish Colonial Period (Late 19th Century): The Awakening (n.p.: RPLA Pty
Ltd, n.d.; reprint, n.p.: Felta Book Sales, Inc., n.d.), p. 1908.
The commemoration in Hong Kong has great significance. Christmas of 1891 was
for Rizal both joyous and sad, for his family had joined him in Hong Kong after
being expelled by the friars from Calamba. While in Hong Kong, Rizal also
conducted a successful surgery on his mother’s left eye. Although Rizal was no
Sinologist, he was indeed much more of an epitome of filial piety than many
ordinary Chinese. The letters he wrote to his family during his voyages are so
overflowing with his love and affection for them that they can move one to
tears. As Rizal’s biographer León Ma. Guerrero noted (Note 38): “As a physician
he had really only two patients at heart: his country and his mother.” Rizal
moved to Hong Kong after publishing El Filibusterismo, which he had written in
order to urge his countrymen to save the motherland. While in Hong Kong, he
practiced his medical profession, and cured his mother’s eye ailment. This
series of important events in his short life makes Hong Kong extremely special
to Rizal, and it is therefore fitting that a plaque should be installed there
in his memory.
Aside from this, a monument to Rizal has been erected in Heidelberg in
southwest Germany by the German government to commemorate Rizal’s “intimate
relationship” with Germany.
Europe had always been a paradise that fascinated and attracted Rizal, and more
so because of the clamors for democracy and liberty then engulfing the
continent. He completed his medical studies after three years in Spain. Next to
Spain, Germany was the European country where he had stayed the longest. There
were a number of noted ophthalmologists in Germany, which made it the ideal
place for his further training and specialization. He admired German customs
and cultural relics, and extolled the sobriety and talent of German women, who
did not exhibit the unrefined character of women in Spain. His reluctance to
leave Heidelberg inspired him to write the poem “A Las Flores de Heidelberg”
(“To the Flowers of Heidelberg”)(Note 39).
However, the most historically noteworthy event was the publication of Noli Me
Tangere in Berlin in 1887. The year before the book’s publication, Rizal had
experienced severe hardship because he had gone broke. His family had not been
able to send money from Calamba, because their crops had been devastated by
locusts and the sugar market had collapsed. In a moment of desperation he had
almost hurled the manuscript of the Noli into the flames, but the timely
arrival in Berlin of his friend Dr. Maximo Viola ended his difficulties, for
Viola lent him 300 pesos to publish the book. This dramatic turn of events
enabled Rizal to survive a major crisis and to reinvigorate himself for further
challenges (Note 40). Rizal’s writings are filled with his deep affection for
Germany. Therefore, given the ample historical basis, it is fitting that the
German government should erect a monument in his honor.
(PHOTO ELIMINATED BY BLOGGER.COM PLATFORM)
Rizal (seated, center) with the family of painter Juan
Luna and other friends in Paris. Europe was the love of Rizal; he had no
“intimate relationship” with China. Photo from Alfredo Roces, ed-in-chief,
Filipino Heritage: The Making of a Nation, vol. 7, The Spanish Colonial Period
(Late 19th Century): The Awakening (n.p.: RPLA Pty Ltd, n.d.; reprint, n.p.:
Felta Book Sales, Inc., n.d.), p. 1909.
Rethinking the Figure on the Shangguo Monument
Now as to the construction in Shangguo Village, Luoshan Town (Fujian Province)
of a memorial hall and monument to Rizal, this writer asks the reader to pardon
his bluntness in saying that this is nothing more than an act of historical
farce, incongruous with Rizal's feelings towards China!
The subject of Rizal and China is supposedly Rizal's relationship with China.
However, the book does not mention Rizal’s trip to Xiamen. The failure of the
book to include an event so important to the issue of Rizal's relationship with
China constitutes another of its many mysteries!
In 1888, after the publication of the Noli, Rizal suffered from much harassment
and was forced to leave the country. On the way to Hong Kong (author's note:
this was his first trip to Hong Kong; he opened his clinic on his second
sojourn in Hong Kong), the ship he had boarded made a stopover at the port of
Xiamen. Rizal could have stepped foot on the very land of his ancestors, but he
did not go ashore. There were three reasons for this: first, he was feeling
ill; second, there were heavy rains in Xiamen at that time; and third, he had
heard that the city of Xiamen was dirty (Note 41).
On August 29, 1894, Rizal sent a letter from Dapitan to Blumentritt; in the
letter he reviled the Chinese as Mongols (Note 42). [Translator's note:
Ferdinand Blumentritt (1853-1913) was a professor, and later director, of the
secondary school in the Austro-Hungarian town of Leitmeritz or Litomerice (now
a city in the Czech Republic). Although he never visited the archipelago, he
was one of the leading experts on the Philippines during his time and was a
supporter of the Philippine reform and independence movements. For an account
of his life and works see Harry Sichrovsky, Ferdinand Blumentritt: An Austrian
Life for the Philippines (Manila, 1987).] This writer had previously thought
that Rizal (a Sinologist, as claimed by the history expert of our
Chinese-Filipino community) had mistakenly applied the term “Mongols” to all
the subjects of the Manchu dynasty (Note 43). [Translator's note: The English
term “Chinese” is actually ambiguous. “Chinese” can refer to all the
inhabitants of China. However, the Chinese people belong to several ethnic
groups. The most numerous are the Han (comprising 91.59% of the population of
the Chinese mainland as of the last census in 2000), who are also referred to
as “Han Chinese” or, simply, “Chinese.” Other major ethnic groups include the
Zhuang, Manchu, Hui, Miao, Uygur, Yi, Tujia, Mongol, and Tibetan. The Manchu or
Qing dynasty (1616-1912), the last imperial dynasty of China, had a Manchu
ruling family.] This writer now realizes that Rizal had a more malicious
intention, and that his “Mongols” actually meant “idiots.” This interpretation
fits with Rizal’s consistently negative portrayals of Chinese of all classes in
his novel.
Although Rizal loved his mother, he was certainly not the example of filial
piety when it came to the matter of “acknowledging one’s ancestors,” at least
from the point of view of the Chinese. Moreover, Rizal's refusal to admit his
Chinese ancestry was not an expedient to escape criminal charges, as some
obstinately maintain. Since he had never considered China as his ancestral
land, he never had any sense of guilt for his supposed impiety. What puts the
Chinese to utter shame is: Not only did he “refuse to acknowledge his
ancestors,” he even had a “particular” hatred of Chinese. What is extremely
paradoxical is this: He was unable to endure the Spanish vilification of native
Filipinos, and he spoke out against White discrimination of Blacks in America,
but he turned a blind eye to the humiliation of the Chinese, and even rejoiced
and participated in it. And what leaves one dumbfounded is this: After
inspecting the house of Rizal's ancestors in Fujian, Ms. Wu Qiong, a graduate of
the Philippine Language program of Peking University, declared that the words 光耀家邦 (guāngyaò jiābāng; to glorify family and
country) inscribed on a tablet inside the house are “very appropriate as praise
for the great Jose Rizal”(Note 44)! When did Rizal ever intentionally try to
“glorify” his “family and country” in China? On the contrary, we have seen the
portrayal of Chinese as idiots in his writings. So what is the “historical and
cultural connotation” of all these efforts by the Chinese to construct a “Rizal
Memorial Plaza” and a monument to Rizal in Shangguo Village? If the reason for
all this is Rizal’s patriotic struggle against Spanish colonial rule, then
Bonifacio should also have his own monument in China. From all this emerges the
true reason—pedigree-ism.
Erecting a monument in China for a Philippine national hero who refused to
acknowledge China as the land of his ancestors and who utterly hated the
Chinese is surely embarrassing. Although the deed had been done, and Rizal
Memorial Plaza does already exist at its site in Shangguo Village, there are
still ways to right some wrongs, and bring the plaza to greater conformity with
the historical facts that this writer has enumerated.
This writer recently learned from a reliable source that the statue of Rizal on
the Shangguo monument bears no resemblance at all to Rizal. The reason behind
this was a case of “duplication,” as the Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran association
had commissioned a bronze statue of Rizal to be made locally, without knowing
at the time that another one was being “fashioned” in China. In the end, the
Rizal statue “made in China” was used for the monument.
If so, it would be easy to correct matters. What needs to be done is simply to
clothe the statue in a 馬褂 măguà or mandarin
ceremonial jacket, add a pigtail, rename the statue “柯南哥” (Ke Nange), inscribe the Western name “Domingo
Lamco,” and change the name of the plaza to “Rizal Ancestors Memorial Plaza.”
This way, everything will fit logically. The name of Rizal will be kept, but
the emphasis will be on Rizal's ancestry, and not on the emotional relationship
between Rizal and China or between Rizal and the Chinese.
Ke Nange will suddenly become an important figure, thanks to the “machinations
of history”! If he had not crossed the seas to earn a living in the
Philippines, if he had not been baptized as a Catholic in 1697, if he had not
married the Chinese mestiza Ines de la Rosa, there would not have been born the
fifth generation Jose Rizal (Note 45). This would be congruent with the
statement of Dr. Panlasigui, which the editors of Rizal and China wanted to
emphasize in the “Publisher’s Note” to the reprint of his article, that “Dr.
Jose Rizal (Note 46), the greatest hero of the Filipinos, was the most important
and most significant Chinese contribution to the Philippines.” Thus, according
to the incontrovertible evidence of the genealogical records, the “gene” for
this “contribution” came from the Chinese immigrant Ke Nange, although he of
course did not intentionally “clone” his fifth generation descendant Jose
Rizal. Therefore, the person worth commemorating with a monument at Shangguo is
the Chinese immigrant Ke Nange, and not the great Jose Rizal, who refused to
acknowledge Ke Nange as his ancestor.
The Cultural Cover-Up Gang (文化蓋幫) Gets Its Way
To sum it up, Rizal had no “intimate
relationship” with China. He could have had what may be considered
an intimate relationship with China by virtue of his lineage, but he did not
acknowledge his ancestry, and so it could not be termed an intimate
relationship. Lu Xun had a high estimation of Rizal’s works, due probably to
his empathy with Rizal’s anti-colonial struggle and his appreciation of Rizal
as a hero. [Translator's note: 魯迅 Lu Xun (1881-1936) was one of the leading lights of
the New Culture Movement in China, and is widely considered as the most
influential Chinese writer of the 20th century. See Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
(New York: Berkshire Publishing Group, 2002), s.v. “Lu Xun,” by Yomi Braester;
and The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed., Micropædia, s.v. “Lu Hsün.”]
Considering Prof. Ling Zhang’s comment that “although Lu Xun’s review of
Rizal’s works was brief” and that “Lu Xun in his early years had given a high
estimation of Rizal just on the basis of a single novel [Noli Me Tangere] and a
single poem [‘Mi Ultimo Adios’],”(Note 47) we may guess that Lu Xun had not
read the Fili, which was replete with anti-Chinese passages. If he had, he
would have also understood and lamented Rizal’s anti-Chinese sentiments, since the
Chinese at that time were the sick men of East Asia, despised by the world.
While in Japan, Lu Xun had seen a newsreel about a Chinese agent under Russian
employ who got arrested by the Japanese. When the Chinese agent was about to be
executed by the firing squad, the Chinese onlookers in the newsreel all
appeared numb and unmoved. Because of this incident, Lu Xun decided to give up
his medical career and concentrate on writing, hoping to free the Chinese from
their stupor and cowardice through his forceful writing style (Note 48). So
what Prof. Ling Zhang mentioned is just an indication of Lu Xun’s personal
respect for Rizal, and not proof of Rizal's amicable relationship with China.
It is not that easy to extract evidences of an amicable relationship “between
Rizal and China” from the facts. Thus, aside from “ignoring” the ubiquitous
anti-Chinese vituperations in Rizal’s novel and letters, it became necessary to
invent lies, draw far-fetched interpretations, and exaggerate any traces (if
such traces do exist) of Rizal's “pro-Chinese” stance. It is for this reason
that this writer was able to have the valuable experience of being “reminded”
about downplaying Rizal’s “anti-Chineseness.”(Note 49)
Speaking of “downplaying,” Rizal and China simply quoted Rizal Yuyitung's short
“bit” of criticism of Rizal's anti-Chinese position, and did not delve further
into this important “bit.” It raises the suspicion that its intention is for
readers to skim through it and not have any lasting impressions. In this way, the
editors could perfunctorily claim that the book “already mentioned Rizal's
anti-Chinese position.” The entire book is a one-sided eulogy of Rizal.
Actually, it emphasizes Rizal's Chinese lineage over everything else, and so
there is not much anti-Chinese content in it to downplay. This is in sharp
contrast to the Rizal studies produced in recent decades by mainstream society
exhibiting objective analysis rather than blind adoration. It is sad that
certain history experts in our Chinese-Filipino community are still trapped in
the Maoist mindset of hero worship. Even the veteran Southeast Asia experts of
Beijing have joined the bandwagon of “covering up” the anti-Chinese Rizal. Such
is the work of cowards who are unable to face historical truth!
But on second thought, this writer may be mistaken! “Covering up” is, in a way,
an instrument used by wise men to adapt to the circumstances. Throughout all
eras and cultures, is this not the way history has been written? Is this not
the way biographies of famous figures have been compiled? As a final question,
we may ask: What was the purpose for the publication of Rizal and China? All
the mysteries enumerated by this essay revolve around the answer to this one
question.
Changing the Title to Conform to the Truth
As mentioned, this writer had previously been “ordered to downplay Rizal's
anti-Chinese sentiments.” At that time, this writer was too naïve to understand
the rationale for this. When Rizal and China was launched during
“Philippines-China Friendship Day” on June 19, 2002, this writer belatedly
realized that the “downplaying mission” which I so lightly abandoned was
actually part of the great project of “Fostering Philippine-Chinese
Friendship.” The “rabidly anti-Chinese” Rizal had been chosen to serve as the
paragon of “Philippine-Chinese friendship.” Rizal and China was published to
serve as “a memorial to Philippine-Chinese friendship.” To this writer, this
book is a great “farce” of history, despite the fact that it carried the
resounding “trademark” of “Peking University.” Does this mean that the
officials of Peking University intend to stake its hitherto outstanding
reputation on the book's veracity?
Obviously, the intended readers of Rizal and China are Chinese, including the
overseas Chinese in other countries and their descendants who still have a
command of the language. The book attempts to inspire Chinese confidence in
Rizal by using his Chinese lineage. Perhaps the editors of Rizal and China have
underestimated the ability of Chinese all over the world to recognize the facts
and fictions of Philippine history, as evident in the following line in the
article 《“別矣我宗邦﹐視死我如歸”》 [“Farewell my
country, I face death without fear”;
title rendered in English by translator] (Note 50) by Bang Gui (Go Bon Juan): “the local Chinese [in the Philippines]...are probably
not that knowledgeable or familiar with his [Rizal's] works and thought.” It is
possible that this assumption led the editors to fearlessly twist history and
fashion the new image of a pro-Chinese Rizal. Although the purpose of the book
is to “foster Philippine-Chinese friendship,” achieving this by sacrificing
intellectual honesty, concealing the truth, and propagating falsehoods is still
a great sin against all Chinese. The most serious effect will be seen in the
academic realm, as students of history who will read this book will be
misinformed and will transmit these falsehoods to future generations. The
construction of a monument to Rizal in Shangguo Village is an example of the
ill effects of this serious mistake, but it is of course a glorious achievement
of disinformation by the scholars of the Chinese-Filipino cover-up gang. This
writer suggests that the title of Rizal and China should be changed to “Rizal's
Chinese Overcoat.” With such a title, readers can then understand the book’s
purpose, and the question of its historical accuracy will become a moot issue.
Conclusion
It must be clarified that this essay does not intend to denigrate the
exceptional achievements of Rizal. Rizal exposed the oppressiveness of Spanish
rule, vehemently attacked the religious functionaries who committed heinous
atrocities in the name of religion, and questioned the basis of Catholic dogma.
All these deeds are worthy of our approval. This writer still maintains that
Rizal is the greatest among Filipino national heroes, not because of his
Chinese ancestry, but because of his superb intellect, sincere patriotism, and
ardent sense of righteousness. But Rizal, being human, was not perfect. This
writer has never been in favor of intentionally hiding or downplaying Rizal's
anti-Chinese consciousness. Instead, this writer thinks that it should be
revealed to all Chinese, who should “tackle it straight on and understand it,”
and that it should be allowed to serve as a reminder of the continuing
prevalence of the “Quiroga phenomenon” in our present-day Chinese-Filipino
community. It is hoped that the reader will be in agreement with this writer's
attitude towards history and historical truth.
However, one question continuously haunted this writer's mind while collating
data and doing research for this essay. If Rizal had been the leader of the
armed revolution, and if he had become President after its successful outcome,
what policy would he have adopted towards the Chinese immigrants? What would
have been the fate of our ancestors who were then residing in the Philippines?
This writer also wishes to inform the reader that he had harbored the idea for
such an exposition for two years, and that what inspired him to set aside all
scruples and begin putting all this into writing were the following words of
Ms. Zi Zhongyun from China (Note 51): “How great it would be if there were a
few more committed individuals who would focus their attention on the study,
research and investigation of these works! More discussions of academic
questions in the newspapers and magazines would serve to advance scholarship,
even if these discussions involved sharp debates. Newcomers who can scale the
shoulders of their predecessors and attain greater heights by supplying what
was previously lacking, providing different insights, or creating altogether
novel systems [of knowledge] would be a boon to academia. The rule of progress
dictates that newcomers should surpass their predecessors....”
Of course, this writer is just an amateur Chinese-Filipino history aficionado.
Having had limited years of formal education, this writer is lacking in
cultivation, and would never attain the erudition of experts who have read
extensively on this field, much less surpass our predecessors. The only unique
thing that this writer can offer is a sense of intellectual honesty that has
not been contaminated by political motives. It cannot be denied that behind
this intellectual honesty is another driving force—a very strong sense of right
and wrong which compels one to speak out against intolerable errors. This is
probably something that all “Rizal-like” individuals should have! Rizal's
condemnation of hypocrisy has been commended by the Philippine history experts
in Beijing. This writer's exposé of the cultural cover-up gang (文化蓋幫) in the Chinese-Filipino community is an
echo of that commendation. It is hoped that this writer’s efforts in exposing
the truth will prevent Chinese people who have no access to Philippine
historical materials and who are busy with their commercial pursuits from being
deceived and misled by “local” individuals who distort history as they please.
It is also hoped that the genuine Rizal will emerge through the shrunken
Chinese overcoat and be seen for who he really is.
The writer thanks the reader for his/her
time and effort. Hoping that it may reach Chinese all over the world, this
writer also requests the reader to show or transmit this essay to friends and
acquaintances. Any opinions, thoughts, or corrections may be directed to the
writer at tuipan@yahoo.com, fax number 63-2-9849554, or mobile number +63917-8380008.
Excerpts
During a party of the UP Association of Foreign Students in 1961, the late
Filipino historian Teodoro A. Agoncillo met Nonong Quezon, the son of the late
Philippine President Manuel L. Quezon. He didn't expect to hear this from him:
“As a matter of fact,…you know Professor, I am not satisfied with biographies
written about my father.” Agoncillo asked him why, to which Nonong replied
“Because it appears my father is a saint! Which he was not!”
According to Agoncillo, “A biography should be faithful to truth. I do not
believe that a biography of a man should be all praises, it should be both
[praise and criticism] because it is not bad to show the human side of a
person. You make him human by painting the defects.”
– from Ambeth R. Ocampo, Talking History: Conversations with Teodoro Andal
Agoncillo (Manila: De La Salle University Press, Inc., 1995), p. 11.
If Rizal's soul in heaven still has a sense of propriety, it would be extremely
grateful towards the enlightened individuals of our present-day
Chinese-Filipino community who, despite his strong anti-Chinese sentiments,
still give him credit for exposing the dark side of Spanish colonial rule with
his pen. These individuals have the greatest respect for the stern spirit of
righteousness manifested by Rizal in dying for his country. They have even
decided to forget old misunderstandings and have exerted all effort to research
and to verify the truth of Rizal’s Chinese roots. However, Rizal must surely
have had mixed feelings as he witnessed the bustling spectacle of the
pilgrimage undertaken by sixty-eight of his family members who scrambled to pay
homage to their Chinese ancestors—an act diametrically opposed to his
convictions. Nevertheless, in the end he would undoubtedly have been moved by
the serious and dignified devotion shown by his well-intentioned family as they
burned joss sticks, offered wreaths, and kowtowed to their ancestors in
complete accordance with the customs of Shangguo Village.
As he takes a bird's-eye view of all the commemorative activities held in
recent years by Chinese-Filipinos who idolize him, maybe Rizal would regret his
past disdain for the Chinese. But then it is equally likely that he would warn
the Chinese not to focus all their attention on him to the neglect of other
national heroes who are not of Chinese ancestry, as this would constitute “Han
Chinese chauvinism.” He would probably also demand that the Chinese community
produce more great figures from its ranks the likes of Sun Yat-sen, instead of
letting the likes of Quiroga proliferate unendingly.
– from the concluding portion of 塗一般 [Tu Yiban] [Alfonso Ong Ang], 《正視黎剎的排華意識》(Facing up to Rizal’s
anti-Chinese consciousness), Chinese Commercial News (Manila), 14 June 2000, 《讀與寫》(Reading and writing) supplement.
Rizal's extreme dislike for the Chinese traders can be seen from the disgusting
image of the Chinese leader Quiroga that he fashioned in El Filibusterismo. But
in all fairness, if Quiroga had truly been as detestable as he described, then
Rizal could not be blamed for being anti-Chinese. Is it not interesting that
the various attributes of Quiroga—hypocrisy, affectation, cunning, love of
profit, currying favor with officials, engaging in speculative business
undertakings—are still so familiarly manifested by “certain” leaders of our
Chinese community today? As long as the likes of Quiroga continue to exist in
the Chinese community, anti-Chinese occurrences will surface, and we will never
have peace and quiet.
– from the final part of 塗一般 [Tu Yiban] [Alfonso Ong Ang], 《正視黎剎的排華意識》
(Facing up to Rizal's anti-Chinese consciousness).
It is inconvenient for those in the know to talk about something, while those
who do talk are not necessarily in the know. As time passes the ones in the
know die out, leaving behind the talkers who are not necessarily in the know.
Understanding this principle, one would then realize how the history and heroes
of old were invented.
– words of Guo Muoruo, quoted from 映泉 [Ying Quan], 《史志迷霧》(The mists of the historical annals), in 《中國人的謊言》(Lies of the Chinese people) (Wuhan: 長江文藝出版社 [Changjiang Wenyi Publishing Company],
Feb. 2002), p. 1.
Endnotes:
1. 柯芳楠 [Ke Fangnan]
[Melanio Cua Fernando], 《黎剎祖籍地考證始末》 (The complete account of the research on
Rizal’s ancestral hometown), in 《黎薩爾與中國》(Rizal and China), eds. 周南京 [Zhou Nanjing], 凌彰 [Ling Zhang], and吳文煥 [Go Bon Juan], Peking University Center
for Overseas Chinese Studies Series, no. 13 (Hong Kong: Nan Dao Publisher, May 2001),
p. 49.
2. 王勇 [Wang Yong]
[Jameson Wong], 《菲律濱國父黎剎後裔探訪記》
(The search for the descendants of Rizal, Father of the Philippines), in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》(Rizal and China), p. 75.
[Translator's note: Rizal is often given the appellation 國父 guófù meaning “father
of the state/country” by Chinese writers. Such a title was never applied to
Rizal in the Philippines. The title 國父 had been conferred by the Chinese Nationalist
government on the Chinese revolutionary leader Sun Yat-sen, and it is possible
that Chinese writers mistakenly assume that Rizal had been conferred the same
title in the Philippines. See 《民族英雄 — 扶西黎薩爾》 (National hero—Jose Rizal) in Philippine Chinese Daily (Manila), 19
October 2007, p. 23. One writer, Cua Ching Tam, uses the term 國父 for Rizal because he is supposedly
revered like a father of the country. See 柯清淡 [Cua Ching Tam], 《論黎剎思想中的“逢華必反”誤區 — 從 Dolphy 春節辱華及周南京反擊說起》
(Discussion of the erroneous strand of “opposing
all things Chinese” in Rizal's thought—Starting
off from Dolphy's insult of the Chinese and Zhou Nanjing's counterattack) in
Philippine Chinese Daily, 13 December 2007, p. 13, endnote no. 4. The article
is the latest revision of his earlier article 《黎剎思想中的“逢華必反”誤區 — 從 Dolphy 春節辱華及周南京反擊說起》
(The erroneous strand of “opposing all things Chinese” in Rizal's thought—Starting off from Dolphy's insult
of the Chinese and Zhou Nanjing's counterattack), in World News (Manila), 25
March 2007, p. 12. The article was reprinted in Sino-Fil Daily (Manila), 28
March 2007, p. 7, with some minor differences, and one major change. When first
published in the World News, Rizal was referred to as 民族英雄 mínzú yīngxióng or “national hero.” However, in the Sino-Fil Daily reprint, all instances
of 民族英雄 were changed to
國父.]
3. 塗一般 [Tu Yiban]
[Alfonso Ong Ang], 《寫作的政治使命!》 (The political mission of writing!), Chinese
Commercial News (Manila), 20 October 2004, 《讀與寫》 (Reading and writing) supplement, p. 23.
4. 《融合》編者 [“Yong Hap”
editor] [Go Bon Juan], 《對發現黎剎祖籍地有感》
(Reflections on the discovery of Rizal’s
ancestral hometown), in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》(Rizal and China), p. 79.
5. Ambeth R. Ocampo, “Memory and amnesia: Rizal on the eve of his centenary,” in Meaning and History: The Rizal Lectures (Pasig
City: Anvil Publishing, Inc., 2001), p. 12, par. 2.
6. Asuncion Lopez-Rizal Bantug with Sylvia Mendez Ventura, Indio Bravo: The
Story of José Rizal (Makati City: Tahanan Pacific, Inc., 1997), p. 87.
7. León Ma. Guerrero, The First Filipino: A Biography of Jose Rizal
([Philippines]: Guerrero Publishing, 1998), p. 401; National Historical
Institute edition (Manila: National Historical Institute, 1963), p. 473.
8. The son of Carlos Palanca, Tan Gang (陳剛), was the one actually appointed to be China’s first consul to the Philippines. However, Carlos
Palanca was allowed to serve as provisional consul during the first few months
of the term, while his son was not yet able to assume the post. The account is
found in Edgar Wickberg, The Chinese in Philippine Life 1850-1898 (New Haven
& London: Yale University Press, 1965; republished ed., Quezon City: Ateneo
de Manila University Press, 2000), p. 201; Chinese translation by 吳文煥 [Go
Bon Juan], 《菲律賓生活中的華人 1850-1898》 (Manila: World News Publications, Inc. and Kaisa Para
Sa Kaunlaran, Inc., Nov. 1989), p. 202, par. 2.
9. 塗一般 [Tu Yiban]
[Alfonso Ong Ang], 《非全善的陳謙善》 (The not entirely benevolent Carlos Palanca), Chinese
Commercial News (Manila), 6 October 2004, 《讀與寫》 (Reading and writing) supplement, p. 23.
10. 塗一般 [Tu Yiban]
[Alfonso Ong Ang], 《蓋幫三寶》 (Three treasures of the Gaibang), in 《博土經》 (Bo Tu Jing) vol. 1 ([Philippines]: by
the author, 2003), p. 74.
11. José Rizal, El Filibusterismo, Edición Centenaria del Martirio
del Dr. José Rizal (Manila: Instituto Histórico Nacional, 1996), p. 120.
12. 塗一般 [Tu Yiban] [Alfonso Ong Ang], 《正視黎剎的排華意識》 (Facing up to Rizal’s
anti-Chinese consciousness), Chinese Commercial News (Manila), 14 June 2000, 《讀與寫》 (Reading and writing) supplement.
13. Ibid.
14. Sylvia Mendez Ventura, Supremo: The Story of Andres Bonifacio (Makati City:
Tahanan Books, 2001), p. 78.
15. Edgar Wickberg, The Chinese in Philippine Life 1850-1898 (New Haven &
London: Yale University Press, 1965; republished ed., Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press, 2000), p. 232, pars. 1 and 2; Chinese translation by 吳文煥 [Go
Bon Juan], 《菲律賓生活中的華人 1850-1898》 (Manila: World News Publications, Inc. and Kaisa Para
Sa Kaunlaran, Inc., Nov. 1989), p. 234, final paragraph.
16. Dr. Caroline S. Hau is the daughter of famous Chinese-Filipino painter Hau
Chiok and his wife Sy Chiu Hua.
17. Caroline S. Hau, Necessary Fictions: Philippine Literature and the Nation,
1946-1980 (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2000), p. 142, par.
2. The entire fourth chapter “Alien Nation” is devoted to the image of the
Chinese as gleaned from the writings of Filipino literary figures, and is worth
reading again and again.
18. National Historical Institute, Letters Between Rizal and Family Members,
1993 English ed. (Manila: National Historical Institute, 1993), letter of 22
October 1895, p. 405.
[Translator's note: For the original letter in Spanish see Biblioteca Nacional
de Filipinas, Epistolario Rizalino, 5 vols. (Manila: Bureau of Printing,
1930-38), vol. 4 (1936), letter 670: De Rizal a su Madre, p. 262.]
19. Ambeth R. Ocampo, “The Great Dapitan Stocking Market,” in Rizal Without the
Overcoat (Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc., 2000), p. 66, par. 2.
20. Nick Joaquin, Rizal in Saga: A Life for Student Fans ([Philippines]:
Philippine National Centennial Commission, Rizal Martyrdom Centennial
Commission, and GMA Foundation Inc., 1996), p. 290, par. 2.
21. 周南京 [Zhou Nanjing],
《應該如何評價何塞‧黎薩爾 — 評《菲律賓史稿》、《菲律賓社會與革命》等書有關何塞‧黎薩爾的論述》 (How to appraise Jose Rizal—Evaluating the discussions about Rizal in Manuscript
of Philippine History and Philippine Society and Revolution), in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》 (Rizal and China), pp. 139-154.
22. 凌彰 [Ling Zhang], 《笑中有淚 笑中有怒 — 試論黎薩爾小說的諷刺藝術》 (Tears and rage amidst the laughter—An attempted exposition of the art of satire in Rizal’s novels), in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》 (Rizal and China), pp. 254-266.
23. Hau, Necessary Fictions, p. 140, par. 3.
24. 劉番 [Liu Fan]
[Alfonso Ong Ang], 《黎剎和他的許多“家” 》 (Rizal and his numerous titles of expertise), Chinese
Commercial News (Manila), 26 August 2003, 《大眾論壇》 (Public forum) section.
[Translator's note: In Gregorio F. Zaide and Sonia M. Zaide, Jose Rizal: Life,
Works, and Writings of a Genius, Writer, Scientist and National Hero, 2nd ed.
(Quezon City: All-Nations Publishing Co., Inc., 1999), p. 1, Rizal is described
as a “...physician (ophthalmic surgeon), poet, dramatist, essayist, novelist,
historian, architect, painter, sculptor, educator, linguist, musician…and
prophet”—35 titles in all, plus “hero and political martyr.” In p. 232 of the
same book, Rizal is said to have known 22 languages (including “Chinese”) by
1896.]
25. 立菲 [Li Fei] [Go
Bon Juan], 《黎剎對麻逸的考證》 (Rizal’s
research on Mayi), in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》 (Rizal and China), p. 203.
26. 塗一般 [Tu Yiban]
[Alfonso Ong Ang], 《寫作的政治使命!》 (The political mission of writing!), Chinese
Commercial News (Manila), 20 October 2004, 《讀與寫》 (Reading and writing) supplement, p. 23.
27. 周南京 [Zhou Nanjing],
《我所認識的吳文煥》 (The Go Bon Juan I know), in《華僑華人問題概論》 (Compendium on issues pertaining to
overseas Chinese and ethnic Chinese), Peking University Center for Overseas
Chinese Studies Series, no. 19 (Hong Kong: 香港社會科學出版社有限公司 [Hong Kong Press for Social Science Ltd], 2003), p.
346; originally published in Chinese Commercial News (Manila), 23 December
1999, 《大眾論壇》 (Public forum)
section.
28. Gregorio F. Zaide, “Rizal as Sinologist,”
Chinese translation 《黎剎作為漢學家》, in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》 (Rizal and China), p. 197 par. 2.
[Translator's note: The quotation was taken from Gregorio F. Zaide, “Rizal as Sinologist,” in
The Fookien Times Yearbook 1960 (Manila: The Fookien Times Co., Inc., 1960), p.
263. Zaide’s article was translated into Chinese as 《黎剎作為漢學家》 and published in the Chinese language supplement 《融合》 (Yong Hap or Integration), Issue No. 487,
World News (Manila), 29 December 1996, pp. 4-5.]
29. Ibid., p. 196 last paragraph, to p. 197 first paragraph.
[Translator's note: The quotation was taken from Gregorio F. Zaide, “Rizal as
Sinologist,” in The Fookien Times Yearbook 1960 (Manila: The Fookien Times Co.,
Inc., 1960), p. 263.]
30. 吳文換 [sic] [Go Bon Juan], 《黎剎抨擊美國歧視華人》
(Rizal denounces American discrimination of Chinese), in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》 (Rizal and China), p. 193.
31. Floro C. Quibuyen, A Nation Aborted: Rizal, American Hegemony, and
Philippine Nationalism (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1999),
p. 156, par. 3 et seq.
32. Ibid., p. 157, pars. 3-4, including Dr. Quibuyen’s commentary.
33. 胡垣坤 [Hu Yuankun], 曾露凌 [Zeng Luling], 譚雅倫 [Tan Yalun], eds., 《美國早期漫畫中的華人》 (The Chinese in early American cartoons)
(Hong Kong: Joint Publishing (H.K.) Co., Ltd., 1994), p. 85.
34. Isidoro Panlasigui, “Dr. Jose Rizal’s Chinese Ancestry,” Chinese
translation 《黎剎博士的家系》 (The genealogy of Dr. Rizal), in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》 (Rizal and China), p. 37, line 8.
[Translator's note: The quotation was taken from Isidoro Panlasigui, “Dr. Jose Rizal's Chinese Ancestry,” in The Fookien Times Yearbook 1956 (Manila: The
Fookien Times Co., Inc., Sept. 1956), p. 151. See also translator’s note on
endnote no. 46.]
35. 《融合》編者 [“Yong Hap”
editor] [Go Bon Juan], 《對發現黎剎祖籍地有感》
(Reflections on the discovery of Rizal's ancestral hometown), in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》 (Rizal and China), p. 79, line 2.
[Translator's note: The article by Esteban A. de Ocampo, “Chinese Greatest Contribution to the Philippines—The Birth of Dr. Jose Rizal,” was included in Shubert S. C. Liao, ed., Chinese
Participation in Philippine Culture and Economy ([Philippines]: by the editor,
1964), pp. 89-95.]
36. Gregorio F. Zaide, Jose Rizal: Life, Works and Writings (Metro Manila:
National Book Store, Inc., 1992), Author’s Preface, p. vi.
37. Ambeth Ocampo, “Plaque to mark HK home of Rizal today,” Philippine Daily
Inquirer (Makati), 30 December 2004, pp. A1, A4.
38. León Ma. Guerrero, The First Filipino: A Biography of Jose Rizal
([Philippines]: Guerrero Publishing, 1998), p. 105, last line; National
Historical Institute edition (Manila: National Historical Institute, 1963), p.
123, line 10.
39. Gregorio F. Zaide and Sonia M. Zaide, Jose Rizal: Life, Works and Writings
of a Genius, Writer, Scientist and National Hero, 2nd ed. (Quezon City:
All-Nations Publishing Co., Inc., 1999), Chapter 7, pp. 80-86.
40. Ibid., p. 87.
41. Ibid., Chapter 11, p. 124, par. 2.
[Translator's note: In his letter, Rizal wrote that he did not leave the ship
because (1) it was raining heavily, and because (2) he had been told that it
was very cold and that Emuy (Xiamen) was very dirty. See Biblioteca Nacional de
Filipinas, Epistolario Rizalino, 5 vols. (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1930-38),
vol. 2 (1931), letter 186: De Rizal a Ponce, p. 33.]
42. National Historical Institute, The Rizal-Blumentritt Correspondence, 2
vols. (Manila: National Historical Institute, 1961; 2nd printing, 1992), vol.
2, letter 198, p. 491.
[Translator’s note: See Biblioteca Nacional de Filipinas, Epistolario Rizalino,
5 vols. (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1930-38), vol. 5 pt. 2 (1938), letter 112,
p. 667 for the German original, and p. 669 for the Spanish translation.]
43. 塗一般 [Tu Yiban]
[Alfonso Ong Ang], 《正視黎剎的排華意識》
(Facing up to Rizal’s anti-Chinese consciousness), Chinese Commercial News
(Manila), 14 June 2000, 《讀與寫》 (Reading and writing) supplement.
44. 吳瓊 [Wu Qiong], 《菲律賓國父根在中國 — 一位北大生的上郭尋訪記》 (The roots of the Father of the
Philippines are in China—Record of a Peking University student’s inquiries in Shangguo), in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》 (Rizal and China), p. 73, second to the last
paragraph.
[Translator's note: For an explanation of “Father of the Philippines,” see
translator's note on endnote no. 2.]
45. Edgar Wickberg, The Chinese Mestizo in Philippine History, with Chinese
translation (《菲律賓歷史上的華人混血兒》) by Go Bon Juan (Manila: Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran,
Inc., 2001), p. 5, last paragraph; Chinese translation p. 63, last paragraph.
46. This is an error, since Rizal had never been conferred the doctoral degree;
see 塗一般 [Tu Yiban]
[Alfonso Ong Ang], 《稱黎剎為博士違背史實》 (Calling Rizal boshi runs counter to
historical facts), World News (Manila), 17 May 2008, 《世界廣場》 (Public square) supplement, p. 12.
[Translator's note: The quotation was taken from Isidoro Panlasigui, “Dr. Jose Rizal’s
Chinese Ancestry,” in The Fookien Times Yearbook 1956 (Manila: The
Fookien Times Co., Inc., Sept. 1956), p. 151. A Chinese translation of the
article also appeared as 《黎剎博士的家系》 (The genealogy of Dr. Rizal) on pp.
272-275. In 1999, the Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran, Inc. reprinted Panlasigui’s original article and the Chinese translation in the
form of a booklet, and added a “Publisher’s Note” in both English and Chinese.
The Chinese “Publisher’s Note” (《出版說明》)
appears on page 24 of Rizal and China, followed by the Chinese translation of
Panlasigui’s article. In the Chinese, “Dr. Rizal” is translated
as “黎剎博士.”
Whereas the English term “doctor” can mean either
“physician” or “a person holding a doctoral degree,” the Chinese term 博士 bóshì means only the latter. The fact that Rizal had not
been conferred the doctoral degree is elucidated in Gregorio F. Zaide and Sonia
M. Zaide, Jose Rizal: Life, Works, and Writings of a Genius, Writer, Scientist
and National Hero, 2nd ed. (Quezon City: All-Nations Publishing Co., Inc.,
1999), pp. 76-77. In Rizal’s case, “Dr.” should be translated as 醫生 yīshēng, which means “physician.” See for example 《黎剎的名片》
(Rizal’s business card) in Philippine Chinese Daily (Manila),
25 November 2007, p. 22.]
47. 凌彰 [Ling Zhang], 《魯迅評介黎薩爾的重要意義》 (The
significance of Lu Xun’s review of Rizal), in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》 (Rizal and China), p. 97.
48. 王士菁 [Wang Shijing],
《魯迅傳》 (Biography of
Lu Xun) (Shanghai: 三聯書店 [Shanghai Joint Publishing Company], April 1950), pp.
48-49.
49. 塗一般 [Tu Yiban]
[Alfonso Ong Ang], 《寫作的政治使命!》 (The political mission of writing!), Chinese
Commercial News (Manila), 20 October 2004, 《讀與寫》 (Reading and writing) supplement, p. 23.
50. 邦歸 [Bang Gui] [Go
Bon Juan], 《“別矣我宗邦﹐視死我如歸”》 (“Farewell my
country, I face death without fear”),
in Zhou, 《黎薩爾與中國》 (Rizal and China), p. 430, par. 3.
[Translator's note: The lines comprising the title of the article have a
convoluted origin. They were taken from a Chinese translation of Charles
Derbyshire’s English translation of Rizal’s poem “Mi Ultimo Adios.” See Rizal
and China p. 391.]
51. 資中筠 [Zi Zhongyun], 《有感于馮友蘭先生的“反芻”》 (Reflections on Mr. Feng Youlan's “regurgitation”),
in 《讀書人的出世與入世》
(Scholars' withdrawal from and participation in worldly affairs) (Beijing:
China Social Sciences Press, Feb. 2002), p. 29, last paragraph. Ms. Zi Zhongyun
is a graduate of Tsinghua University, a Chinese expert on international issues
and US-related research, and a researcher and former director of the Institute
of American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
張貼者: 塗一般_博土 (非博士) 於 上午6:46
首頁
MY COMMENTS
The above work is well-written and well-reasoned, based on historical information, and so I think it deserves to be disseminated.
My father’s
grandfather was a Spaniard born in the south of Spain, in a town called Montoro near the city of Córdoba. His name was
Pedro Medina Benítez. He was my
great-grandfather. But I do not consider myself a Spanish Filipina. I am simply, Filipina. I never even considered myself a Spanish
mestiza. I was raised in the Filipino
culture and traditions, not in the Spanish traditions. My father spoke fluent Spanish but he didn’t
teach his children to speak in Spanish.
My mother’s father looks Spanish Chinese in his pictures. But I do not consider myself Chinese
Filipino. I think many Filipinos have
some Chinese blood, as Rizal did, but it
doesn’t mean that we are Chinese Filipinos.
Lam-co, the father
of Rizal’s great-grandfather, according to Retana married a native Tagalog lady. The above article states that he married the mestiza daughter of a Chinese merchant. Again, according to Retana, Rizal’s
great-grandfather, a Chinese Filipino mestizo, married a native Tagalog
lady. Rizal’s grandfather was a Filipino
with some Chinese mestizo blood, who then married another Tagalog lady.
According to Filomeno V. Aguilar Jr. in his
essay entitled “Capitalismo azucarero. Los caminos divergentes de las haciendas en la isla de Negros y en Calamba”:
“En el caso de Rizal, su abuelo logró que se transfiriera oficialmente a su
familia de la lista de tributarios mestizos chinos, a la lista de tributarios
naturales” (In Rizal’s case, his grandfather succeeded in getting his family
officially transferred from the list of Chinese mestizo tribute payers to the list
of native tribute payers.)
It was
in the interest of don Juan Mercado to do so because it lowered the tribute
that he and his family had to pay; but the Spanish were extremely bureaucratic
and would not have allowed the transfer without don Juan’s submitting many
notarized documents that satisfactorily proved that he was not a Chinese
mestizo. In strict terms, a sangley or
Chinese mestizo was the offspring of a Chinese parent and a native parent. But the children of the Chinese mestizo, if
their mother and grandmother are native women, can no longer be considered
Chinese mestizos because by then they have been raised in the native culture and
language, which are passed on by the mother and her family. The Chinese who came to the Philippines came
as single men, they did not bring their wives or children. Therefore, when they married native women
they did not offer their children the cultural formation that only close
contact with extended family can provide.
In fact, the Chinese were interested in becoming Hispanicized as it made
doing business and fitting into their adopted social milieu much easier.
It became much
easier for Chinese to do this after Filipinas became a U.S. colony, and with the ease
of modern travel between their native country and ours. So in modern-day Philippines, probably a
Filipino with a Chinese grandfather or great-grandfather could consider him or
herself a Chinese mestizo because not only do they have some Chinese blood but
they also have been raised to know and form bonds with their Chinese relatives.
This was not the case
in Hispanic-Philippines, where anti-Chinese sentiment was even more intense
than its remnants in our contemporary postmodern society. In the 19th century people who moved to another country typically never returned to their native land again, or ever saw their family members who had stayed behind, again. It was actually very sad.
For the above reason, i.e., extrapolating modern conditions to that past, today's Chinese
Filipinos may be fully convinced that Rizal was a Chinese mestizo, or Chinese Filipino. However, this is a subjective cultural cooperation without basis on historical or objective facts. In Rizal's own
time, in his own social and racial milieu, Rizal did _not_ consider himself
anything other than a pure Filipino of the Malay race. We have to respect this fact. It
is the historical truth and reality.
According to Wenceslao Emilio Retana, the Spanish had a tendency to label outstanding, high-achieving native Filipinos as Chinese mestizos, but always with the assertion of racial inferiority, thus Rizal was called a "mesticillo chino vulgar" (a common, run-of-the mill Chinese mestizo).
That was 19th century Spanish racism, plain and simple. To contest the current claims that Rizal was a Chinese mestizo is not racism; it is based on objective, historically documented fact.