Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
"Catholic," "Mestizo," "Sangley": Negotiating "Chinese" identities in Manila 1870--1905
(USC Thesis Other)
"Catholic," "Mestizo," "Sangley": Negotiating "Chinese" identities in Manila 1870--1905
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
“CATHOLIC,” “MESTIZO,” “BANGLEY”: NEGOTIATING “CHINESE” IDENTITIES IN MANILA, 1870-1905 Copyright 2003 by Richard T. Chu A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (HISTORY) December 2003 Richard I . Chu R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI N u m b er: 3 1 3 3 2 5 1 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3133251 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089*1695 This dissertation, written by :x cUk _ under the direction o f h t < dissertation committee, and approved by all its members, has h em presented to and accepted by the Director o f Graduate and Professional Programs, in partial fulfillment o f the requirements fo r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Director Date ®e c e * k e r 1 7 , 2003 Dissertation Committee Chair R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ii Acknowledgments This dissertation would never have been written and taken the form that it is now without the help and support of the following people, First of all, 1 would like to thank my dissertation com m ittee members at the U niversity o f Southern California; John E. Wills, Jr., Charlotte Furth, and Eugene Cooper. The comments and feedback they gave on the dissertation, as well as the intellectual stimulation and exchange they provided me as I was taking courses with them, have helped me tremendously in shaping the theses and arguments of this dissertation. Secondly , I would like to thank the following people for reading parts of my dissertation, or in its en tirety : the m em bers o f the UC B erkeley H istory D issertation Support Group— Allison Rottmann, Mark McNicholas, Ling Shiao, John Williams, Andrea Goldman; and Go Bon Juan of Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran, Inc. These people have painstakingly gone through the manuscript and provided me with insightful and helpful comments. Thirdly, and most especially, I would like to thank Edgar Wickberg, who not only took time out to read this manuscript and gave comments but also generously shared with me his knowledge about the Chinese in the Philippines. His pioneering work on the Chinese in the Philippines has been a source of inspiration for me. Of course, all the errors of fact and judgment found in this dissertation are mine. This dissertation would not have also been possible without the help of the staff and personnel o f the different archives and libraries that I visited. In Manila, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. jii these people include the following: Fr. Roy Rosales, Director of the Archives of the .Archdiocese of Manila, and his efficient staff, especially Bemie A .. Sobremonte and Lea M, de la Faz; the wonderful staff of the Records Management and Archives Office, namely Rowena, Marvic, Edner. Allan; Fr. Fidel Villaroel, Director of the Spanish Archives at the University o f Santo Tomas, and his able assistant Lulu del Mar; the Lopez Museum Library and its indefatigable and cheerful librarian Mercedita B, Servida; the staff of the American Historical Collection in Ateneo de Manila University; the staff of the Rizal library of the Ateneo de Manila University and University of the Philippines Library; the staff of the Family History Center of 'the Church, of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Manila; and the friendly staff of Kaisa Heritage Center and the Chinben See Memorial Library, namely Liza Alcayde, Maricel Tenorio, Vivian Chan, and especially Gemmalyn Boja, I would also like to thank Fr. Eladio N eira for providing me assistance in my research at the Sto. Domingo Parish in San Juan, Philippines, and for lending me the parish registers of the Parian. In the United States, I would like to thank the staff of the Family History Centers o f the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints in Los Angeles and Oakland, I would also like to thank the staff o f the Genealogical Society of Utah, and Melvin P. Thatcher, Area Manager of its Asia/Pacific/Africa Acquisitions, for assisting me during my two-week research at Salt Lake City in the fall of 1998. These people have given me valuable support and help in different ways during the course of .my research work; Michael Salman of the History Department at University of California, Los Angeles; Rene B. Javellana, SJ.; Jane Po; Josephine R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Khu; and Soo-Young Chin, Special mention goes to “Las Tres Marias”: Tina Bemabe, Maria Cleofe “Repot” 2. Marpa, and Rose Mendoza. They have not only provided me with valuable assistance in my research but also with, the friendship and support to keep me sane and happy during my fieldwork in Manila in the summers of 2000,2001. and 2002. While conducting my research work in Manila, I had the fortune and pleasure of meeting Raul Boncan y Limjap, whose own research on his family has provided me with valuable information regarding his great-grandfather and grandfather; namely, Joaquin Barrera Limjap and Mariano Limjap. My gratitude also goes to Mr. Boncan’s loving companion and partner, Barbara, for providing me with some data from her own research. And to the descendants of Ildefonso Tambunting; namely, Edgardo Tambunting, his wife Maria Teresa Litonjua, and Aristeo Tengco, my thanks for providing me with helpful and interesting information on Ildefonso. My travels to and research in Manila and the United States would not have been made possible without the financial assistance coming from the following institutions and foundations: Maria Elena Yuchengco Philippine Studies Program at the University o f San Francisco; Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran, Inc.; Chinben See Memorial Trust Fund; Program for Cultural Cooperation; China Times Cultural Foundation; Ahmanson Foundation Dissertation Fellowship; the various USC History Department research funds; and Liong Tek Tong Fraternity in Manila. Last but not least, I would like to thank these special people for the love, care, and support they have shown me over the years: Eugenio Menegon, my partner R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. v and life companion; and to my family back in Manila, especially my mother and ray six loving sisters. All of them have stuck with, me through thick and thin, and have reminded me that there is something bigger am! more important in my life outside my work. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii List of Tables vii Abbreviations viii A bstract ix Introduction 1 C hapter 1: The Chinese and Mestizos of Manila; 15 History, Origins, Background Chapter 2; Rethinking the “Catholic Chinese” of Manila 61 Chapter 3; The Chinese Merchants in 102 Tum-of-the-Twentieth~Century Manila: Precursors of Modem Chinese Transnationalism in the Philippines Chapter 4: Rethinking the Chinese Mestizos of the Philippines 160 Chapters.* The Limjaps: The Ethnogenesis of a 209 Chinese-Mestizo-Filipino Family Conclusion 250 Glossary of Chinese Terms 258 List of References 262 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii Lis! of Tables Table 1: Population of the Chinese in the Philippines, 1603-1639 36 Table 2: Chinese population in the Philippines, 1828-1894 39 Table 3: Population, statistics in the Philippines according to ethnic group, 1800-1903 40 Table 4: Number of intermarriages between Chinese men and local Philippine women 81 Table 5; Civil marriage applications between Chinese men and local Philippine women 82 Table 6: List of contracts involving Chinese merchants entering into business contracts with non-Chinese merchants. 118 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abbreviations AAM Archives of the Archdiocese of Manila AUST Archives of the University of Santo Tomas CR Calixto Reyes EBC Enrique Barrera y Caldes FD Felix Dujua GH Genaro Heredia IM Informacioo.es Matri.m0ni.ales NA Numeriano Adriano NHI National Historical Institute PDI Philippine Daily Inquirer RMAO Records Management and Archives Office VP Varies Personajes R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT ix This dissertation focuses on the Chinese in the Philippines from 1870 to 1905, and analyzes the way they and their Chinese mestizo offspring negotiated their identities. Past historical studies on these individuals, using accounts of outside observers, tended to depict their identities in essentialized terms. As an alternative to such an approach, I utilize previously untouched archival materials, and investigate their familial and business practices. In looking at such practices, I argue instead that, during this crucial period in Philippine history, their ethnic identities were more fluid and flexible than past scholarship had described them. Chapter 1 discusses the political economy of the period, and provides a background of the subjects under study. Chapter 2 focuses on the marriage practices of Chinese Catholic converts, and concludes that they practiced a Catholicism that was similar to that of native converts. Furthermore, it investigates their inheritance practices and argues how these reflected a fluid and ambiguous identity. Chapter 3 demonstrates that Chinese merchants did not live in an ethnic enclave as they had wide interaction with other non-Chinese merchants. It also examines their border- crossing strategies that allowed them to exploit to their advantage the symbolic and economic capital of the Chinese Qing imperium and Spanish colonial regime. C hapter 4 illustrates that C hinese m estizos and m estizos w ere not only “Hispanicized” and "Catholicized,” but also ' ■ ‘Sinicized.” They entered into commercial and personal transactions with the Chinese, practiced Chinese rituals, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and spoke Chinese, Finally, Chapter 5 focuses on the lives of Joaquin and Mariano Limjap, two members of a Chinese-mesfizo 'family, as a way to amplify the thesis that Chinese and Chinese-mestizo identities during this period were at once multiple, flexible, and malleable. The dissertation concludes with a reassessment o f when Chinese mestizos were supposed to have become ’Filipinos,” and the “Chinese” a homogenized and separate “alien” group. I . argue that it was only after 191.0, when, both Chinese and Philippine nationalists had succeeded in perpetuating a reified view o f their “own'’ people, that a. distinct “Chinese-vs.-Filipino” binary arose. However, despite efforts of dominant groups to establish hard and rigid ethnic categories, individuals have continued to creatively negotiate their identities. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Introduction 1 Among the Chinese diasporic peoples in. Southeast Asia, none offers more distinct food for thought than the Philippine Chinese, For compared to their Southeast Asian counterparts, various hegem onic groups have labeled them differently throughout their history, “ Chinese,” “sangley, ” “intsik, ” “inftel” uTsmoy”— these are just some of the ethnic categorizations applied to them .1 Similarly, their descendants have also been classified in different ways. First called “mestizos” during the Spanish colonial period (1,565-1898), they later became known as “Filipinos.” The reason for such varied assignations comes from the Philippines’ unique history of having been colonized by not just one but three colonial regimes (Spanish, American, Japanese), and of having experienced the rise of nationalist movements (Chinese and Filipino) during the twentieth century. Furthermore, the Catholic l Different interpretations have been given as to the origins of the word sangley. Retaoa (1921, 1.59- 160) traces the origin of the word to xiang-lay, which, according to his sources, means “merchant” in Hokkien. Echoing Ret ana’s interpretation, Wickberg writes that the word may have come from the Chinese term shang iu, for “merchant traveler” ([1965] 2000] 2000, 9ti. 14) and Caroline Hau traces it to the Hokkien word sengdi, which means “trade” (2000,141). But another interpretation that seems to be more plausible is that the word comes from the Chinese word “chang h i," or in Hokkien “ siongiay," which means “to come frequently” (Boxer 1953, 261). The reason why this version seems more plausible is that Boxer’s seventeeth-century source shows the Chinese characters written beside the word "sangley.” “Tntsik,” on the other hand, is believed to have come from “?'«tsiak? which in Hokkien literally means “his uncle.” This may have come about as a way of introducing a Chinese newcomer to another person. The wotd "emitT is also used in Indonesia and Malaysia, and could also mean one’s father's younger brother, or uncle (cf. Wickberg 1999, 42n. 3). In an article published in World News, 22 December 2000. it is written that the term was used to address someone from China. The earliest reference I found of this word in the Philippines is in & & Manual del Caheza de Baremgay, that is, a manual for the heads of barangays in Manila. The document, written in 1874 by Rafael Moreno y Diez, mentions the word “inchic” cm page 29, Finally, “infid” is the Spanish R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 Church has always had a very strong interest in the conversion of the Chinese and of the inhabitants of the Philippines ever since the Spaniards colonized the country in 1565, Consequently, scholars often take into account when studying the ethnicity of the Chinese and their descendants both State and Church classifications (e.g., Sugaya 2000, Wickberg [1965] 2000). Thus, the study of the ethnogenesis of the Philippine Chinese and their descendants offers potentially rich, new, and important insights into the meanings and complexity o f what constitutes a . “Chinese,” “mestizo,” “Catholic,” and “Filipino” over space and time. However, historical works on the Philippine Chinese share with many scholars of “overseas Chinese” communities the same bias toward the use of certain sociological and anthropological theories on ethnicity. These theories are based on the concepts of assimilation and integration and are often tied up with nation-based metanarratives (e.g., Cushman and Wang 1988; Purcell 1965; Suryadinata 1997; Wickberg [1965] 2000). Thus, the “Chinese” in the different Southeast Asian countries are often viewed as one discrete, homogeneous group pitted against a similarly homogenized community o f “Thais,” “Indonesians,” “M alaysians,” “Filipinos,” etc, On the other hand, scholars often describe the hybrid offspring of these Chinese -the lukjin of Thailand, the bahas o f Malaysia, theperanakms of Indonesia, or the mestizos of the Philippines— as either having formed another tern for “infidel,” while “Tsinoy” is a combination of the word 4 4 Tsino” (Chinese) and the colloquial Tagalog term for Filipino “ P im y.” R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 distinct ethnic group, or having been assimilated into a more dominant one (see, for example, Merino 1969; Purcell 1948; Skinner 1957; Suryadinata 1978; A. Tart 1972; Wickberg 1964), In the case of the Philippine mestizos, W ickberg (1964, [1965] 2000) categorizes them as a “special kind of Filipino,” who totally disregarded their Chinese identity. They were the most Hispanicized and Catholicized of the native subjects of Spain. At the height of the anti-Spanish movement in the Philippines in the late nineteenth century, these mestizos handed together with other Hispanicized and Catholicized upper-class irniios and demanded to be recognized as “Filipinos,” a classification once reserved for Philippine-born Spaniards. From this analysis scholars have explained why, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, ethnic relations in many cities in the Philippines saw a turn from the three-way classificatory system of ethnic groups (i.e, sangley, mestizo, and indio) to what has become a distinct Chinese-Filipino binary (A. Tan 1985; Wickberg 1997). The Chinese in the Philippines, on the other hand, have historically been described as being part of a separate ethnic enclave, with little or no interaction with other ethnic groups. Furthermore, even when they converted to Catholicism, they were considered “nominal.” Catholics. Such an interpretation follows colonialist (and thus biased) views of these converts, and serves to emphasize the point that the Chinese, even, when converted and Hispanicized, were still, different from their local counterparts. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 However, recent w orks in cultural studies have shown such ethnic constructions to be the modus operandi by which national governments and other dom inant groups have sought to control others. For example, theorists of nationalism (e.g., Alonso 1994; Chatterjee 1993; Eley and Suny 1996; Hobsbawn and R anger 1983) have pointed out that many o f our contem porary ethnic classifications have been invented, imagined, or constructed by nation-states in order to estab lish th eir hegem ony over a large num ber o f people from diverse backgrounds. As a result, while the segregation of these groups may have provided one group with a form of unity with which to achieve status and power today, it has also helped engender ethnic tension within the local society. Taking the cue from these theorists, many scholars of modem Chinese history (e.g., Cross! ey 1989, 1990a and 1990b; Duara 1995; Gladney 1991; Honig 1992) as well as those of Philippine history (Ileto 1979, 1998; McKenna 1998) have begun to question and deconstruct the administrative, ideological, and religious classificatory systems used by the colonial rulers and the nationalist governments of China and the Philippines. Furthermore, after the pathbreaking work of Fredrik Barth (1969), theorists of ethnicity have pointed out that the study o f ethnicity needs to take into consideration not only how groups have been identified by others, but how the members of these groups view themselves in relation to others, since ethnic identities also are self-aseriptive (e.g., Cohen 1978). In studying how people lived out their identities in everyday life, many scholars have demonstrated that identities are constantly in the process of being negotiated. Such an approach, not only provides us R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 with a more complex and sophisticated understanding of “identity” but also brings back agency to the people we study, especially those who live in a society in which they are considered a “minority” (Ong and Nonini 1997, Leonard 1992; Oxfeld 1993). Several scholars have thus offered alternative theoretical frameworks for the study o f “overseas Chinese” communities. One such approach is to appropriate the term “diaspora,” using it as a trope with which to describe the connections, links and flows that characterized the experiences o f these Chinese in “modern” times (McKeown 1999). In viewing the Chinese as “diasporic subjects” instead of “overseas Chinese” or “sojourners” (which would tie them up with a particular nation-centered discourse), Ong and Nonini (1997) argue that many o f these C h in ese— th rough the em ploym ent o f “ m odern C hinese tra n sn a tio n a l” practices—manage to elude or overcome the attempts of modernizing nation-states or of other dominant groups to localize them into disciplinable subjects. Examples of such “border-crossing” strategies include transnational mobility or flexible citizenship. Following the lead of these studies, I will demonstrate that the Philippine Chinese had wider connections and interactions with other ethnic communities than previously shown in other works. Consequently, this will help dispel the notion that historically they constituted an ethnic enclave. Moreover, I will demonstrate that many mestizos did not reject but in fact embraced their Chinese heritage, thus making them, not only Hispanicized and Catholic, but also Sinicized. Through an R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 investigation of their business, familial, and socio-religious practices, I aim to show how both the Chinese and mestizos managed to appropriate the policies of both the State and Church, adapted creatively to th eir different cultural and social backgrounds, and played with simultaneous identities during their lifetimes. Thus, I argue that the ethnic and religious identifies of these people during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century can better be understood as flowing along a shifting and problematic continuum. The wider implication of this study is a critique of how American racial prejudice, Chinese and Filipino nationalism, and post-WWII and Cold-War anthropological approaches to the study of ethnicity have reified Chinese-ness. Sources and methodology While at Stanford University as a graduate student, I wrote my first paper on the Chinese in the Philippines. I remember ray professor expressing doubt and a sense of incredulity when I claimed that a “goldmine” of sources pertaining to the Chinese in the Philippines was available to scholars. The Spanish archives in the Philippines is one of the best preserved in the whole of Southeast Asia.2 Indeed, in my own research, I have found voluminous files of documents ranging from civil 2 For more information regarding the history of the Record Management and Archives Office (RMAO), .see Bureau of Records Management 1968. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 and criminal records to passports and death certificates that pertain to the Chinese, For the most part, these documents have been largely un.derutiii.zed or unused.3 The collections of the Genealogical Society at Utah (GSU), available at its different “Family History Centers” found all over the United States and in different parts o f the world, are an excellent starting point for those who can not travel to the Philippines.4 Over the past few decades, the GSU has microfilmed various archival materials from the Record Management and Archives Office (RMAO), the main repository of Spanish, colonial records in the Philippines.5 The GSU has mainly focused on documents that provide genealogical information to anyone interested in, doing one’s own family history research. Before traveling to Manila for fieldwork, I visited the GSU Family History Center in. Los Angeles, From this initial, research, 1 came across theprotocolos, bound volumes of contracts and instruments drawn up by various residents of Manila. These contracts were notarized by any one of the eight notary publics found in the city during the latter part of the nineteenth century 3 Very few local scholars of the Philippines are able to access these records due to their general lack of Spanish, proficiency. Another reason why these records remain underutilized is that the RMAO, the main repository of government records from the Spanish colonial period, has seen, several management and logistical changes, thus making its collections inaccessible for some time to researchers, Lastly, not many scholars have been interested in the study of the Chinese in the Philippines (cf. Wickberg {1965] 2000, xiv), Two notable works, however, that have been produced in the last few years are Wilson 1993 and Wong 1999, See also Cook 1998 for a study of the Philippine Chinese within the context of their lives in Chum, For a list of Chinese-language studies on the Chinese inthePhilippin.es, see Wickberg [1965] 2000, viii. 4 The GSU is entirely funded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For more information regarding their organization, see their website at www.gensocietyofutah.org/society .a^>. 5 They have also microfilmed the vast collections found in the Archives of the Archdiocese of Manila (AAM) and other libraries and archival collections in the Philippines. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and the early part of the twentieth century.6 Each notary public had to compile all the contracts he notarized and subm it these, in bound form , to the Spanish government: at the end of each year. One volume, therefore, consists of a year’s collection o f contracts, and is further subdivided into one or several tomos (volum.es).7 Each volume contains about a thousand instruments. The documents range from, business contracts (such as those involving the granting of powers of attorney or the sale of property and goods), to marriage contracts and testaments. Most volumes contain an index of the documents, and the index often lists the case number, as well as the names of the contracting parties, and the nature of transaction. In choosing which notary public to focus on for my research, I looked through the indices of these volumes until I was able to determine which notary publics had the most number of Chinese clients.8 The other archive 1 visited for my research is the Archive of the Archdiocese of Manila (A AM). The A AM also contains vast quantities of records pertaining to the Chinese, including requests for baptisms and marriages, two sets of records that I have largely utilized for my research. The third main archive I used was the Spanish Archives of the University of Santo Tomas (AUST). The AUST contains various 6 for more information about the notary publics of Manila during the Spanish colonial period, see Division of Customs and Insular Affairs 1899; Peria 1912; Flores 1911. 7 “TotrtcC also means “volume” in Spanish, Thus, to avoid confusion with the bound protocolo, I have decided to keep the word “tomo" throughout the text when referring to these subdivisions. 8 The four notary publics who had many Chinese clients were Enrique Barrera y Caldes, Felix Dujua, Calkto Reyes, and Numeriano Adriano. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 records pertaining to the Chinese ministry of the Dominican order in Manila, These records include letters, reports, and catechetical instructions.9 Research outline My dissertation focuses on the period from 1870 to 1905, One important reason for choosing these years is that the majority of the present Philippine Chinese population trace their ancestors’ diasporie movement to the Philippines mainly from this period on. During this time, the number of the Chi nese coming to the Philippines increased dramatically, rising from 6,000 in 1847 to around 60,000 in the mid-1880s. The Manila Chinese made up between 40 percent and 75 percent of the total Chinese population in the Philippines during the period under study, fo r this reason, I intend to focus my study mainly on the Chinese who lived in the nine districts o f M anila— Binondo, Quiapo, Tondo, Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Ermita, Mai ate, Tambobong, and Pineda—and in the province of Tondo, located immediately north of Manila. Another reason why I chose this period, which spans both, the latter part of the Spanish colonial period and die early American period, is that I wanted to avoid the usual periodization used, by other scholars in tracing the history of the Chinese in the Philippines. The year 1898 has always been regarded as the cut-off point; it was this year when Spanish colonial rule officially ended and American colonial rule began. While this periodization may seem logical, past scholars have unfortunately 9 For more information regarding the Spanish collection at the AUST, see Menegon 1994. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to also used what was a political change to describe changes in ethnic classifications in the Philippines. In other words, when the Americans established new citizenship laws in the Philippines that divided its people into “Filipinos” and “aliens” (thus removing the three-way cl as sifi eatery system of sangleys, mestizos, and indios), these scholars also used this new division to explain the changes in the ethnic identities of the Chinese and mestizos in the Philippines, instead of analyzing how the people affected by this change viewed themselves. By avoiding the same periodization, and ending my study in 1905, I veer away from using politically- constructed identities as a way to understand the ethnic identities of these people, As I will elaborate later in my conclusion, it took some time for cultural identities to approxim ate legal ones, or for self-identifications to conform to externally constructed ones. The Chinese individuals I have included in my study were merchants of middle or upperclass standing. Many of them also converted to Catholicism and married local (i.e, mestizo and indio) women. Thus, a caveat must be mentioned here. No definitive study has yet been done on the socio-economic make-up of the Chinese in the Philippines, although it has been noted by past studies that they came from all sectors of society. They were laborers, petty thieves, literati, vagabonds, merchants, etc,1 0 At the outset, therefore, I would like to state that my study does 10 The American colonial rulers had a difficult time trying to apply Section 6 of the Chinese Exclusion Act which barred laborers from entering the Philippines, but allowed m erchants, professionals, and tourists to do so. As Wilson. (2003) notes, many Chinese who were once classified as laborers eventually found the means to engage in some commercial enterprise and become entrepreneurs themselves. He thus implicitly argues that such attempts at classifying the Chinese R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1! not claim, to paint a picture of a wide spectrum of the Chinese population in Manila. I was partly constrained by the types of documents that I have used, Individuals of some economic capability and mobility were the ones who mainly drew up the business and marriage contracts and testaments that I have chosen to use In my study.1 1 Chapter 1 provides the neccesary background information on the Chinese in the Philippines. In particular, it lays out the political economy of the period, as well as presents a demographic picture of the subjects under study. It discusses some statistical information about these Chinese, including population figures; sex ratio; native-place origins; linguistic and class origins; as well as residential patterns. Chapter 2 focuses on the familial and religious practices of certain Chinese converts. Revising past scholarship that has tended to describe these Chinese as “bad” Catholic converts or disloyal Spanish subjects, I show instead, through a study of certain pertinent Church policies toward intermarriages between the Chinese and local women, that 1) the Church actually condoned, if not encouraged, the polygamous practices engaged in by some converts; and 2) such “immoral” behavior was not necessarily different from the practices of native Catholic converts. Thus I argue that we need to be careful in using the religious practices of the Chinese could not suppress the ability of this group of people to segue from one identity to another. The same observation could be seen in comments given by one foreign merchant called by the Philippine Commission to describe the Chinese in the Philippines (U.S. Philippine Commission 1900,19). II This does not mean, however, that there are no archival records that could be used to study the ethnic identities of people from the lower socio-economic class. Two such records that could be possibly used are the criminal and civil cases found at the RMAO. However, at the time of rny R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 converts as markers of “difference” between them and the other Catholics in the Philippines. Furthermore, through an investigation of their inheritance practices, I show that the Chinese negotiated both Spanish and Chinese policies on inheritance, applying either one or the other, or both, in dispensing their wealth. 1 argue that such practices reflected a certain kind of identity that was both fluid and ambigious, Chapter 3 investigates the business practices of the members of this diasporie community, and shows that many Chinese merchants in Manila had extensive dealings with merchants of other ethnic groups, and thus were not confined to a separate ethnic enclave. Using the notarial records found in the RMAO, I provide specific examples of business transactions that entailed certain “border-crossing” practices of those involved. For instance, while establishing companies in Manila, many wealthy Chinese merchants also established companies in Hong Kong or Xiamen (in China), and often traveled to these places. Thus, their ability to spread their wealth in several places allowed them to evade attempts by governments to confine their resources in one place, and to tax these. Another strategy they adopted was to have several names and to use these in different situations, thus confounding colonial authorities attempting to localize them. As in the previous chapter, this chapter argues that the identities of these Chinese merchants were often shifting and negotiated. Chapter 4 illustrates that mestizos, particularly those belonging to the first generation, were not only “Hispanicized” and “Catholicized,” but also “Sinicized.” research, these records were being transferred to CD-rom formats, and thus were not available to R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 In other words, they were not the group of people that other scholars have described as ‘‘rejecters” of their Chinese heritage. For instance, I show that many mestizos spoke Hokkien (the language spoken by most of the Chinese in Manila); engaged in business dealings with the Chinese, entered into partnerships with them; and even traveled to China or Hong Kong as merchants or students. Furthermore, many mestizas chose to marry Chinese men, and this pattern of intermarriage repeated itself in succeeding generations. Thus, this shows that not all mestizos became “Filipino” over time; their identities remained flexible and malleable, even after the American colonial government nationalized identities and created hard boundaries between ethnic groups in the Philippines, Chapter 5 focuses on the lives o f two members of a prominent Chinese- mestizo family in Manila. Utilizing the numerous primary source materials found in archives as well as the family records kept by the descendants of this family, I will reconstruct the lives of Joaquin Barrera Limjap (b. 1832 - d. 1888), who came to the Philippines as a young man, and of Mariano Limjap (b. 1856 - d. 1926), Joaquin’s first son by his mestiza wife Policarpia Nolasco. I chose these two particular individuals not only because of the wealth of information that can be found about them, but also because they were community leaders. As men of great social, economic, and political social standing, Joaquin, and Mariano led lives that many of their contemporaries aspired for. Furthermore, by investigating their lives, I amplify my thesis that identities of many Chinese and mestizos during the second half of the researchers, Furthermore, these records are so numerous as to warrant an entirely different study. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 nineteenth and the first decade of the twentieth centuries were at once multiple, flexible, and malleable. The dissertation concludes with a reassessment of the historical juncture at the turn of the twentieth century within which mestizos (along with the indios) were supposed to have become “Filipinos,” and the “Chinese” a homogenized and separate “alien” group. The first decade of the twentieth century was a transitional time when the American colonial government in the Philippines, as well as for nationalists in China and in the Philippines, began to define what constituted a “Chinese” or “Filipino.” Even though by 1899 the American colonial government had set a new classificatory system dividing the population in the Philippines into “Filipinos” and “aliens” (i.e, “Chinese,” “British,” or any other national), I argue that it was only after 1910, when both the Chinese and Philippine nationalists had managed to start propagating and constructing a homogenized and reified view of their “own” people through the use of the press, the educational system, and official policies, that a clearly distinct “Chinese” and “Filipino” binary arose. The use of assimilation!st approaches to the study of ethnic identities in the Cold-War period only served to give credence to nationalist, constructions of reified identities. However, despite efforts of dominant groups to establish hard and rigid ethnic categories, individuals continue to creatively negotiate their identities. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter I The Chinese and Mestizos of Manila: History, Origins, Background General history of the Chinese Long history o f interaction The Chinese and the Filipinos have a long history of trade and cultural interaction dating back, as far as records show, to the Song Dynasty (962-1279), Long before the Spaniards arrived in the Philippines in 1521, the Chinese living in the southern coastal regions in China had already been engaging in extensive maritime trade with the natives of the different islands that comprise what is now called the Philippines, Some of the evidences of this trade between the two groups of people can be found in Chinese historical sources. In one of the Chinese annals from the Song Dynasty, one finds a record of an Arab trader who arrived on the shores of Canton in the year 982, and who narrated his visits to Mai-it (or what is now Mindoro) and the region around Manila Bay (Alip 1974, 3). Other evidences of pre-Spanish contact between these two groups are the numerous ceramic and porcelain artifacts excavated in several parts of the Philippines, in places such as Manila, Rizal, Batangas, Laguna, Mindanao, and Bicol. These artifacts date back to the Song, Yuan (1279-1368), and Ming (1368-1644) dynasties of China. The Chinese traders traveled in junk ships, or champans and they sailed during the monsoon season around June and July, when strong easterly winds brought their champans to parts of Southeast Asia. From the southeastern coastal R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 region of Fujian, they traveled along the western coast of the Philippine archipelago, first stopping in Luzon, and then on to other islands such as Mindoro, Panay, and Sulu, before proceeding to Borneo and the Moluccas. Then they sailed back to China during the months o f September and October. The types of goods they brought with them included pottery, lead, glass beads, cooking pans, iron needles, and silk, which they traded for pearls, shells, betel nuts, bees wax, cotton fabrics, and fine mats. When the Spaniards arrived in Manila in 1570, they found a settlement of about 150 Chinese. We know very little about this small community, except that there were women and children among them. The Spaniards also encountered a Chinese wharf (pier) and lodging quarter in Jolo, located in what is today known as the Sulu group of islands west of Mindanao. Background on coastal southeast Fujian There were several reasons why many of these Chinese, mostly men, came to the Philippines from coastal southeastern Fujian. Ng (1983, 11) discusses a number of factors that contributed to the influx of Chinese into Southeast Asian countries in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. One factor was agricultural development in that particular region in China, which allowed for the planting of cash crops such as cotton. Eventually, cotton textiles and clothes became one of the leading exports from the region. Another important development in . the area’s economy was the rise of commercial activities. The challenges posed by the geographical limitations of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 the place for agricultural production, led people to engage in maritime commerce, handicraft industries and domestic trade. Quanzhou was a leading foreign trade and shipbuilding center from the twelfth to the thirteenth centuries. Zhangzhou began to catch up as the new terminus for overseas trade at the turn of the sixteenth century.1 2 As Ng notes, (t)he enthusiastic response by the south Fukienese to the overseas trade resulted in large numbers of people being engaged in overseas ventures in the seventeenth, and the eighteenth centuries (12).1 3 By the late seventeenth century, Xiamen (form erly known as Amoy) overtook Quanzhou and Zhangzhou as the main maritime center for the distribution o f both Chinese native products and foreign goods (Ng 1983, 96).1 4 I ts establishment as an important economic center was facilitated by the rise of the interregional network that linked Xiamen, Fuzhou, Quanzhou, and Zhangchou to Canton, Taiwan, Ningpo, Zhapu, Suzhou, Shanghai, Qiaozhou, Tianjin, and Manchuria. Xiamen’s commercial boom after 1683 attracted not only Quan-Zhang merchants but also a large segment of the rural population. Merchants from other places also came to Xiamen for the acquisition of foreign goods while Quan-Zhang merchants traveled to these places in return. The development of Taiwan as an 12 Quanzhou and Zhangzhou are both located in the southeastern part of coastal Fujian. Fukienese is "Fujiaaese" in the pinyin system. The language they speak in their region is known popularly as “Bokkien," and thus this term will be used when referring to the language. However, when referring to the province and the people, '‘Fujian''* and •‘Fujianese'’ will be used respectively, except when quoted in other sources. 14 The romanization of Chinese characters follows the pinyin system, except in cases when personal names are used. In the case of names, the spelling based on the documents is used. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 extension of the Quan-Zhang trade also contributed to the rise of southeastern Fujian as an important center in the interregional trade, The unfavorable man-land ratio in. this region also led to the emigration of the Chinese to Southeast Asia, Owing to the mountainous topography of southeastern Fujian, distribution of available land was limited. From an average of 5.0 mu or 0.0667 hectares per person in Zhangzhou in 1571, and 8.4 mu for Quanzhou in 1562, the average acreage in Fujian, in 1812 was 0.93— a figure far below the needed margin of 4 mu per person (Ng 1983,15-16). The low man-land ratio thus served as an impetus for villagers to engage in economic activities other than agriculture or to venture outside their villages for a better source of livelihood. Political instability in the seventeenth, century, such as the wars between the Qtng government and the Dutch pirates and Zheng Zhilong (a prominent pirate); the other uprisings against the Qing governm ent led by Ming loyalists, and the retaliatory measures taken against the coastal population for supporting rebellions also brought tremendous hardships to the people (Vermeer 1990, 9). Social factors such as the oppression imposed by the landlord class provided another reason to seek out opportunities somewhere else. The existence of large lineage organizations also provided an, environment for the outmigration of the inhabitants in the different villages in southeastern China. One of the most important functions of the lineage organization was to pool capital and manpower to support member-traders. Money was raised to enable traders to buy the goods they needed to exchange or sell overseas. The lineage organization also provided relatives or servants to accompany R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 a trader on risky voyages. So great was the need for “trade assistants” that a custom of adopting foster children grew. Quoting from a gazetteer, Ng writes Fukienese people used to have many adopted sons even when they had children of their own. The adopted sons would be sent abroad on commercial enterprises after they grew up [while the true sons were generally kept at home]. If they earned a lot of money, the family would marry them, to several wives and concubines to tie them to the family. And they would be treated as their true sons (1983, 29). The ancestral hall in the native village always served as a reminder of the villagers’ roots. People migrated to other places but maintained strong ties with their villages and they traveled with the intention of going back to live and die there. But at the same time, lineage organizations also caused people to migrate. Intra lineage inequality (where a stronger household or member exploited the poorer families), and inter-lineage fights (in which people faced threats to their lives), forced people to seek better and safer lives elsewhere.1 5 Another social factor is the shared history and culture between the peoples of southern China and Southeast Asia. Recent studies on Southeast Asia often describe or emphasize the long interaction between the Southeast Asian region and the southern provinces of China, long before European colonial powers and nation-states began to create territorial boundaries (see, for example, Reid 1988).1 6 Evidences of IS In A Chinese Pioneer Family: The Urn ofWu-feng, Taiwan 1729-1A95, Johanna Meskill (1979) describes how local strongmen became important figures in Taiwanese M »ciety due to the inter-lineage ware. Wholesale massacres of members of a lineage had also been recorded in Chinese history, ^ A ss an indication of how far this idea of southern China as being part of Southeast Asia has taken hold among scholars, a panel in the 2003 meeting of the Association for Asian Studies is called “Yunnan as Southeast Asia.'"' Yunnan is a province in southern China. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 such extensive and deep interaction, include the sim ilar religious traditions, agricultural technology, and kinship practices found between the two regions, Thus, we see that the conditions in southeastern China, whether economic, political, or social, produced an environment that encouraged, propagated, and sustained the movement, of people from their ancestral villages to other parts of Southeast Asia, including the Philippines. Other factors that Ng describes include the attitude of the Fujian officials who supported maritime trade, even engaging in the trade themselves, as well as the deep appreciation and even direct involvement of scholars in trading activities, and the patronage of military officials (1983,200-201). Of course, there were also factors that discouraged emigration. For reasons of coastal security, the Chinese state decreed bans on maritime trade in 1684 and 1717. When the Kangxi Emperor imposed the ban in 1717, one reason given was the fear of leakage of defence secrets from contacts with foreigners. However, provincial authorities pointed out that a ban in overseas trade resulted in hardships for the people. The court listened and lifted the bans in 1684 and 1727. Conditions in the Philippines, particularly after the Spanish conquest, also made it attractive for the Chinese to travel or even settle there. But before I discuss these conditions, I would like to give a brief description of the villages, towns, or counties from which the Chinese who traveled to the Philippines came. A ccording to Wickberg ((1965] 2000, 171-172), the Chinese in the Philippines mostly came from the following xicm or counties in Fujian (in order of numbers): Jinjiang (including Quanzhou), Tongan, Longxi (including Zhangzhou), R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 and Nanan.1 7 Slightly over 50 percent came from Xinjiang. Jirtjiamg is located in the southeastern coastal region of Fujian province in China.1 8 The immigration pattern was largely kinship based,, which would explain why, despite substantia! change in the geography of port traffic in South. China, these four counties would continue to send the most number of Chinese men. to Manila and the Philippines (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 171-171; Doeppers 1986, 385),1 9 Factors in the Philippines contributing to immigration o f Chinese lust as there were factors in China that encouraged the Chinese in the Mmnan. region to emigrate to the Philippines, so were there factors in the Philippines,20 One was the economic opportunity that the Philippines presented. After the Manila- Acapulco galleon trade system was established in 1571, the Chinese found a “niche” in the Spanish colonial economy. Chinese sea merchants brought their wares or products to Manila. Those that the Chinese brought included, aside from those mentioned earlier, jewelry, furniture, hardware, wheat flour, salted meat, and “an almost infinite variety of knickknacks” (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 80). These were 17 In her study o f intermarriages between the Chinese Christian converts and local women in the years 1757 to 1758, Sugaya lists the following counties found in her documents: Longxt (Lionque); Haicheng (Jayteng) of Zhangzhou prefecture; Quanzhou (Choan chiu) prefecture; Tongan (Tangua); Vajay/Anghay (Anhai) of Chincan (Jmjiaag) prefecture; Enten (Yongding) of Ting-chou (Tengzhou) prefecture; Yongqun (Encbua); and Anqi (Anqiie) of Quanzhou prefecture (2000, 557). The region today is bordered by Nanan county in the west, and faces Taiwan toward the east. In the north, it. shares a border with Dongli city proper, and in the northeast with the city of Shishi. it m easures 649 square m iles, with a population o f 9,412,000 people (circa 1994). For more information, see M, Chen 1994. 19 According to Doeppers, in 1 822, "93 (percent) of the registered Chinese in Manila” came from, these four counties. More than seventy years later, “tho same four hsien still accounted for 87.S (percent) of Manila's Chinese community"5 (1986, 385). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 then either traded with the natives of the Philippines, for items such as swallows9 nests, sea cucumber, carabao boras, and salted, fish, or brought to Acapulco where they were exchanged for Mexican silver. Thus, the lucrative maritime trade that went on between China and Spain, sanctioned and. supported by Chinese officials, encouraged the Chinese to continuously travel abroad in search for wealth. And even when the Spanish colonial, government implemented harsh policies toward the Chinese, as I . shall discuss later, its own economic interests and its need for the Chinese who formed the “backbone o f the economy” resulted in a policy of vacillation. Thus, the Chinese continued to travel, to the Philippines even during times of crackdown, or immediately after them. Furthermore, the Catholic Church desired the conversion of Chinese migrants and of China, and therefore supported the presence of the Chinese in the Philippines. The Dominicans, for example, took a great interest in the Chinese in Manila and hoped that their conversion could be the beginning of the conversi on of all of China (Bernal 1966, 60). Spanish colonial policy toward the Chinese General background The growth of the Chinese population became an issue of great concern, to the Spanish authorities. As a result of their fear and distrust of the Chinese, brought about by their experiences with non-Spanish and non-Christian peoples in the Iberian peninsula, they issued several decrees calling for the mass deportation o f the Mianan refers to the southeastern part of Fujian province, and means “south of the Min river.” R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 Chinese,21 Such decrees were issued in 1686, 1744, and 1747 (Guerrero 1966, 35; Diaz-Trechueio 1966, 192), Restrictions on immigration and regulation of Chinese commercial and industrial activities also sought to control the number of Chinese immigrants. In 1605, for example, the number of Chinese allowed to enter the Philippines was lim ited to 6,000 (Guerrero 1966, 33). Heavy customs duties amounting to three percent of the value of every shipment were also levied on the Chinese trader. Moreover, the Chinese residing in the Philippines were required to pay a per capita tribute of 64 reales or eight pesos a year (Bernal 1966, 44-47) 22 Non-Christian Chinese were either deported or restricted in their movements and interaction with the natives (Diaz-Trechueio 1966, 193). If expulsions and tight controls over their economic activity did not serve to reduce or inhibit the numbers of Chinese, then more violent means did. In 1603, 24,000 Chinese were massacred. In these massacres, the Spanish authorities recruited native soldiers to help carry these out. Other massacres were carried out in 1639, 1662, 1686, and 1762 (Felix 1966, 3). Why, despite the harsh treatm ent and the dangers to their lives and livelihood, did the Chinese come back again and again to stay in the Philippines? Twenty-five years after the great massacre in. 1603, which left only 500 Chinese in the country, the number of Chinese had swelled to 20,000. In 1639 an estimated 21 In the late fifteenth century, the kingdoms of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile began a concerted drive to c x |h. 1 the Muslims from Granada, the last territory ruled by the Moors. They also forced many Jews to convert to Catholicism, and killed or drove out those who refuswed, For more information on how Spanish historical experiences with non-Christians such as the .Tews and the Muslims may have influenced Spanish policy toward the Chinese, see Horsley 1950. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 23,000 Chinese were killed, but by 1649 “there were again, some 15,000 Chinese living in the ghetto” (Guerrero 1966, 25). One very important reason for the failure to control, the number of Chinese was that the Spaniards had become so dependent on them, and to expel them would constitute a dramatic downturn in the economy. The labor provided by the Chinese was cheap and, indispensable. The Spaniards themselves did not engage in agriculture, retail trade or mining, or industry, nor did they bother to teach the natives, whom they “groundlessly believed indolent,” trades and crafts they taught the natives in New Spain (Bernal 1966, 61). Thus, the consequences of the expulsion of the Chinese were evident in the economic crises which the Spaniards underwent during the former’s absence, and which can be traced to the void created by the departure of the Chinese (Guerrero 1966, 38). Consequently, the Spaniards would relax their restrictions and allow the Chinese to enter the Philippines. Furthermore, the Spaniards profited from the Customs duties, residence permits, and taxes collected from the Chinese. Collection of Customs duties up to the mid-1610s amounted to 30,000 to 40,000 pesos annually, and rose to 80,000 pesos by 1620 (Quiason 1966, 170). Spanish officials who benefited from bribes also contributed to the ineffective control of the inflow of Chinese migrants. The Justices of the Audiencia issued residence permits with laxity, and. records showed accusations being hurled against them.. There was a report, for example, o f a Justice who collected 60,000 silver coins or the equivalent of 30,000 pesos from the sale of residence permits. Other Spanish officials benefi ted ** Eight reales was equivalent to one peso. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 from the presence of the Chinese. In 1608, Governor Rodrigo de Vivero reported to the King of Spain that every year, “3,000 Chinese came to Manila to stay for it w a s. .. a custom to allow each Justice of the Audiencia to have 50 or more Chinese as his personal servants” (quoted in Diaz-Trechueio 1966, 185). Thus, we can see that the Spaniards’ policy toward the Chinese was that of vacillation. When the Spaniards feared the Chinese, they expelled them.23 But after feeling the consequences of the absence of the Chinese, immigration policies and other restrictions were relaxed. The decrees issued to delimit the number of Chinese entering the Philippines were rendered ineffective by the collusion, of some officials who benefited from the presence of the Chinese and the great number of Chinese who were effectively smuggled into the country. Forms o f control; taxation Another way with which the Spaniards tried to control and take advantage of the Chinese presence was through tax collection. Seeing that there was money to be earned from the Chinese, the Spaniards also made sure to tax them. Before 1790, a Chinese male adult paid 81 reales yearly, while a mestizo paid 24, and an indio 14. From 1790 to 1828, the Chinese tax was reduced to 54 reales. In 1828, a new tax system was established for the Chinese in which those who owned shops were divided into four classes, with those earning the most paying 120 pesos, while the 23 Spanish (Hxirufil of flic ('hm o*<« was not particularly helped by the f'hi net* support of the British when the latter look ovvr Manila from 1762 to 1764. Punishing the Chinese fro their actions, Simon de Anda, the Lieutenant-Governor, ordered that all Chinese in the country' be hanged (Guerrero 1966, 36). For more information, see Santamaria 1966,112-113, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 others paid 48, 24, and 12 pesos, respectively. These taxes were paid on top of a preexisting head tax and a community chest tax. Those who were employees of others were taxed much less, i.e., around 7 pesos. In the following years, there were to be more changes made in the tax system.24 Following its policy of taxing its subjects according to their capacity to earn, the Spanish colonial government taxed the Chinese the most, followed by the mestizos, then the mdios.25 Moreover, the padrones (or tax-registers) that it used for tax-record purposes also served as a way to keep track of the Chinese. As I will discuss later, the Chinese were organized under a gremio, a kind of community organization headed by a headman or a gokernadorciUo who took care of, among other things, collecting taxes. Therefore, everyone had to be registered, and various attempts at keeping track of the Chinese had been made, but sometimes unsuccessfully. For instance, in 1828, the Spanish colonial government attempted to gather all Chinese residents into villages with their own cabezas (heads) and gobemadorcillos. Part of the reason why such an attempt was made was that Spain had lost, with the exception of Cuba and Puerto Rico, all of its possessions in the Americas. Consequently, it wanted to strengthen the governments of the remaining possessions through increased centralization and more effective and efficient collection of revenue from local sources, including, or 24 For more information on the changes of taxation policies involving the Chinese, and the kinds of taxes they had to pay, see Wickberg [1965j 2000,9,141,158-105; Robles 1969, 74*75. 25 Spanish colonial rulers., using their experience in the Americas, mistakenly labeled the natives of the Philippines also as indios or "Indians,” R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 particularly, the Chinese (Robles 1969, 54-55). However, the Chinese refused to be resettled in exclusively Chinese communities, and thus nothing came of this plan.26 Segregation Another way of controlling the Chinese was to segregate them from the natives and from the Spaniards by restricting their residence to a place called the Parian (market-place), located outside of the walls oflntramuros, the walled city of Manila where the seat of the Spanish colonial government was found. Those living here were always under the surveillance of the military. However, in 1790, the Manila Parian was tom down to make more room for the walled city of Manila, and this resulted in the Chinese who lived there scattering over most of the province of Tondo and Cavite.27 Conversion Another way to ensure the loyalty and subservience of the Chinese was through Christian conversion. Although this policy of conversion had arisen from a sincere desire of the Spanish crown to “spread the faith,” the crown had also used it 26 According to Robles, the Chinese were to be classified into three groups: "(I) those who were engaged in foreign or wholesale trade, (2) those in domestic and retail trade, and (3) artisans of all classes. Each had to pay a monthly tax of ten, four, and two pesos, respectively. Unmarried Chinese who had settled m the country must return to China, and any Chinese in arrears for three months was to be sent to a labor camp at a specified wage from which two pesos a month had to be deducted until the tax dues were paid.” Of the “census-enumerated Chinese, 800 chose to return to their own country. Four kindred and fifty-three grudgingly went to labor camps on the pretext of insolvency, and about 1,083 fled to the mountains" (1969,52-53), 27 It should be noted that there were other Parians located in major urban centers in. the Philippines, but the Manila Parian was the largest. For more information regarding the Cebu Parian, sets Briones 1983, For more information regarding the Manila Parian, see Pinto 1964 and Santamaria 1966. See also Wickberg [1965] 2000,11-12,18-20,23,41, 180, 190. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 at various points of its rule to ensure that the natives submit to its dominion. In order to encourage conversion among the Chinese to the Philippines, various policies were implemented, For instance, the Spaniards ruled that only Catholic Chinese could marry local women. In addition, Governor Dasmariflas in 1594 granted tax- free a piece of land called Minondoc to the Catholic Chinese. This land, which is now known as Binondo, was supposed to be the “home” of the Catholic Chinese and their families. In reality, these Catholic Chinese could not be totally segregated from the natives, who also started to settle in Binondo. When the Parian was tom down in 1790, many of the non-Catholics who lived there also moved to Binondo and Santa Cruz, thus breaking down the old system of separating the Catholic and non-Catholic Chinese. To administer to the needs of these Catholic Chinese and their families, the Dominicans set up a church and a hospital, and printed catechetical materials (Guerrero 1966, 3G).28 The first book printed in the Philippines was called Doctrim Christiana. Printed in 1590, this book on catechism was in both Spanish 28 For more information regarding the Dominican ministry among the Chinese, see Pinto 1964; Pe 1983; and Torres 1992. The Spanish Archives of the University of Santo Tomas contains a wealth of documents, books, and other original source material pertaining to the Dominican ministry in Binondo. There is, for example, a Spanish-Fujianese dictionary that uses all the important terms in catechetical instruction. Unfortunately, the dictionary contains only a Romanized version of the terms. Thus, without the Chinese characters included, it would take time to decipher the terms. There is also a manuscript called the Resolution de los Casos Morales; Propuestos El AHo 1881 which contains moral eases faced by the Dominican priests in their ministry, and the resolutions to these cases. It must be noted that these eases, although bearing names of persons, are “generic” in nature, i.e., the characters are fictitious, but the based on real-life situations. The whole book actually stretches from the years 1881 to 189?,, and in each year, an. average of 12 cases are presented. Among the several cases discussed, I counted 8 specifically regarding Chinese and Chinese mestizo Catholics. Some of these cases will be discussed in Chapter 2. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 and Chinese, Other religious orders, such as the Jesuits and the Augustinians, employed Chinese laborers (Guerrero 1966,28). Another instance in which the Spanish authorities assisted the clergy in converting the Chinese was the promulgation in 1627 of a decree exempting Chinese converts from paying tribute for 10 years, and stipulating that thereafter they would only pay an amount equivalent to that paid by the natives (Bernal 1966, 60). In 1686 the Spanish authorities also ordered all non-Christian Chinese to leave the country unless they promised to become Christians within two months (Diaz- Trechueio 1.966, 187). In 1755, an. order was carried out expelling non-Catholic Chinese (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 22). Furthermore, restrictions on travel, ownership of land, and residence were imposed upon the non-converts. However, as we shall see later, these restrictions were lifted near* the end of the eighteenth century. For those who converted, there were certainly some advantages. For instance, conversion allowed one to acquire a godparent, usually a prominent person in the community, who could be counted later on as “bondsman creditor, patron, and protector in. legal matters” (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 16). As we shall see in Chapter 3, these people also provided other means of support, such as friendship and familial ties. For those aspiring to positions in the government as well as for Spanish citizenship, conversion to Catholicism, was also a prerequisite. However, it was possible that conversion did not arise primarily from pragmatic concerns.29 2 9 1 am suggesting this in line with works in post:"Colonial studies that attempt to veer away from analyzing the behavior of people from a strictly “rational” or Western-centric point of view. People from non-Western cultures who converted to Catholicism often did so while negotiating and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 And just as the government helped the Church in. dealing with the Chinese, the reverse was also true. For instance, on 28 November 1848, a circular from the archbishop o f M anila was passed around all parishes to deal with problems surrounding the Christian Chinese, In that circular, the archbishop pointed out that ever since permission was given to the Christian Chinese to live wherever they pleased, the difficulty of administering to their needs and instructing them in the Catholic faith had increased. It must be noted that up to 1843, two parishes existed in Binondo: one was the special “Chinese” parish known as the parish o f San Gabriel, and the other was the Binondo Church. Both were under the jurisdiction of Dominican priests. Due to lack of parishioners, the special Chinese parish was abolished (AUST, Rollo 46, Seccion Binondo, tomo 2).30 The parish priest of Binondo then assumed responsibility for all residents of Binondo, including the Chinese (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 190). A missionary priest from Xiamen was also assigned to the Chinese (AUST, Rollo 46, Seccion Binondo, tomo 2). However, this missionary often was reduced to the capacity of assistant to the main parish priest (Garcia 1952, 9). Moreover, it seems that in 1848, the problem regarding the Christian Chinese persisted.3 1 Thus, the archbishop of Manila, with the approval of appropriating Christian symbols, principles, and teachings in ways that conformed to their own cosmological world viwv\ and confounded their colonizers (see, for example, Clendinnen 1987; Ileto 1979; Rafael 1993 i »eokor 1995). However, it is not within the scope of this study to carry out this project. 3b According to Antonio Garcia, O.P., “the number of Catholics was so insignificant that it was regarded convenient to make a separate and independent unit. Under such circumstances it was deemed proper to attach it to Binondo parish'’ (1952, 9). 31 The Archbishop wrote that parish priests had no power to exercise direct jurisdiction over the Chinese who lived in their parishes. Consequently, the Chinese Christians had. become “indolent” and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 the G overnor General Narciso Cl avert a, issued the follow ing orders (AAM Paixoquias 1797-1989, 6.D.10, folder 5): * that all Chinese Christians belonging to the Diocese would be “gathered together and be subjected to their parishes of their places of domicile”; • that the parish priest o f San Gabriel would be removed, and that the Church be annexed to that of Binondo, The parish priest of Binondo then had the obligation o f celebrating mass there everyday, and that two masses be said during days of obligations; • that an annual funding of 400 pesos would be kept and be used for the priest “of the Chinese language” so that he may administer to the needs of the Christian Chinese, which would eliminate any form of excuse to be given by the Catholic Chinese for not going to confession; and ensure the instruction and examination of the Christian doctrine among the Christian Chinese; * that baptismal licenses would not be given to any Chinese without first obtaining a certification of domicile from his parish, knowing the Christian doctrine in Castilian or in the commonplace language of the province in which he was registered; giving proofs of his vocation to Christianity; and submitting an accreditation from the government certifying his age, status, and the years of residence in the country. But in case the person was sick to being near death, then the parish priest could baptize the “infidel” without obtaining the Archdiocese’s permission; • that before the marriage license was to be granted by the Provisional Court (Juzgado Provisional), the follow ing should be submitted: everything that had been stipulated by the Archdiocese as being required up to this time; certification from their respective parish priest as having com plied in the last year with the obligations o f confession and communion, and as having attended holy mass on Sundays and other feasts of obligation;32 * that the parish priests would form a registrar or list of Chinese Christians domiciled in their respective parishes, listing their old names and that which they received after being baptized; their age, status, the year in practiced “very little of their religion/"' They stopped going to confession or to mass (AAM Parroqutas 1797-1989,6.D.10, folder 5), 32 gee Sugaya 2000 and Bank off 1992 for a more complete discussion of the requirements for intermarriages. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 which they were baptized; those who had not been confessing or not hearing mass on days of obligation, anti that this list was to be submitted in all the months of July to the Secretariat: • that the parish priests would use such means earnestly and with evangelical zeal in order to revive the faith of the Chinese Christians and to make sure that they turned away from their “superstitious practices,” remove the “bad habits of the gentiles,” anti reform their customs in order to comply with what was required of the Holy Religion. In compliance with this order, the parishes belonging to the Archdiocese of Manila began submitting yearly registers of the Christian Chinese who were under their jurisdictions.33 These registers also contain the number of people from other ethnic groups that belong to a particular parish. The districts or towns that belonged to the Archdiocese of Manila from 1850 to 1898 were: Binondo, Tondo, Santa Cruz, Quiapo, San Miguel, Hermita (or Ermita), Malate, Tambobon (now Malabon), and later additions Dilao (now Paco), Pineda (now Pasay), and Navotas. Thus, the Catholic Church attempted to “police” the Catholic Chinese, just as in 1828, the Spanish authorities had tried to organize them into barangays like the indios and mestizos (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 183). In terms of classifications, we find in Church documents the same ethnic classification found in government records: sangley. Moreover, the word “infieP or “cristiam” was also appended to distinguish the two. Both government and church documents up to 1760s used this religious classification. However, from that period on, the classification in government documents turned from t religious to a secular one. The Chinese were classified either as “transient” (itm m ado) or “resident” R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 (radicado), but the Catholic Church continued to use the religious distinctions up to the end of the nineteenth century. Wickberg writes that the Spaniards were only “moderately” successful in their attempts at converting the Chinese ([1965] 2000, 1.6), He places the number of converts at 3,000 to 4,000 at any given time from a population of 20,000 to 30,000. This equates to only around 15 percent of the total Chinese population for the period before 1850. Some church records show that after 1850, the percentage of Catholic converts in relation to the tola! Binondo population was even lower. For example, in 1886, the Binondo Church, which had the largest number of Catholic Chinese, reported only 985 Catholic Chinese out of a total population, of 25,000, or a mere 4 percent (AAM Planes de Almas [PA] 1880-1887, 35.B.6, folder 9). This may have been due to attempts of the Spanish colonial government to attach less importance to the religious status of the individual, and to granting of equal rights between non converts and converts. But as we shall see in Chapter 2, conversion to Catholicism remained an important option for many Chinese. Government structure and governance o f the Chinese Before 1850, the Chinese merchants were organized according to gremios that were either occupational guilds or tax-collecting houses. Each gremio was headed or represented by a cabeza or cabecilla (i.e., “boss,” “forem an,” or “ringleader”). Collectively, these cabezas were known as the cabecillas de officios For more details, see AAM PA 35. A.3 to 35.C.9. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 or “occupational forem en” and together with a mbecilla principal, made up a principalia or hoard of notables responsible for making nominations for the office of goberaadorcillo, which means “small governor” (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 36-37), Apart from, these gremios, there was the Gremio de Chinos de Binondo, founded in the 1680s, and which was “a kind of combined municipal corporation and rel igious sodality” (180). However, in about the year 1800, another organization called the Gremio de Chinos appeared. This new gremio was a “kind of vaguely defined, supramunicipal corporate organization of the Chinese in the Manila area” (180). Eventually, the Gremio de Chinos de Binondo lost its administrative character but “remained a kind of status group for Catholic Chinese with primarily ceremonial functions, involving particularly the Feast of La Naval” (180). The goberaadorcillo, along with other elected Chinese officials, was supposed to be Catholic. Besides his religious affiliation, his credentials as a person of good moral standing and his financial background were also important. But despite this background check, criticisms were often thrown at the gobernadorcillo’s office and the Gremio for abuse of power or corruption. In response, the Spanish government created in 1887 the office of the Chinese tementes (lieutenants) who were appointed by the Government, and placed in charge of “keeping order among the Chinese assigned to them, collecting taxes, and keeping a record of all arrivals and departures in their jurisdictions” (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 182),34 34 The institution was more successful than earlier attempts by the Spanish government to control the Chinese, such as the plan in 1828 to organize them into barangays, that is, into small political units R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 Apart from the Gremio de Chinos, another organizational structure created w as th e T ribunal de Sangleyes, w hich functioned as a courthouse. The gobemadorcilio was head of this tribunal and heard cases involving the Chinese, Other institutions existed, such as the Shanju Gongsuo, known today as the Chinese Charitable Association, which was formed in 1.870. The Shanju administered the Manila Chinese cemetery and hospital as well as the Anglo-Chinese School formed in 1899. In assessing the strength and autonomy of the Chinese leadership, Wickberg states that the Spanish government gave the Chinese leaders fairly autonomous freedom.35 Due to the w eakness of the Spanish adm inistration, the Spanish authorities had to rely on the Chinese leaders to help them in governing the numerous Chinese immigrants or residents in the country. Unlike their counterparts in Indonesia who were appointed by the Dutch authorities, the Chinese leaders in the Philippines were elected by their own constituents. The Chinese leadership thus had greater autonomy and influence over their community ([1965] 2000,205). Population and other demographic statistics on the Chinese It is very hard to ascertain the exact number of Chinese living in the Philippines, especially during the Spanish colonial period, This is due to several composing of thirty to onr hundred families living in a neighborhood (cf. Wickberg [1965] 2000, 183). 35 Andrew Wilson (1998) also shows this degree of autonomy in the Philippine Chinese leadership by showing how the Chinese elite at this time were able to manipulate colonial aspirations and prejudices to satisfy their personal ambitions and to farther local interest,s.. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 factors, among them the inexactitude of census-taking during that period, and the ability o f the Chinese to avoid registration, However, since government and Church records are often our only sources, we have to use them, but must bear in mind that these are merely approximations, not to be evaluated for their accuracy but rather for a general picture of the Chinese population in the Philippines, The earliest record of the number of Chinese dates back to 1570, when Legazpi and his men encountered forty Chinese and their families in M anila (Guerrero 1966, 16). The following table will show the increase in the number of Chinese over the next few decades (Pe 1983, 27): Table 1: Population of the Chinese in the Philippines, 1603-1639 Year Population 1603 around 20,000 1604 457 (after the massacre) 1635 20,000 1639 33,000 The reduction in the number of Chinese from around twenty thousand In 1603 to merely above four hundred the following year was a result of the killing of thousands of Chinese. I will not go into the details of what happened, as this has already been written elsewhere (see, e.g., Guerrero 1966, 25; Wickberg [1965] 2000, 10-11).36 Suffice is it to say here that Spanish immigration policy during the early Briefly, in 1601. three Chinese envoys were reported to have arrived in the Philippines in search of a mountain of gold, Thu visit alarmed the Spanish colonial r a te , who, being outnumbered twenty to one by the local ('hinc.su alone, began to suspect a possible Chinese invasion from. China aided by the local Chinese, When a rumor went around Manila that an order of massacre was going to be carried out against the Chinese, the Chinese revolted, and the Spaniards, with the aid of local natives, took the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 first few decades o f the seventeenth century seems to have been marked by suspicion, distrust, and misunderstandings. There would be another mass killing of Chinese in 1639, resulting in an estimated 23,000 Chinese victims.37 These two massacres, along with other repressive or violent measures managed to reduce the number of the Chinese living in the Philippines. But such m easures halted the flow of Chinese immigrants only temporarily, for as I have pointed out earlier, the Spanish colonizers recognized the value of their contribution to the local economy, not to mention to their own business interests. Thus, they did not totally ban the coming of the Chinese. Instead, from 1606 on, they mandated a quota that restricted the number of Chinese allowed to stay at 6,000. In 1790, this quota was reduced to 4,000. From. 1750 to 1.850, the num ber o f Chinese probably stood at 5,000, according to official figures. This lower figure can be attributed to the expulsion of many Chinese after the British invasion from 1762 to 1764. Many Catholic Chinese sided with the British in their war against the Spaniards. This led to the expulsion order of 1766, in which tighter implementation of earlier restriction, policies placed the number of Chinese allowed to stay at 5,000. But despite these restrictions and impediments, the number of the Chinese living in the Philippines up until the middle offensive and reportedly killed 23,000 Chinese, almost wiping out the entire Chinese population of Manila, 37 This time, a group of Chinese who were being forced to work crown lands in Laguna under harsh, conditions rose i,p and proceeded to Manila to protest There, they were joined by the Manila Chinese, who were also proivsliug against the “aihitr.irv lax demands imposed upon them by the Spanish government and whose lives were made wotse In the economic hardships accompanying a bad year in the daikon trade.” 400 Spaniards, 600 natives, and 500 Japanese were organized to R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 of the nineteenth century was more likely to be around 20,000, Of this number, 50 percent lived in the Manila area. A rundown of the different Spanish policies on Chinese immigration, from 1750 to 1850 is given below (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 12, 15): 1606 and 1622 - Royal orders were issued limiting the number of Chinese to 6,000, but never strictly implemented until 1.662, by expulsion. 1628 ~ A royal decree allowed Catholic Chinese to roam the Islands almost as they wished, while non-Catholics were occasionally allowed in areas adjacent to Manila, but more often restricted to the Parian. 1686 -- A decree was given, that all Chinese be expelled from Philippines within six months, but was not carried out for fear that the Kangxi emperor would revoke permission to proselytize in South China 1755 - Expulsion decree ordered, leaving perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 Chinese in Manila, a . major reason was that the Spaniards, mestizos, and indios wanted to take over the retail trade. 1766 - Last expulsion policy of the Chinese decreed. 1830s - Spanish policy to make the Philippine colony more economically developed in order to extract more from it, and subsequently led to more encouragement of Chinese immigration. 1.839 ™ A decree from the Philippine governor-general gave the Chinese complete liberty to choose the occupation that best suited them, thus allowing them to travel around the country as long as permits were obtained. Thus, one can see that after 1766, there were no more expulsions, The immigration policy moved from limitation to encouragement. This increased immigration was also facilitated by regular steamship services from Amoy, Hong repulse these protesting Chinese.,, and in. a few days, these troops managed to kill 20,000 of them (Wickberg [196SJ 2000,10). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 Kong, and Manila. The population o f the Chinese in the nineteenth century is summarized below;38 Table 2: Chinese Population in the Philippines, 1828-1894 Year Population 1828 5,7Q339 1847 5,700 1864 1.8,000 1876 30,000+40 1886 66,00044 1891 59,000 1894 50,000 How did the Chinese population compare with the total population in the Philippines in the nineteenth century? Below is a chart showing some population statistics from selected years, and culled from different sources. 38 The figures given here are mainly taken from Wickberg [1965] 2000, unless indicated otherwise. Wickberg writes that different estimates can be found in other sources. For instance, one source puts the estimate of the Chinese population in the 1880s and 1890s to over 100,000, or between 90,000 and 120,000 ([1965] 2000,170). He gives a more conservative estimate. This figure is based on Robles, who also writes that of the 5,703, 5,279 were in Manila and its suburbs. “The rest were in Cavite and elsewhere. Seven were registered as wholesale merchants 166 as domestic trade businessmen, 4,509 as storekeepers, factory workers or owners, and 830 were in miscellaneous pursuits. One hundred ninety-six were exempted from tribute by reason, of age and other circumstances” (1969,53ti 56). 40 This figure is based on the Bureau of Insular Affairs 1903. The census of 1876 indicates that there were 30,797 Chinese in the Archipelago, and “in ten years, or in 1886, this number had grown to 99.152” (163), Thus, the period in which there was the most increase in Chinese immigration was from 1876-1886. 41 The Bureau of Insular Affairs (1903) puts the number of Chinese at 99,152. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 Table 3; Population statistics in the Philippines according to ethnic group, 1800- 1903 'Year Total Philippine Population Total Indio population Total Mestizo Population Total Chinese Population Total Spanish Population 1800 1,561,25142 n/a n/a 5,000 n/a 1810 2,526,40643 2,395,687 119,719 7,000 4,000 1826 n/a n/a 125,385 5,000 n/a 1828 n/a n/a n/a 5,703 n/a 1835 n/a n/a 156,435 n/a n/a 1847 n/a n/a n/a 5,700 n/a 1848 n/a n/a 412.65944 n/a n/a 1850 4 million n/a n/a n/a n/a 1864 4,700,00045 n/a n/a 18,000 n/a 1870 n/a n/a n/a n/a 13,500 1873 7,451,35246 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1876 n/a n/a n/a 30,797 n/a 1886 n/a n/a n/a 66,000 n/a 1890s 7 million n/a n/a 50,000- 100,00047 n/a 1898 7,928,3 8448 n/a n/a n/a 34,000 1903 7 million n/a n/a n/a n/a Based on this incomplete chart, the proportion of the Chinese population to the total population was a low .3 percent before 1850, and a high 1.4 percent in the 42 This figure is based on Corpuz 1967,212 and Roth 1977,36, 43 The figures for this year are based on Comyn 1969,145-146. 44 The figures for the mestizo population in the years 1810, 1826, 1835. and 1848 are based on Robles, who calculated the number of mestizos by assigning 6 1/2 persons for every tribute payer (1969, 53), He based this method o f calculating the population on Tenuis de Comyn, who used the maen between the number of persons constituting a family in Spain (5). and the number in the “Indies” (8), to peg the number constituting a family— thus an entire tribute—in the Philippines (1820,2), The total number of tax-payers for the years above are 18,236; 19,290; 24,067; and 63,486 respectively, which gives us the estimated number of mestizos in those years. 45 This figure is based on Uy 1984, 32. 46 This figure is based on Uy 1984, 32, 47 The statistic on total population in the Philippines and the Chinese population of 100,000 is based onDoeppere 1986, 384, 48 This figure is based m Corpie 1967,212 and Roth 1977,36. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 1890s., Up until the turn, of the twentieth century, the Chinese population in the Philippines was heavily concentrated in Manila. For instance, in 1828, 5,279, or 93 percent of the Chinese population of 5,708 lived in Manila. Throughout the decades that followed, at least 50 percent of the total Chinese population in the Philippines lived in Manila.49 Of those living in Manila, the majority lived in the districts of Bin.on.do and San Nicolas. For instance, in the 1885-1887 parish, records from Binondo, the number of Chinese estimated to live in Binondo was placed at more than 25,000 (AAM PA 1880-1887, 35.B.6 folders 6-8).50 As the number of Chinese grew after the 1850s, the Chinese population in these two districts started to also grow in proportion to other ethnic groups. In 1855, the Chinese only made up 18 percent of the total Binondo population.5 1 By 1898, they made up 60 percent of the combined total population of Binondo and San Nicolas.52 Doeppers writes that in 1894, “nearly two-thirds of all Chinese in greater Manila resided in Binondo ” He explains that the reason why Binondo attracted the most Chinese was that not only was it a 49 For more information, see Wickberg [1965] 2000,53-61. 59 In the 1870s, the estimated number of Chinese was placed at around 20,000 and more (see AAM PA 1871-1879, 35.13.5). 51 According to Bemad, there were 27,500 residents in Binondo in 1855. with the following distribution according to ethnicity: Spaniards 1,400; indies and mestizos 21.000; Europeans 96; and the Chinese 5,.O C X ) (1972,4), 52 The breakdown of the different ethnic pumps in that year was as follows; Espafloles jHiiitmikres (Spanish peninsulars) 534; mestizos do l<\p«noles (Spanish mestizos) 20.7; naturales (natives) 5,942; mestizos de sangleyes (Chinese mestizos) 1,720; estrangeros cle raza blanea (foreigners of the white race) 120; and the Chinos (Chinese) 12,713 (RMAO Esiadistica de M onth 189(5-1 .898). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 recei ving area for new arrivals, but it was also the ‘'principal focus of the Chinese economy in the islands” (1979,20).3 3 As mentioned above, most of the Chinese came from the Jinjiang region of present-day Fujian, China. In 1822, this region accounted for over 90 percent of the recorded Chinese in the Philippines. More than seventy years later, it still accounted for 87.5 percent of M anila’s Chinese community, with the rest mostly from the Canton region (Doeppers 1986, 38S).54 In government documents, the Chinese from the Canton region were often labeled as “macanistas? which means “from Macao.” On the other hand, the Chinese from Jinjiang were labeled as “sangley ”55 As for the sex ratio of the Chinese in Manila, it is estimated that in 1870, there were 193 women to 23,000 Chinese, or a ratio of 8 women to 1,000 men. In 1886, out of the total Philippine Chinese population of 66,000, there were 194 women (191 of them in Manila), or a ratio of 3 women to 1,000 men. For Manila, where the population was around 50,000, the ratio was 4 women to 1,000. In 1903, it was 517 women to 41,035, or a ratio of 13 to every 1,000 (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 33 o th er places with a significant population of Chinese past-1850 were the abaca-producing provinces of Albay, Leyte, and Samar; sugar-producers Negros Occidental and Panay; and tobacco- producing provinces Cagayan and Isabela; and main trading centers like Cebu and Jolo (see Wickberg [1965] 2000,62-63), 34 In an article written, by Go Bon Juan and published in the World News, 29 January 1995, a recent study made on slightly over thirty "thousand tombstones in the Chinese Cemetery shows the following statistical information regarding the birth-place of those buried there; Jinjiang 66.46 percent; Nanan 17.63 percent; Xiamen 8,12 percent; Huian 2.96 percent; Longxi 1.55 percent; Binning 1.24 percent; Quanzhou 1,17 percent; tongarr 1.12 percent; Shihsi 0.85 percent; Yunpchun o 58 percent; and Anxi 0,54 percent. These places account for 89.26 of the total, while those horn Guangdong total 9,86 percent. 33 See Introduction, In. 1. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 174), Thus, we see a slight increase in the number of Chinese women in Manila at the turn of the twentieth century. As to the age range of the Chinese who came to the Philippines, we do not have any definitive and complete study. Doeppers, however, notes “60 percent of the registered Chinese male population of Manila in 1894 was aged 20-35 , , (1986, 384-385).56 In contemporary Philippine society, the perception, regarding the socio economic status of the Chinese is that most of them belong to the merchant class. However, this situation is a product of certain historical forces. As discussed later in the chapter, the American colonial government applied the Chinese Exclusion Act in the Philippines and prohibited Chinese laborers from, entering the country. Other kinds of people, including teachers, professionals, travelers, and merchants, were allowed entry. Furthermore, discriminatory citizenship regulations also barred many Chinese from practicing certain professions, and thus encouraged most of them to engage in business instead. But up until 1850, the Chinese who came to the Philippines seem to have come from all types of socio-economic backgrounds. There were merchants and artisans, as well as vagabonds and criminals. However, it may be safe to presume that those who came were seeking some form of economic advancement, and thus may likely have ended up being involved in trade or commerce., either as an owner of his business or as an employee. After 1.850, with Compared to Beijing, where the equivalent male population was only 42 percent, the proportion of young men in Manila to other age groups was high (Doeppers 1986, 385). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 the increasing industrialization and participation of the Philippines in the global market, the number of Chinese contract laborers who worked as stevedores or store employees rose. But until a more systematic study is undertaken, to determine the socio-economic background of the Chinese in the Philippines, we can only offer a genera! picture.5 7 Finally, as to their civil status, Doeppers writes among the 20,750 Chinese registered in Manila in the late 1890s and who paid the mandatory capitation tax, barely 3 (percent) of the males were officially recognized as being married, which means that they were also Catholic married in a religious cerem ony . . . and probably more than 3 (percent) inform ally cohabited with a (local) wife (1986, 384). Given the miniscule number of women from China, it is not surprising for these Chinese men to intermarry, and I therefore suspect that the number of intermarriages and consensual unions could be higher. The number above does not also reflect the number of Chinese who were married before they came to the Philippines, or who returned to China to marry,58 57 Wickberg, for example,, writes that after 1870, there were two forms of immigration; one that was based on coolie-brokerage and another that was kinship-based. However, the ‘ ’relative amounts of each are not known” (Wickberg [1965] 2000,170). 58 A good starting point in the im estigation of the civil status of the Chinese in the Philippines would be the padroms or tax Roisters as well as the pnm eoim or notarial records However, as mmt.ioii.ed in Chapter 2, caution most be excicisecl. in using these records, for I have found that a Chinese could claim to be “so k e n f (baelidnr) but was actually married in China. The ivawm for this discrepancy was that the Spanish church and government did not recognize marriages contracted elsewhere. Thus, a Chinese married in. China could officially consider himself to be ’’single,” R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 Changes in the local economy and in the world in the nineteenth century Beginning in the nineteenth century, certain historical events in the Philippines and in China contributed to the rise of Chinese emigration to the Philippines,59 The cause of this rise may be attributed to several, things, such as the Taiping Rebellion in China that had caused untold misery and suffering among the people, especially those living in the countryside, Another cause was the liberalization of Spanish policy toward the Chinese, In 1839, the Chinese were allowed to choose whatever occupation they wanted to engage in, and to travel to the provinces for a period of twelve months. Also, the attitude of the Qing government in China toward its overseas subjects changed in the 1860s, when China first acknow ledged in a treaty with Britain the right o f its subjects to go abroad (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 211). Finally, the invention of the steamship made traveling to and from China and the Philippines much faster. Thus, as discussed earlier, starting in the m id-nineteenth century, the population o f the Chinese in the Philippines increased. From around 6,000 in 1847 (official record), their numbers grew to 30,000 in 1876, 66,000 in 1886 and to an estimated 90,000 in the late 1890s.® D uring the nineteenth century, the Philippine Chinese continued to monopolize trade with China, but in trade with other countries they moved into the 591 will not go into detail here as these developments have teen described elsewhere (e.g. Wickberg [1965] 2000; Legarda 1999: Corpttz 1997). ® The increase of Chinese in the Philippines was part of a broader trend of Chinese movement to other parts of Southeast Asia, as well as the Americas and the East Indies. For more information, see T, Chen 1923. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 position, of distributors and buyers for Western (especially European.) import-export firms. Wickberg writes that in this “old Chinese economy,” in which the Chinese were found mainly in parts of the country where the Spaniards settled, the Chinese performed “the functions of maritime traders, provisioned and retail dealers in urban settlements,” and were “distributors of Chinese imports in the areas adjacent to Spanish settlem ents, and artisans in both Spanish settlem ents and native communities” ([1965] 2000, 62-63 ). Some Chinese became processors of Philippine produce, monopoly contractors, arid coolie labor brokers. But in the “new Chinese economy,” in which the Chinese also settled in places where no or few Spaniards resided, the most important new activity they engaged in was that of commercial agent, or middleman. Moreover, traditional economic roles remained, in that many continued importing goods from China, and exporting goods from the Philippines, such as birds’ nests and sea cucumbers. However, they had begun using European ships in shipping these items instead of Chinese j unks. State policies, reclassification of categories; the granting of Spanish citizenship Beginning in the late eighteenth century, Spanish classifications toward the Chinese started to change. Wickberg writes that Spaniards stopped classifying them according to religious affiliation and instead began, to classify them in terms of residence status, Le, as “transient” (invernado) or “resident” (mdicado). However, Wickberg does not specify under what conditions and in what records these terms were used. What one does observe is a change from using the term sangley to the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 word chino (Chinese), although the term sangley continued to be widely used in both government and church records ([1965] 2000, 155). Wickberg hypothesizes that this change of terms to refer to the Chinese could have been bome out of the desire of the Spanish colonial government to improve diplomatic relations with China. Since he thinks sangley is a pejorative term, the word chino was used so as to convey more neutrality (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 155).6 1 Starting in the 1840s, the Chinese also could apply for Spanish citizenship. Some wealthy Chinese indeed became Spanish subjects. Those who applied for citizenship had to have been a resident of the Philippines for a number of years, with good letters of recommendation from officials, and be baptized. We have no record of exactly how many Chinese applied for Spanish citizenship, or if there were many who did,02 As more and more foreigners other than the Chinese were allowed into the Philippines after 1850, the Spanish administration faced a new dilemma on how to classify the Chinese in relation to these foreigners. Wickberg notes that were the Spanish colonial government to consider the Chinese as “foreigners,” it would mean exempting the latter from certain taxes they were paying, a move that the former did * > 1 However, it seems to me that the term may not tie that derop ik n For if it were so, how come the Chinese allowed the establishment of the ‘Tribunal de Sanglin k % ' (a quasi-judicial body to adjudicate cases concerning the Chinese) with a derogatory term in its name/ ® Wickberg lists the following Chinese who applied for naturalization: Antonio Tong, Joaquin Martinez By Tiong-Tay, Emilio A sen si Yu Biaoco, and Antonio Osorio Tan Quineo ['1965] 2000, 156n. 31). Wickberg bases this list .from the Reales Ordeties, or Royal Orders, fcuhhI at the RMAO. However, I have been unable to track down these sources from my own u\st well Based on other sources, my own research shows that the following prominent Chinese also applied Joaquin Barrera Lirnjap, Carlos Palanca Tan Quien-sien, and Ignacio Jan Buncan. 1 suspect, theiefore, that there were R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 not w ant to make as this would resuit in a loss of revenue, However, if it was to its interest to grant foreigners more privileges so as to help develop the colony, such as granting them the right to own land, it would conveniently include the Chinese. Thus, th e result was “an ambiguity in the status of the Chinese,” in which the Chinese were lumped together with the foreigners, but at the same time in taxation was “considered to be, as before, no more than a cultural minority group” (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 156-157). This ambiguity, however, would be removed by the new citizenship regulations created under the American, colonial rule in the Philippines. Anti-Chinese sentiments; ethnic relations Did the Spanish colonial government then discriminate against the Chinese? Past studies indicate that it often displayed, through its restrictive policies, an attitude of prejudice against the Chinese (e.g., Horsley 1950). However, even if the Chinese were treated differently from the indios or the mestizos, they enjoyed similar rights, such as the ability to change their place of residence. Furthermore, even though the Chinese continued to be taxed the most, by the 1880s the gap between the rates they paid and those of the natives had narrowed. Foreigners, such as European and North American merchants, who previously were exempted from paying taxes, also began to pay taxes at rates almost as high as the Chinese. Finally, in the debate between conservatives and liberals on whether to grant the Chinese more freedom or better privileges, the liberals seemed to win out. For instance, in 1839, a decree was issued many more Chinese who became Spanish citizens. For the dossier of the Chinese from provinces who R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 favoring the liberals’ proposal to allow the Chinese complete liberty in choosing the occupation that best suited them (Wickberg ['1965'] 2000, 52-53), Also, the liberals’ proposal to relax immigration policies relating to the Chinese was adopted in the 1860s (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 51-52). Yet, there were instances of anti-Chinese sentiment; in the 1880s and 1890s. This can be seen, for example, in the writings of Jordana y Morera (1888) and Comenge y Dalmau (1894),63 However, the newspaper El Comercio supported the Chinese. One cause of anti-Chinese sentiment seemed to have been the cholera epidemic which broke out in 1879, and which was attributed to the Chinese, who traveled often and thus could have been considered the prime agents o f infection. Another cause was the economic depression in the 1880s, in which the Chinese were used as scapegoats. As for relations between the Chinese and other ethnic groups, Wickberg writes that Hispanicized mestizos or indios felt antagonistic toward the Chinese ([1965] 2000, 148). The antagonism not only arose from cultural differences, but also from economic competition. Lower-class mestizos and indios also viewed the Chinese with antagonism. This attitude arose from economic competition, as when Chinese labor gangs displaced many indio laborers, especially those in Manila. applied, see RMAO NE 1893-1898; RMAO NESP 1886-1889, 93 Jordana y Morera was an engineer, who was assigned to the Philippines from 1873-185, and becam e the c h ie f of the B u reau o f M o u n tain s in the M in istry o f O v erseas A ffairs {http;/Aww,:iies.e8/inontes/hi8t:3.htni). Comertge, on the other hand, was known for his conservative views and opposition to Chinese immigration (Wickberg [1965] 2000, SO ). For other titles expressing anti-Chinese sentiments, sec Wickberg [1965] 2000, I52n, 21, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 However, unlike in the ease with the upper class mestizos and indios, this attitude did not stem from a cultural reaction, Wickberg ([1965] 2000, 203-206) uses this rising anti-Chinese sentiment in the last two decades of the nineteenth century to explain why, in the twentieth century, the Chinese started to withdraw into “communalism.” This view, however, will be debated in. the succeeding chapters. The revolution of 1896-1898 How did the Chinese react to or participate in the outbreak of native hostilities against the Spanish in 1896? Very little is known regarding this chapter in their history, Wickberg writes that the political uncertainties in the Philippines pushed the Chinese to again seek protection from China in the form of consular and gunboat protection.64 China, in turn, requested Britain to send in their gunboats to Manila and to ask the British consul in Manila to protect the Chinese (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 232). In the meantime, discussion on establishing a Chinese consulate continued, until in July of 1898, Spain finally agreed to the establishment of a Chinese consulate “on a temporary basis until the end of the disorders” (233). It was only during the American colonial rule that a permanent one was established. In general, the Chinese seemed to have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the hostilities between the local rebels and the imperial powers. Only one Chinese, 64 The first attempt was made in 1886, when four Chinese 'merchant leaders from the Philippines; namely, Yap Licmg-quin, Tan Chuey-liong, Lira Cong-iup, and Co Chi-lni, went to Hong Kong to R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 1 Hon A-p' ao, or Josi Ignacio Pa.ua, is known to have openly participated as t general o f the revolutionary government of General Emilio Agmnaldo Economically, the Philippine revolution (which extended to hostilities between the Philippine and the United States during the first decade of the twentieth century) caused many hardships and economic dislocations for the Chinese, A manifestation of this economic dislocation and slowdown can. be seen, in, the reduced number of business contracts drawn up by ‘ tie Chinese in Manila during the years 1896-1898. Many Chinese also decided to return to China, or le e to Manila as “the lawlessness and unsettled conditions in several provinces caused severe property losses” (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 123), The coming of the Americans and Chines® exclusion laws In 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines, along with Cuba, Guam, and Puerto Rico, to the United States for the sum of 20 million dollars, as stipulated in the Treaty of Paris, Consequently, this led to the Philippine-American War o f 1899- 1902.66 At the beginning of its colonial rule in the Philippines, the United States seemed to be at a loss on. how to administer the islands, It was not well versed in the law, customs, and practices of the people in the Philippines, nor in the system of the petition (he Chinese government for the establishment of a consulate in Manila (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 215-21$. ® For more informatim about Hou A-p’ao, see Wickberg [1965] 2000, 201-202; and of Chinese participation in the Philippine Revolution, see Atig See and Go 1996. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 past adrnMstiation. (Wilson. 1998, 214). In regards to the Chinese, it applied what it knew based on its own experiences with the Chinese in the United States. Thus, the Chinese Exclusion Act was made operative in the Philippines in September 1898 ■under the provisional military government o f Brigadier-General E.S. Otis. The measure was temporary. However, in 1902, the U.S. Congress approved the extension o f the Chinese exclusion laws to the Philippines and directed the Philippine Commission to make the necessary regulations to m ate the law effective. T hrough the Executive Order and the act o f Congress of 3 March 1903, the immigration laws were put into effect in the Islands. Later on, an enactment of the U.S. Congress in 1904 established the Chinese Exclusion as a permanent policy that continued to be in force until 1940 (Jensen 1975, 49). Under this law, all Chinese coming in as coolies were barred from entering the Philippines. Those exempted included Chinese officials, teachers, students, merchants, or tourists. But were children o f these Chinese exempted too? Jensen, quoting the U.S. War Department, states that the exclusion laws applied to .... all persons who were directly descended from one or both parents of pure Chinese blood; and that the admixture o f blood other 'than Chinese, when the Chinese blood predominated, would not be held to exempt persons from the operation of those laws. The definition also stated that while the question had not been passed upon judicially, if a concrete case arose in which the admixture of Chinese blood was less than h alf or in. w hich the w hite blood predominated., then the Department would be inclined to decide in favor of the predominant white blood (1975,67). ^ The Americans managed to defeat the Filipino resistance movement and occupied the Philippines until 1946. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 As to the question of citizenship, the American colonial government decreed that all those who were Spanish subjects prior to 11 April 1899 were deemed citizens of the Philippine Islands, Their children who were bom in the Islands were regarded likewise (Azeuna 1969,75). But the application of the Chinese Exclusion Laws of the U.S. to the Philippines barred the other Chinese, i.e., those who te d not become naturalized Spanish subjects, from being eligible to apply for Filipino citizenship.67 Thus, m estizo children whose parents rem ained Chinese subjects were also considered “Chinese.” However, upon reaching the age of majority or emancipation, they were required to state within a year whether they wanted to become Filipino citizens.68 Thus, when the Americans took over the Philippines in 1898, they simplified the national classifications of people into “Filipinos,” and “non.-Filipinos.” with the latter falling under the classification of “aliens.”69 This, at least politically, solved the ambiguity of the status of the Chinese in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period. In the meantime, Chinese nationalist leaders and intellectuals in China during the late nineteenth century, and in the first half of the twentieth century, embarked on an aggressive cam paign to increase patriotism among the overseas Chinese 67 For more information about, succeeding laws on citizenship during the American colonial period, see Jensen 1975,163. 68 “Filipinos” under the American colonial government were not considered citizens of the United States but rather citizens o f the Philippines. However, they enjoyed certain privileges such as the protection of their personal and property rights (see Fisher 1946,15). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 communities abroad, particularly in Southeast Asia, For instance, in the late 1.890s, the term huaqia< ? » which means “Chinese living overseas,” began to 'be ‘ used to attract support from its “Chinese subjects” living in Southeast Asia.70 In 1909, the Chinese government promulgated a nationality law adopting th e jte sanguinis policy, which meant that everybody who was a child o f a Chinese national was also Chinese, regardless o f his/her country o f domicile. Thus, m any o f the Chinese in the Philippines remained politically loyal to China. It was thus during the American colonial period and in the twentieth century that, with the heightened nationalisms both in, the Philippines and China, ethnic boundaries between the “Filipinos” and the “Chinese” were delineated, constructed, and hardened. Those that became categorized under “Filipino” were mainly mestizos and indios. .And it is the history of the mestizos that the next section in this chapter turns to. The mestizos How they came about; how they were classified In Ms seminal works, ‘ 'The Chinese Mestizo in Philippine History" (1964) and the Chinese in Philippine Life ([1965] 2000), Wickberg writes that tie rise of the mestizo class in tie Philippines occurred during the middle of the eighteenth century. ® It must be noted, however, that the Americans also distingm i i I stwecn “civilized" Filipinos and those who belonged to the “wild" races, today known as tribal minorities. I would like to thank Aurora Roxas-Lim for this information 70 For mere information regarding the construction of the term huaqiao, see Wang 1991, 24-26 and Duara 1997. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 As unions between Chinese and local women grew' in number, so did the number of m estizo children. With the increase o f mestizos, especially in urban areas, the Spanish colonial government began to establish a separate legal classification for them. Urban centres such as Manila and Cebu thus became communities of indios, sangleyes, and mestizos.7 1 Initially, the division was mainly drawn for the purposes o f taxation. Following its policy of taxing their subjects according to their capacity to earn, the Spanish colonial government taxed the Chinese the most, followed by the mestizos, 'then tie indios.72 However, this division soon affected the right to travel, as well as property ownership, and participation in government. For such rights, the division was two-fold, in that the indios and the mestizos shared the same rights, while the Chinese did not (Wickberg 1964,64-65; [1965] 2000, 31) Spanish colonial law defined male descendants of Chinese paternal ancestors as mestizos, even after several generations (Wickberg [1965] 2000,33; Robles 1969, 77) 74 Although this kind of legislation posed problems for mestizos who wished to 71 However, there also were Spaniards and Spanish mestizos in the major cities, although fewer in number. It should be pointed out that the term “mestizo,” when applied to the case of racial mixing in the Philippines, refared to the offspring of a Chinese man and a local 'woman, or a descendant of such a union traced patrilineally. The reason for such usage was that there were more children resulting from such unions. In Ibero-America, however, the term generally refers to the offspring of white man and a local (specifically Indian) woman or of an Indian man and a white woman (Esteva-Fabregat 1995, 4). 72 Spaniards, whether bora in Spain or in the Philippines, were exempt from taxation, f o r more information on the changes of taxation policies involving these groups, see Wickberg ([1965] 2000,9, 141,158*1®). f t For instance, both the mestizos and indios were considered indigenous subjects of Spain and had legal rights to participate in local government and to change their residence. The Chinese, on the other hand, did not enjoy the same rights (Wickberg [1965] 2000,31). 74 In a document I found at the RMAO, someone by the name of S imeon Conte Lira Liongco was listed as “mestizo de sangley” while his parents, Lira Liongco and Uy-Quim-Niu. were both labeled as “infieles,” and judging from their names, were Chinese (RMAO Bautismc® Binondo 1814-1895, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 change their classification to indio or Chinese, both male mestizos and indios were still able to change their classification for taxation purposes. This occurred in the provinces in particular. An example is Jose Rizal’s father who changed his own status and that of his children in the tax-census register from mestizo to indio.75 But in urban areas, the mestizos preferred to retain their high status and to not change their status to indio. However, Wickberg notes that he found one case of a mestizo changing his classification to Chinese. This was Bonifacio Limtuaco. Another mestizo, lldefonso Tambmitmg was “one o f a very few prominent mestizos who openly identified themselves as Chinese and, followed Chinese customs” (1964,95n. 109).76 On the other hand, the situation was different for female descendants. Through marriage, a mestiza might change status. Thus, while a mestiza marrying a mestizo or a Chinese remained in the mestizo classification, as did her children, if she married an indio or Spaniard, she and her children assumed her husband’s classification. Presumably, an india became a mestiza when she married a mestizo. On the other hand, an india and a mestiza remained in the same classification when Bundle III, $7), Was it passible then that those bom in the Philipp tees of Chinese parents were also classified as “mestizos de Bangley”? Or did Simeon himself chose to be classified as such? 75 Josi Rizul (1861-1896) is the Philippines’ national hero. The Spanish colonial government, following the outbreak of the revolt against Spain,, arrested him and found lir a guilty of fomenting the revolution. He was executed on 30 December 1896. 76IldefotMo’s life will be discussed further in Chapter 4. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 marrying a Chinese, However, an india became classified as a mestiza when her Chinese husband died (Robies 1969,77).7 7 Economic position Many m estizos were born into a household in which either one ox both parents was engaged in business, and thus became entrepreneurs themselves. When a general expulsion of the Chinese occurred in 1755-1766, these mestizos took over the retail, trade left behind by the Chinese. By 1800, m estizos and Chinese shared, the function of retailing imported goods and local, products. In. Manila mestizos were also found in many trades hitherto exclusively Chinese; carriage-makers, carpenters, stone masons, printers, shoemakers, and tailors (Wickberg [1,965] 2000, 28). They were also distributors o f goods in inter-island trade, as well as inquilinos (lessors of land). Furthermore, there were some mestizos who became professionals, particularly as lawyers or members o f the secular clergy. In places where there were sufficiently large numbers o f mestizos, gremios were also formed, alongside that of the indios; and in Binondo and Santa Cruz, that of the indios and. Chinese. 77Robles writes that, as a general rule, however, a woman ‘resum ed her original status upon the death of her husband.” He gives no explanation for the exception. Moreover, he w rite that children generally follow die status of their fathers. However, this does not mean that a child of a Chinese father was also classified Chinese, As mentioned in this chapter, he or she became classified as “mestizo,” Moreover, Robles writes that children “bom of Chinese mestizos and Chinese parents engaged in agriculture, . . were privileged to apply either as natives or as Chinese mestizos” (1969, 77). This infoimation is based on two manuscripts, both of which are instructions given by Venacio de Abella and Rodriguez Batuta, on 13 August, 1.853 and 24 November 18.54, respectively. These documents can be found at the Newberry Library in Chicago (Robles 1969,299*301). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 Mesdzo-Ch.in.ese relations were supposed to be strained, due to both economic competition and cultural differences. Similarly, mestizo-iiidio relations ■ “were prejudiced by the frequent position of the mestizo as inquilino, moneylender, and sharp wholesaler in his dealings with the indio” (Wickberg [1965] 2000,36). However, whether such tension did exist is debatable, especially with regard to mestizo-Chinese relations. More of this will be discussed in the succeeding chapters. By around 181.0, there were approximately 120,000 mestizos, representing 5 percent o f the total Philippine population of about 2.5 million In the whole province ofTcaido, which then included the northern part of Manila, including Binondo and Santa Cruz, the mestizos made up about 30 percent of the population (Wickberg 1964, 73). However, it is not certain whether this figure included female mestizos or not, therefore the number could be Jtigher. In the last half of the nineteenth century, the m estizo population grew to between 150,000 and 300,000, out of a mean population of 5.5 million, i.e., roughly 6 percent of tire total population. During this time, many of the middle- and upper-class mestizos were able to go to Europe to study. While there, they were introduced to the liberal ideas of .reform that were sweeping through Spain and other parts of the world. Upon returning to the Philippines, some of them, along with similarly educated upper-class indios, began to work for reforms in the political system. In fact, according to several scholars (e.g., Wickberg [1965] 2000; Agoncillo 1990; A. Tan 1985) the history of the Philippine nation-state cannot be written without the inclusion o f the role and contributions made by these mestizos. Some of the better-known mestizos of that era R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 were Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zainora—three secular priests who were executed for their alleged participation in the Cavite Mutiny of 1§72,78 Other well-known mestizos included Jose Kizal, Pedro Pater.no, Gregorio Sancianco, Emilio Aguiraldo and Flavian© Yenko. Roman Ortgpiu, Mariano Limjap, Telesforo Chuicfian and Luis Yangco were all mestizos who provided financial contributions to the revolution. Thus, in the nationalist version of Philippme history, many of these mestizos are considered “fathers” of the “Filipino nation.” During the American colonial period, seveml-generation mestizos, along with the indios, were classified as “Filipinos.” As mentioned, previously, mestizos whose fathers were Chinese citizens were also considered “Chinese.” However, they could opt to become “Filipinos” upon the age o f maturity. On the other hand, if their fathers were naturalized Spanish subjects, then they autom atically became “Filipinos,” just as their fathers were. Conclusion This chapter lias attempted to contextualize the history of 'the Chinese and mestizos up until, the last half o f the nineteenth century and the first decade of'the twentieth century. Our picture of the Chinese “community” and the other ethnic groups, however, is necessarily incomplete (i.e., until such.time when, more studies 78 On 20 January 1872, the Cav ite Arsenal workers staged a revolt after realising that their pay had been deducted unreasonably by the Spanish government This revolt was considered by the Spanish authorities as part of a wider plan to oust Spanish rule, and thus, Fathers Mariano Gomez. Josd Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora were unjustly accused as leaders of this anti-Spanish movement and sentenced to death by the garm ie ml, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 using previously unused archival sources can be made), and partial, since most of the data used here come from colonial authorities and outside observers, Concerned with governing and controlling the Chinese, Spanish (and later on American) authorities often described and regarded the Chinese as a homogeneous group. Furthermore, their documents also involved tales of massacres, expulsions, debates about their desirability as subjects,, and ways to govern them vis-a-vis other groups. Thus, later scholars who false these colonial views at face value, and who have been influenced by assimtMoiiist approaches in the study of ethnicity, tend to portray these people in reified and binarist terms. In the succeeding chapters, I hope to present an alternative picture o f these people, one that shows that they had more interaction with one another, and thus were not homogeneous and separate. As we shall also see, in their familial, religious, and business practices, the Chinese and mestizos of the Philippines often negotiated state and church policies and lived out identities that were more complex, multi-faceted, and ambiguous than colonial writings (and past scholarship) had depicted them to be. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 Chapter 2 Rethinking the “ 'Catholic Chinese’ * of Manila Introduction Growing up as a Catholic within a Chinese household in the Philippines was to me an interesting experience, filled with incongruities, perplexities, and contradictions. Ever since I can remember, I have always considered myself a Catholic. I was baptized a Catholic when stilt a baby, and even had four sets of godparents, while my sisters each only had one. A t the age o f five, I started attending a Catholic Jesuit school, and studied under die Jesuits through college. My sisters and I would attend Sunday masses, and celebrated Catholic feast days just like die rest o f the predominantly Catholic population of the Philippines. However, my life was also interspersed with Chinese rituals and religious customs. I remember, for example, that when my father died in 1977, we held the wake at a funeral parlor located in Manila’s Chinatown. Tire funeral service was nothing but “Chinese,” complete with Buddhist monks reciting payers, fee drone and clang of Chinese instruments, and incense filling up the whole place.79 The elaborate funeral procession had trucks loaded with a house, cars, furniture'—all made out of paper—and various Chinese signs and banners. At the Chinese Cemetery located in die northern part o f Manila, my elder relatives instructed me to carry my father’s 79The only Catholic ritual during the wake wag a prayer service clone by our school chaplain, who came to the funeral parlor along with my classmates. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 portrait behind my back immediately after they had sealed his casket inside his tomb. I was to bring it to the car that would take me home. There I was to place Ms portrait on the family altar. What I did not know then was that, while walking toward the car, 1 also had to shout and say, “Father, come home with us.” I recall overhearing one o f my aunts whisper to another relative, “How come he is not saying it?” A t our old house in Pa say City, my fath er’s po rtrait was displayed prom inently near the dining room. I rem em ber that on Ms Chinese death anniversary, we 'had to “pray” to him with incense. I was conflicted for a while, for we were taught in school that we were only supposed to pray to our Christian God, and not to anyone else. Being hie good Catholic boy that I was, I resisted and resented 'being forced to “ pray” to my father. In out house, we also had an altar with portraits and statues o f Chinese gods. Whenever my paternal grandmother visited and stayed with us, I would find her praying the Buddhist rosary every morning. On Chinese popular religious feast days, the house would be filled with the smell of incense and the flagrant aroma of an assortment o f food neatly arranged before the altar. Outside, the household help would be folding and burning paper money. Ang See writes that among the Catholic Chinese in the Philippines, “religious syncretism” is quite common. In Chinese houses and even temples, Catholic, Buddhist, and Taoist images often stand side by side (1990a, 56). Edgar Wickberg also mentions that the Catholic Chinese prior to the twentieth century practiced “syncretism.” For instance, they venerated the Chinese gods Guan Yin and Ma Zu together with the Virgin Mary, or associated the two former gods with the latter R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 ([1965] 2000, 193). In Chapter 3 , 1 describe a scene from Jos< § Rizal’s novel El Filibmterismo depicting this eclectic display o f gods from different religious traditions in the house o f a prominent Chinese businessman from the nineteenth century. Catholicism has historically played an important role in the history o f the Chinese in the Philippines. As seen in Chapter 1, the Spanish colonial rulers had had a strong interest in the conversion of these “heathens” from China. State and church policies supported each other in this endeavor. Consequently, scholars interested in the general st udy o f the history—and of the ethnic identity, in particular— of the Chinese in the Philippines cannot ignore this small but significant segment of the Chinese population. Unfortunately, the studies that have been made about the Catholic Chinese often follow and. accept the biases of colonial rulers when assessing or describing their behavior. Far instance, while not discounting the existence o f “sincere” converts, Wickberg accepts Spanish accounts that many of these converts converted for pragmatic reasons, e.g., to acquire a Spanish godparent upon whom they could count on for protection (cotnpadrazgo).m Thus, the motivations of these converts remained suspect, and when compared to the local Catholic population, they did not share the same degree of sincerity with, which mestizos mid indios, especially those in the upper class, converted and embraced Spanish culture and religion. In following Spanish missionary (and some foreign, traveler) accounts of the quality' of ^However, Dominican accounts from the sixteenth century seem to paint a different picture of early missionary efforts. Many Chinese were converting, and those who converted were described as devoted to their new faith (Cobo 1966,1,33442; cf. Wills 1994,116}, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 conversion among the Chinese, Wickberg and other scholars have inadvertently heightened the difference between Chinese and indigenous converts, and by extension, between the “Chinese” and fee “locals.”8 1 However, in this chapter, I hope to provide an alternative interpretation to understanding these Catholic Chinese. Through a discussion o f their marriage practices, I would like to show that (heir behavior was not fundamentally different from that of local converts. Thus, I hope to question the way past scholarship used the “insincerity” of Catholic Chinese as a way to differentiate them from other ethnic groups, especially the mestizos. Furthermore, 'through an investigation of their inheritance practices in which they appropriated Spanish laws and Chinese customs to fit their specific familial or domestic situations, I hope to show that they lived out a “Chinese-ness” that differed from present-day constructions o f being “Chinese.” They could be “Chinese” or “Spanish” at different times or simultaneously. The Catholic Chinese and their local wives and families After Juan Miguel de Legaspi landed in Cebu and began the colonization process of the Islands in 1563, the Spanish Catholic Church set out to carry out its task of converting the Chinese. This it did by providing numerous incentives for conversion, such as allowing them to travel while placing more restrictions on the 81 Wickberg also quotes from Alexander Hamilton, an English visitor, who noted fiat Chinese converts often wore a little brass image hung around their necks, and carried the rosary everywhere, However, when traveling back to China, they would, m (heir ship passed “by a mountain dedicated to the Virgin M ary ,.. .throw their beads overboard, and thank the Virgin for her kindness to th a n ” (quoted in Wickberg [1965J 2000,16n, 341 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 m ovem ent o f non-converts (see Chapter I), It also encouraged intermarriages b etw e en the C hinese and local (C atholic) w om en. They regarded these intermarriages as in.important step toward the creation o f a community of loyal and God-fearing subjects. Not only did these intermarriages require the Chinese to convert, but they also helped produce many mestizos whom the missionaries considered as being very devout Catholics (Kiccio 1667, f, 235v). Oftentimes the m issionaries contrasted the behavior o f the mestizos with that o f their Chinese fathers, whom they viewed as insincere converts since they continued practicing their native customs and beliefs, and apostatized upon returning to China.® We do not have a definitive study of the number o f conversion among the Chinese, although educated estimates have been given.83 Moreover, .no similar study has been done on the intermarriages. A scholar estimates the number of Chinese converts who intermarried with local women in Manila in the late 1890s at 3 percent o f the total Chinese tax-paying population of 20,750. It is estimated that 82 la the late sixteenth century, Chinese converts in Manila were also required to give up their Chinese ways of dressing, including cutting their long hair. This caused the converts to request the missionaries that this requirement, be removed Cutting their tresses made it difficult for them to return to China, where it was forbidden for loyal male subjects, especially during the Qmg dynasty, to have shorn hair (Salazar 1966,129). However, by the nineteenth century, this requirement was no longer in effect. The Chinese were also allowed to dress “as Chinese in every way, or m indios or mestizos if they so wished” (Wickberg [1965] 2000,191). 83 According to Wickberg, early Spanish attempts at converting the Chinese were only “moderately” successful. Basing his estimates on reports given by Spanish friars and officials, he states that the number of converts stood at three to four thousand at any given time from a population that could be as high as twenty to thirty thousand ([1965] 2000,16), R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 roughly the same number were cohabiting with local 'women without the benefit of a civil or church marriage (Doeppers 1986,3S4).84 In order for a Chinese man and a local woman to apply for marriage, they had to go to the p ro v iso r’s court o f the A rchbishopric o f M anila, and present documentation, including proof of baptism and, on the part of the Chinese, of having been instructed in the Catholic faith. Witnesses were also presented attesting to their eligibility to contract marriage with one another,85 In the next section, I would like to present some cases of marriage practices from a number o f archival documents, and analyze what these documents tell us about the Chinese converts and their practices. In particular, I would like to investigate what these practices can tell us about their being “Catholics” and being “Chinese.” But before I proceed in giving my case studies, I would like to provide some background information regarding the documents I am using. The documents used to examine the marriage (and later in the chapter, the inheritance practices) of some Chinese come mainly from testaments filed under the heading Protocoio de Manila at the Record Management and Archives Office in Manila (R.MAO).86 84 There has been no systematic stuffy of the civil status o f these Chinese men in fie Philippines. Thus, we do not know what, proportion of these men were single or married, and even if records labelled th an as “single,” this did not necessarily mean that they were not married, since they could be married to Chinese women. As wil I be discussed in this chapter, the Spanish Catholic Church did not recognize marriages contracted in China. Thus, Chinese men with Chinese wives could consider themselves m “single.” 85 gee Sugaya 2000 and Banhoff 1992.13-14 for a more complete discussion o f die requirements for intmnarriages. 8d As mentioned in the Introduction, th&protocofas are bound volumes of contracts and instruments drawn up by different residents of Manila, and were notarized by one of the eight notary publics found in the city. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 In choosing the testaments to be .included in my study; I employed two methods. The first method involved selecting the testaments randomly; the second method used was to collect testaments based on a ten-year interval, starting with 1872* then 1882., 1892, and 1902. I also decided to 'include the year 1.897 to see if the outbreak of the revolution against Spain affected inheritance patterns among the Chinese.87 Based on these two methods, I collected twenty-seven (27) testaments.88 While tliis number may seem small it must be noted that I only focused on one notary public per year and that there were other notary publics in Manila during the period o f my study. Out o f the 27 cases involving testaments, three (3) are actually cases in which the people who had drawn up the wills had already died. The documents found in their files pertain to acts carrying out the provisions provided in their testaments or to acts contesting these. The rest of the cases pertain to wills of people drawn up while they were still living. Out of the eighteen (18) cases in which the reason for drawing up a testament was given, seventeen (17) were drawn up because the person is “sick in bed,” and thus may not have expected to recover from his illness. This did not necessarily mean, however, that the person died soon after. There was one that explicitly stated that the reason was that the person was returning to China, and 87 The only discernible difference for this year is the dearth of testaments found (tiring this period, i.e., I found only cate testament from this year from the files of a particular notary public, 88 The breakdown of testaments in terms o f years are us follows: from 1872,1 found 4 testaments; 1879:1;, 1882; 7; 1892.: 4; 1.895: 2; 1897: 2; 1.899:1; 1900: 2; 1901:4. The year 1902 yielded no record. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 probably did not expect to return very soon, if at all. Of the seventeen (17) people who were ill, two (2) also wished to return to China,80 Out o f the twenty-five (25) testators who identified their profession, twenty* four (24) were businessmen, •while one was an employee. Many of the testators also owned some property, and their ages ranged from the early 30s to the early 70s, with the average age at 43.7 years. Most o f them also were 'bom in the county of Jinjiang in southeastern Fujian.90 In terms of religious affiliation, all twenty-seven (27), with the exception of one (Cu Un-Jieng), were Catholics, Most identified their parents as “infidels,” However, four (4) identified their fathers as Catholics, although their mothers were all ‘infidels.”9 1 In term s o f civil status, tw enty-tw o (22) identified as being m arried legitimately or had. been at some point, i ,es some of them had been widowed. Only three (3) identified themselves as single, al though one of them had children. The rem aining two did not identify their civil status but mentioned leaving some 89 A caveat must be mentioned here. Sane of the testaments used iri this study were not necessarily the last aid final will of the testator. It. was a common practice for people to draw up different wills at different stages in their lives. Furthermore, w hat were stipulated in the testam ents were not necessarily carried out in reality. Disputes arose, and other forms of unforeseen circumstances may have prohibited the executors from carrying out the provisions of each testament See, for example, the cases found, under RMAO D e d a tm io m s ek H erederos, and B iem s de Djfimtos.. For this stu<fy, however, I am only concerned with examining die intentions of the testator, ^Fourteen o f them identified their native birthplace as Jinjiang, with toe others identifying the following: Nanan (Lamia): 3; Xiamen (Amcy): 3; Tongan (Tangua): 1; Longsd (Leonque): 3; Haitan (Jayten): I; not available: 2. 91 These four cases scan to point to a larger family history' o f migration to toe Philippines, in which the father came to toe Philippines, converted to Catholicism, went back to China and brought back his sons, who in turn, also converted to Catholicism. However, it was also possible that among those who identified their father as an infidel may have also had a multi-generational history of migration to the Philippines. The father who watt to the Philippines could have, decided not to convert to Catholicism while his son did. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 inheritance to a “querida” (loved one) with whom they had lived for a number of years, presumably as “common-law” husband and wife. O f the twenty-two (22) married or once-married men, six (6) were married twice, either after the death o f the first wife, or with the second marriage overlapping with the first Two (2) identified themselves as “widowed” but mentioned living with a woman. In studying the marriage practices of these testators and their wives, we have to distinguish between marriages contracted in China and those in the Philippines, and— among those marriages contracted in the Philippines—between consensual ones and the ones consecrated by the Catholic Church, For instance, Sy Tiong-Tay married Chan Siriin “according to the rites o f Ms country” and then married Am Cuangsi under Catholic rites in Manila, even while Ms first wife was still alive, Cu Un-Jiepg also was married to Gng Sy in China but lived consensually with Dominga Ayala in Manila.92 On the other hand, Mariano Velasco Chnaehengco was married simultaneously to two women—to Sy Sacia and to Maria Consolacion Ang Quinio, both of whom were Chinese women who were brought to the Philippines. Mariano contracted these two marriages in China (RMAO EEC 1901, 877, tomo 1, no, 69). Due to the interesting conjugal arrangements of some of these testators, I chose to use the data found in these testaments to discuss in the next section what their marriage practices can tell us about their identities as “Catholics” or “Chinese.” 92In other documents, her name is spelled “long Sy.” But. for purposes c £ consistency, I will use “Qng Sy.” R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 Bad Chinese husband® andfaithfid heal wives Not a few outside observers and Church officials lamented the practice o f the Chinese converts of keeping a wife in China and having another in the Philippines. As early as the seventeenth century, a Dominican missionary already deplored this practice (see Riccio 1667, tT.23.5r-v).93 Indeed, the case o f ‘W ehino crzstktno* Lucio Ysabelo Limpangco, a forty- two year old businessman, a widower, and a native of Xiamen, China reflects this practice. On 2 November 1895, he executed his testament before die notary public Numeriano Adriano. In Ms will, lie claimed that he was married in Catholic rites to Francisca Cinco, who was deceased.94 Lucio also wrote that he had two children with Francisca: Fernando, who was ten years old, and Maria Angeles, six years old, both o f whom were “studying in China.” However, in the fourth clause o f his testament, he declared that he also was married “according to the rites of his nation” to Chu-Cua, who was still residing in China and with whom he had five children. The ages o f these children ranged from seven to “mayor de edad” (adult) (RMAO NA 1895, 561. tomo 1, no. 4). Thus, it can be inferred here that up to the time of Franciscans death that he was married to these two women. The same situation can be applied to Mariano de Ocampo Lao-Sineo, a native of Quanzhou, Fujian province. He was 38 years old at the time he drew up Ms testament on 28 July 1892, and he 931 would like to thank Eugenio Menegon for pointing out this reference to roe. 94 Although it is not stated in his will what classification Francisca belonged to, I am presuming here that she was mesttea due to her last name “Cinco.” The appending of “co” to the personal name of a Chinese ancestor was a common practice among mestizos. For more information regarding the surnames of mestizos, see Wickberg [1965] 2000,32; and Chapter 4 of this dissertation. Reproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 identified himself as being married to Pia Palomares y Figueroa, with whom he had a daughter named Maria Consolacion de Ocampo y Palomares. However, he also mentioned having two sons Lao-Taimtan and Lao Tianjaii, aged 11 and 5 years old respectively, and who were living in China with Sy Bit Niu, presumably their mother (RMAG C R 1892, 846, tomo 3, no. 370). It was partly because of this practice, i.e., of a Chinese having two wives that Catholic missionaries doubted the sincerity in the conversion of their Chinese converts.95 They pointed out that the Chinese often converted out of convenience, i.e., they did so in order to take advantage o f rights and benefits granted to them by the Spanish colonial state and Catholic Church for Catholics. However, after having converted, they returned to their “pagan” ways. Thus, Riccio (1667, f. 235r) wrote that fee Chinese converts in Manila could be called “labados,” (merely “washed” with baptismal water) and “cristianosfmgidos” (fake Christians).96 They received baptism only for temporal gains, and, once back in. China, forsook their religion and went back to their superstitious and idolatrous ways. Moreover, those who returned to China often left their wives “abandoned here, notw ithstanding the legal 95 Such occurrences were very common as to merit a theological discussion among fee Dominicans on how to deal with the legitimacy of the marriage between a Chinese convert and a native woman, after it was discovered that the former had hem married to a Chinese wife prior to his marriage with the latter (pmosMardes 1887. case no. 1). ^E choing Riccio’s assessment, of the Chinese converts in Manila, Fr, Agustin de San Pascual, a Franciscan friar who lived in both China and Philippines in the Sate seventeenth century, described than m only desiring baptism for fee benefit of marrying local women and obtaining a patron. The converts in Fujian, on the other hand, ware more sincere (Wyngaert 1936,434) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 disposition which required the consent of the latter before they could leave the Philippines'” (Garcia 1973, 48)9? Using these descriptions given by foreign Catholic missionaries, scholars often concluded that the Chinese converts were ‘YiominaT Catholics. If we were to follow this line of reasoning, these converts therefore were essentially no different from the non-converts, in that, compared to mestizos and indios, they were subjects whose loyalties to the Catholic Church and the Spanish state remained weak. They all remained “Chinese” and thus could be taken as a group that was different from the local “Hispanic-Catholic” population, especially the upper-class mestizos and indios. But how much of the actions of these Chinese converts really was a reflection of their being “bad” Catholics? A short review of a pertinent Catholic Church policy regarding marriages between the Chinese and local women may provide us with a better perspective on how to evaluate these converts’ behavior. In 1585, Pope Gregory XIII granted a special concession to those slaves who were married pagans when they were captured and taken away to fax away places to remarry upon conversion. The Catholic Church allowed this provided that either the first “pagan” wife consented to the second marriage, or that it could be established that it was impossible to contact the first wife (Garcia 1973, 75). But even if it was possible to contact her, if doing so would take a long time, then the second marriage 9?Apparently tins requirement was a way in which the Spanish State and Catholic Church tried to protect toe interests of the local wives. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 could be granted. Furthermore, even after die first wife decided to convert after the second marriage had been performed, the second, marriage remained valid98 Although this concession was first granted to slaves, a number of Church theologians, such as Fr. Gainza in I860, opined that it also applied to the Chinese in the Philippines. He argued that although the concession, was granted specifically to the slaves of Angola, Ethiopia, and Brazil, the papal decree also stated that it was to take effect in “other regions of the Indi.es,” hence, including the Philippines. In fact, as early as 1831, this line of reasoning had been officially followed and upheld by the theologians of the University of Santo Tomas in Manila (Garcia 1973,75-76)." Thus, while the Catholic Church had a general policy prohibiting the practice of polygamy, it also had to adapt its own policies to the local situation.100 The desire o f the Catholic Church in the Philippines to convert the “pagan” Chinese at all 98The concession in part states that “any of them [i.e., the slaves] may legally contract marriage before the Church with a Christian, and remain in such a marriage, once it is consummated, as long as they live, even though their pagan spouse be still alive, without asking the latter 's consent or waiting fo r his or her answer, an condition that the impossibility o f duty notifying the absent o r the answer not being received witMn the given time be establishedctt least in a, summary a n d extrajudicial way. And We [i.e., the Pope] decree that, though it should hereafter appear that the former spouse was hindered by a just cause, and could not declare his or her will, and even that at the time of the marriage the absent was converted to the faith, this marriage shall never be rescinded, but shall be v a lid a n d fim , and tin t the children born from them sh all be legitim ate''' (from PopuHs of Gregory XIII, quoted in Garcia 1973, 75). [italics mine] " One of the cases in the 1887 R esolucim de las C w as M orales found in the Dominican Archives at AUST raises hie issue o f a Chinese convert being married to a local Catholic woman while at the same time being married to an irfm t (infidel) woman in China. The resolution also invokes the Pauline Privilege, and considers the second marriage (that which was contracted with the local Catholic woman) as valid if certain conditions are met. One o f these is when the first w ife (the Wide!) disparages the religion of the convert, or prohibits him from practicing it (see case no. 1). 100 In fact, the code o f canon law was not codified until 1917. although much of it was based on earlier laws, like the Papal decretals, fa other words, although canon law prohibited polygamy, this law was not systematized until 1917. Thug., before this period, the Catholic Church's laws were not applied equally to every place, I would like to (hank R ate JaveUatia, S.J. for this information. See also Garcia 1,973. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 cost m ay have influenced them to follow the concession granted in the decree of Gregory XIII when adjudicating cases involving intermarriage between Chinese men and local women As Benedict© Corominas, 0,P, wrote in 1873, On the one hand, while it is bad for the women of these islands to get married with them [ie, the Chinese] because of [the latter’s pagan] custom s sind because many [of them] go back to China, [thus] abandoning here their wives; it is even worse, on the other hand, to allow the Chinese to corrupt everything and bring scandal because they are not mauied to their wives (quoted in Garcia 1973,48a 141). In other words, rather than have them live in concubinage, the Church resorted to granting the Chinese baptism and having Ms relationship with a local woman solemnized in, the Church to avoid showing what it deemed as 'immoral acts to other people. Furthermore, Riccio noted that, already in the seventeenth century, some good also could come out o f these intermarriages. The reason he gave was that “the sons of these converts [i.e., the mestizos] were such true Christians that they would oppose their fathers in matters pertaining to religion, as it lias been, shown to happen in various occasions” (1667, f. 235v). Thus, in the light o f the Church adapting its policies to suit local needs and realities, we may be able to place the practices of these Chinese Catholics and their behavior in a wider perspective. For while certainly some kind, of economic or pragmatic consideration may have been involved in the Chinese converts’ decision to many local women of tire Philippines under Catholic rites while maintaining another R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 family In China, the Catholic Church also condoned it.101 Furthermore, when, we look at the marriage practices of the locals in the Philippines, we find that they too practiced polygamous marriages and other “scandalous” or ‘immoral” habits such as concubinage. This led Catholic missionaries to bend or adapt Church law so that their mission to C kM anize the country would succeed (Garcia 1973). I believe that the practice o f local Catholic converts living consensually with another Catholic, as gleaned from accounts of some travelers, was not only prevalent but; also commonly accepted.102 These couples—whether o f mixed or similar ethnic backgrounds—who lived in concubinage often had the Ml knowledge of neighbors and family members, and, as Charles Wilkes notes in 1840, “no odium whatever is attached to such a connexion” (1974, 40). Thus, the case o f Cu Un-Jieng and Doniinga Ayala, and of Manuel Marzano Cue Buntin and Braulia Guepangco were probably not unusual. At noon of 9 March 1901, Un-Jieng, a Chinese subject, businessman, and married “according to the rites of Ms country to Ong Sy,” appeared before the Notary Public Genaro Heredia to draw up Ms will. In the document, he stated that his wife Ong Sy was residing in China, and that they had two children. He then proceeded to provide an inventory of all his possessions, and in tie fourth clause, left a pension of 100 pesos p r month to Doniinga Ayala from the time of Ms death and as long as she 101 This practice, of course, was not. exclusive to the Chinese to tire Philippines. In colonial Batavia, for example, Chinese traders also often had wives and families in both Java and China (Blussd 1988, 168), 102 (3trcja also writes of the “betrothal” practices of the local people, in which a prospective groom lived in the house— without the benefit of a church wedding— of the girl he wished to many. He did this m payment for the expenses incurred by the girl’s parents in rearing her. This practice was so prevalent that up until 1911 it was still mentioned in various church documents (1973,25). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 was living. What is interesting here is that, in later biographies of Cu Un-Jieng, who was one of the most prominent Chinese merchants of Manila, it is often stated that he “married” Dominga in 1893 (e.g., Lira 1930, 18; Wong 1994,62). However, in this 1901 document, he did not identify her as a legitimate wife. Furthermore, in the testam ent o f a man named Ty Chiulo,103 Un-Jieng was identified as “sottero” or single, thus bolstering the idea that he and Dominga, at least up until 1901, were living consemually,104 W hile up to that tim e U n-Jieng did not convert to Catholicism, it is highly probable that Dominga was Catholic and a mestiza.105 On the other hand, the Catholic Chinese Manuel Marzano Cue Buntin was living- consensually with a mestiza named Braulia Guepangco, with whom he had a daughter named Ynocencia. In Ms testament, he named Ms "natural” (as opposed to “legitim ate”) daughter Ynocencia as the sole and universal heiress o f all Ms possessions. His identification of his daughter as “natural” means that Manuel and Braulia were not legally married. He also designated Braulia as the tutor and curator of Ynocencia, who at that time was still a minor (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 2, no. 443). 103 On the night of 12 October 1900, Un-Jicng stood as one of the six witnesses to the testament of Ty Chiulo, who died that wry same night. In the document that contained the act ofprotocolization of Chtulo’s will, Cu Un-Jieng was identified as "'sd tertf' (single) (RMAO GH1900, 829, tomo 1. no. 1128). However, in Iris own testament drawn up in 1901, it was clearly stated that he was ‘’married (c o m b ) according to the rites of bis country.,” and that he had been married to Ong Sy for at least ten years back, based on the age of his eldest son (RMAO GH 1901,830, tomo 3, no. 290). •191 Un-Jieng was ban in 1865, and died in 1953 (Lim 1930,17-19; Wong 1994,61-63). ^ 1 suspect that, CU Un-Jieng was not a Catholic at this point in his life due to Ms use of his Chinese name in several documents. A Chinese convert world have used his Htspanicked and Catholicized Chinese name, Lata- on, he became known as GuiQarano Gu-Un-Jieng, signifying t o t he had become a Catholic, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 7 Thus, from the foregoing discussion, I am suggesting that the culture of the Chinese at this time in history could not be totally homogeneous or distinct from that o f the local (Catholic) population. Scholars, following colonial accounts, have used “sincerity” or lack of it in conversion to Catholicism as a way to demarcate cultural identity. Chinese were labeled as “bad” Catholics because they were “insincere” converts, and they continued practicing their “ pagan” customs. Mestizos, on the other hand, were “good” Catholics because they followed the normative behavior of Spanish Catholicism and forsook their Chinese heritage. However, my cases show that botli Chinese and mestizo Catholics engaged in continuous negotiation of both Catholic and Chinese social practices,106 Moreover, the practices of the Chinese and the m estizos were often very similar to those o f the indios, and equally condemned by the Church.107 Once again, this shows that scholars have arbitrarily drawn a cultural binary between ethnic groups the division of which was in fact very blurry at the time. My cases on marriage precisely demonstrate this point. 106 In one of the inheritance cases included in this chapter, a mestizo descendant of a Chinese was shown to be observing a Chinesc-Buddhist mourning practice. The case involved Sy Quia and his descendants from, his local wife. When he died in 1894, his body was lying in state at his house whore he died. In accordance with the Chinese custom of “robing a descendant of (a) deceased with the nine silk suits which had been prepared for the corpse” before “they were placed upon the copse," the eldest mestizo grandson of Sy Quia, Tomas Sy Quia, was made to wear these (Felix 1969,139). Thus, it can be seen ft at mestizos, though described as the most “Hispanicized" and "Catholicized” of the Spanish subjects, also practiced Chinese customs (see Chapter 4). 107 Some of the practices disapproved by the Christian missionaries included the practice of paying bride-wealth, of pre»marital sex, arid of die ease with which couples could divorce each other (Reid 1988,146- L55). Another practice that the missionaries tried to eradicate was of the man living in die house of the woman and her family’ for several months without yet the benefit of marriage, in the case that he could not afford to provide a bride-pay raent (San Antonio 1977,167), This arrangement pre dated any actual marriage ceremony, and up to the early twentieth century, practiced iri some parts of the Philippines (see note 103 o f id s chapter). Finally, the Catholic Church often lamented the ease with which men and women lived together consensually (Acts of the Synod of Catenae, found in PM lippMmmSotcm 1,970,103). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 Thus, in analyzing these people’s behavior, decisions, and choices, I propose that w e go beyond the categorical, assignations o f the Catholic Qmrch, which were necessarily tinged by Christian-centric views of what' it meant to be a ‘True” or “good” Catholic. Conversion often occurred in ways that were different from the agenda o f the colonizers, Catholicism often was understood differently by the colonized, who often appropriated the elements, meanings, and symbolisms o f C atholicism in ways that made sense to their own indigenous socio-cultural perspectives (Leonard 1992; Becker 1995; Ileto 1979; Rafael 1993).108 A Question o f “Chimse-mss” And how might these examples redefine our present-day .notions of what being a “Chinese” means? From the standpoint of Qing dynasty marriage practices, polygyny (in which a man takes a wife legally and takes a concubine later on) was allowed (Bernhardt 1999,161-162). Thus, it would not be implausible to think that Chinese wives back in China did not in principle oppose their husbands’ marriages to another woman, from another country. That this practice might have been not only tolerated from afar but even accepted can be inferred from one of the cases cited earlier, pertaining to Lucio Lirnpangco, whose two mestizo children with a local wife were sent to China. It is possible that they were sent there to be placed under the care o f Ms first wife Chu-Cua. This practice o f handing over the children o f a concubine to the care of the first wife, especially if the concubine died, was common 1.08 |,|ow the Chinese "understood’5 Catholicism at this period in histoty would entail mere research R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 in China. In fact, the principal 'wife was regarded as the “formaT mother, since ritually, children by the concubine were children o f the first wife.1 0 9 Conversely, when the principal wife died the concubine often assumed the role of the matriarch, and thus became responsible for the children o f the former. However, more often than not her relations with her stepchildren were strained, at best distent (for more discussions, see Bernhardt 1999, 161-178; Watson and Ebrey 1991,239-244).1 1 0 Thus, from the point of view o f a nineteenth-century Chinese, the practice of taking another wife overseas was regarded as within the norms of Chinese social customs. Moreover, it might have even been acceptable for males to marry women from a different culture. In an interesting study of the family structures in Fujian during the Ming and Qing dynasties in China, Zheng- writes that at the height of commercial development in the late Ming period, adoption o f sons became a widespread practice. The reason for this was that 'these sons were sent abroad to engage in maritime trade. Biological sons were therefore spared from traveling abroad and from risks associated with it, while enjoying the fruits of their (adopted) brothers’ labor overseas (2001, 38). I suspect that this practice o f adopting sons for the protection of one’s own could be linked to the practice of the Chinese in different Southeast Asian countries marrying local women and bearing children. The latter on their marriage and other Catholic practices, and evaluated within the specific historical context within which these practices were observed. 1091 would like to thank Charlotte Furttt for pointing this ait to me. do not. know, however, m of this writing, how Chinese law treated or classified the "wives” overseas. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 practice might have also served the purpose of protecting the safety of one’s own male children—and by extension protecting one’s own. descent line.11 1 But viewed from today’s perspective of what being a “Chinese” means, these interm arriages with a “non-Chinese” were “un-Chinese.” Twentieth-century nationalists in China encouraged the Southeast Asian. Chinese to develop a strong sense o f patriotism toward China, and the latter responded by building schools that would teach, their children o f China’s greatness, and of the need for them to remain “Chinese” (Wang 1981, 154). Thus, anyone classifying him self or herself as a “Chinese” would not deign to many someone from another race and culture. Consequently, many Chinese in the Philippines today still prefer or end up marrying a fellow Chinese. If someone marries a Filipino or “koan-a” (Hokkien word for “foreign barbarian”), a stigma accompanies the marriage itself. However, in my study I show that intermarriages between diasporic Chinese men and local women were quite common and accepted, especially among the Chinese o f higher socio-economic standing. Thus, we need to ask ourselves how this redefines our understanding of what it meant to be a true “Chinese” through time and space, and how and whenirttermairiages with people belonging to another ethnic group became taboo among the Chinese in the Philippines today. 111 This theory needs to be corroborated by further research, for adopted eons or eon® of concubines could also occupy an important place in their adopted families. Furthermore, one’s own children, in China were also often brought overseas despite the presence of adopted sons or those from concubines in other countries. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 In m y own research, based on. the Inforaiaciones Matiimcmiales files at the AAM* I have counted the number of marriage applications for unions between Chinese converts and local women, (in selected years): Table 4: Number of Interm arriages between Chinese men and local Philippine Number of Marriage .Applications w om en112 Year Nu 1742 10 174S 5 1757 24 1.758 1 1767 4 1772 0 1781 I 1801 4 1812 33 1820 33 1831 19 1840 19 1850 19 1955 39 1860 24 1865 32 1870 44 1875 22 1880 35 1885 52 1887 21 1888 9 1,890 8 1895 0 1900 2 1905 8 1910 4 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 As one will note, the number of applications for Church weddings started to decrease in the year 1888, when the total was 9» as opposed to 21 in 1887, From the years 1892 to 1899, there were no applications, although it is possible that the reason for tiiis may be that the records from these years have been lost due to man-made or natural calamaties. In the years 1901, 1902, and 1903, there seems to be a jump in marriage applications, with 14,21, and 13 applications submitted respectively. But from 1904 to 1925 on, the number o f marriage applications between 'the Chinese and local wom en remained at single digits. On the other hand, research on civil marriages produced these numbers of marriage applications in selected years: Table 5; Civil m arriage applications between Chinese men and local Philippine women Year113 Number of Marriage Applications 1872 19 1877 28 1882 16 1887 38 1892 27 1897 10 Based on these numbers on civil marriages, it may be hypothesized that the importance of having a church marriage became less important, as seen by the decrease in the number of applications submitted to the Archdiocese in the 1890s, On the other hand, the number o f applications for civil marriages did not change 112 This is based on actual account, as opposed to the list of marriages found in an index at AAM. For the year 1757, there is a discrepancy between the number of applications in my research and that of Sugaya 2000, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 significantly. However., civil marriages also diminished at the turn of the twentieth century, with no marriages being registered in a particular notary public’s volume (see RMAO OR 1902,856), while a slight uptick of church marriages was recorded as noted in the previous paragraph, Whether there was an inverse relationship between these two types o f marriages needs to be tested in future research. Also, whether the start of the last decade of the nineteenth century, or the beginning of the twentieth century, was the start o f diminishing intermarriages between Chinese men and indigenous women has to be studied further. Once this is established, as a taming point, we may then begin to investigae the reasons for such a decline.114 Leaving this discussion on marriage practices, I now turn to the inheritance practices o f these testators. In 'the next section, I would like to focus on how these practices reflected a creative strategy of these testators in appropriating the differing 113 These marriage applications are from the following protocolos: RMAO FD 1872,427, tamos 2 and 31; RMAO FD 1877,435, tamos 1 and 2; RMAO FD 1882,445, tomos 1 and 2; RMAO CR 1887, 834, tomos 1 and 2; RMAO CR 1892,846, tomos 1,2, and 4; RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomos 1-4. 114 w hat kind of family was created art. of these unions? Zarca speculates that before tire creation of a Chinese ghetto in 1582, the “Chinese family structure” tended to be more “matrifocal or matricentric in so far as the upbringing of the children were concerned” (1966, 214), The reason for this is that there was an absence o f institutions and a community to give the Chinese husband/father strong support in creating a “male-centered, extended, (and) patrilocal” family which he could control. Instead, finding hintself alone, without any other Chinese to depend upon, and dependent on his wife and his wife’s kin for protection and economic assistance, he had to relinquish control over the family to his wife and her family. However, after the establishment o f the Parian, Zarco speculates that, the exclusiveness of the Parian, which provided the Chinese father with more institutional support, led to the creation o f fam ilies that were “no longer matrilocal, “and instead “more nuclear. . .and independent," where the Chinese father "wielded more dominance upon his (local) wife” (218). Thus, these families became more “Chinese,” e.g. children were given Chinese surnames mid Chinese food was eaten more than local food lie also points out that it was not unusual far Chinese mm, to have a family in China while at the same time another one in the Philippines, However, I have a problem with Zarco’s analysis because his work is not. backed up by concrete examples or archival research. Also, his approach is Western-centric, in , that it uses Western models o f what constitutes a “family” to study families whose dynamics and relations were very different. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 and sometimes contradictory inheritance policies of the Spanish and Chinese legal fractions. Furthermore, I would like again to ask what their inheritance practices tell us about their identities.115 Filial Chinese sons and strong Chimsefmestiso women In the following inheritance cases there seems to be a reversal of what we understand as the gender roles o f Chinese men and women. Sinologists have generally pointed out that being a Chinese male meant having a higher status in society and more rights than a Chinese female. For instance, according to the Chinese code on inheritance of property during the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), only sons, whether belonging to the main wife or the concubine(s), inherited equally. Daughters, on the other hand, did not receive anything except a dowry (Bernhardt 1999, 9-46). But according to his will drawn up in 1895, > / chino cristiano” Lucio Ysabelo Limpangco bequeathed two-thirds of his goods to all his “legitimate children,” which included his five children from Ms first wife Chu-Cua, whom he married in China, and his two children from Ms second wife Francisca Cirtco, whom On hie matter of who had more influence over tl* children, Wickberg speculal.es that it was the local mother who wielded mare influence, since the father was often absent. But as we shall see in Chapter 4, this may not be entirely true. 115 These inheritance cases were governed by the rules of the New Civil Code of Spain instituted in the Philippines in 1889. According to Fisher, the Americans continued to use 'the Code w the basis for civil law. Though there were some changes made—including those that pertain to “wills, the rights and liabilities of heirs and devisees, guardianship, and the rights of parents with respect to the properly of their children'’™ 'these changes were mostly procedural. Fisher writes “ the Civil Code is still essentially the fundamental law governing the acquisition, conveyance, and transmission of property, the incidents o f its ownership, and the creation and extinction of contractual and extra- contmctual obligations" (1947, ix-x). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 he m arried in Manila. This type of division followed the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, which states that the “legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists o f two-thirds o f the hereditary estate of fee father and the mother ...” (Article 808 as found in Fisher 1947,306).116 It can not be ascertained from their names whether he had a daughter among the five children from the first wife.117 However, he did have a daughter from the second wife. Maria Angeles (b, 1889), along wife her brother Francisco (b. 1885), was entitled to an equal share of the inheritance. Thus, Lucio clearly chose to follow Spanish Mieritan.ce practices instead of Chinese ones by giving an equal share of Ms inheritance to his daughter. In converting to Catholicism, in marrying a local woman, and in allowing Hispanic-Cafeolic laws to govern his familial practices, Lucio could hardly be identified solely as a “Chinese''’ in fee way we understand it today. But hack in his time, he must not have felt very “un-Chinese” as he digressed from Chinese customs that he grew up with. By giving his daughter an equal share of fee inheritance, Lucio could have been employing one of Ms negotiating strategies as a person straddling two worlds, in which his understanding of what it meant to be a “Chinese man” or “Chinese woman” had to be adapted to the given situation. 116 According to Article §06 of fee Spanish Civil Code, “The legitime is that part of [the property of a testator] which the testator cannot, dispose because the law has reserved it for certain heirs, called, on that, account forced heirs” (Fisher 1947,305). 117His children from the first wife were: Bung Juy C'mqycr de e d a d ' or “adult”); Bun-Chya (b, 1879); Bun-Jin. < b . 1883); Bun-Loc (fa, 1884); Bm-Chin (b. 1888) [RMAO NA 1895,361, t o o 4, no. 4261. I surmise, however, that they were all sons, as “Bun” denotes a generational name given to male children. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 In the case of Jose Chio Taysan, a native ofLongxi in China, who at 75 years old drew up a will on 23 March 1895 (RMAO NA 1895,561, tomo 1, no. 5), he even named as executor of Ms will Ms only daughter and only heir Silvina Chio-Taysan, who w as at that time still of minor age.1 " 18 In China, giving the entire inheritance to a daughter would have been quite uncommon. A daughter did not inherit anything except a dowry, and in the absence of a male heir, a widow was supposed to name and adopt a male heir from the patrilineal clan (see Bernhardt 1999, 44, 62-65). Furthermore, he stipulated that should, at the time of his death Silvina still be of minor age, his wife Avelina Caballero would become the executor. Thus, in. this case not only was the daughter empowered, but so was the mother. The same empowerment was granted to the wife of another testator, Go- Quia-co. On 23 November 1900, Quia-eo drew up a will in which he stated that he was married to Sy Quieng and that they had three children: Go-Chongco (23 years old and living in China); Go-Chawco (18 and living- with Quia-co in Manila); and Go-Chuyco (13 and living in China) (RMAO GH 1900, 829, tomo 7, no, 1209). Although he declared Ms three children as Ms heirs who would inherit his goods in equal -parts, he named as tutor o f his children, and as executor of his will in China, Ms wife Sy Quieng.119 Again, this seems to be a departure from the customary practice in China, which, often appointed men from the lineage or from the village to 118Lo»gxi, pronounced Leonpe in Hokkien, is located 20 kilometers southwest o f Zhangsshou, an import,arrt city in Fuji®- Longsi is now known as Long Hat (Li 1995,77-78). 119T o look after his goods and to oversee the execution o f his will in Manila, Quia-co named Mariano Vdasco Cltuachengco. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 oversee the division of the property o f a deceased person (Huang 1996, 27),120 What also is interesting in this case is that Quia-co used Spanish civil law in regards to his domestic affairs, when Ms marriage was contracted in China, While Quia-co granted the power to Ms wife to look after his children in China and to execute Ms will, Antonio Siongjong left a substantial amount of money to his mother. In his testament, he left: his mother Go-Sy, a resident o f China, a fifth of all Ms goods, thus empowering her to dispense of Ms wealth as she deemed fit hi China (RMAO FD 1879, 439, tomo I, no. 75). On the other hand, Cirilo Cue Quepen had consistently been sending the profits lie had gained from his businesses in the Philippines to his mother in China, so that she could “buy land there,5 5 and have enough money to “maintain these lands,” as well as ‘ liv e decently with her family” (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 2, no, 474).: 1 2 1 Lastly. Sy Tiong-Tay also seemed to have veered away from Chinese gender roles when he did not give preferential treatment to Carlos, Ms first and only son from his first wife. While it is true that all sons o f both a primary wife and a concubine were to inherit equally according to Qing civil law, the feet is that in practice it was the primary w ife’s sons who enjoyed more privileges and power 120 A widow in the Qing dynasty legally did not inherit any property but had the right to choose a legal heir in case she was childless. She also maintained custodial powers over heirs below lesal age. See Bernhardt 1999,4 8 ,62-74; Huang 1996,55-56. Women m villages where men traveled overseas were often given a lot of power and authority to run their households back in China Furthermore, women in Southeast Asia w o t also known to have actively traded with Chinese merchants (Reid 1988,163-165). Many o f these Southeast Asian women who married Chinese merchants continued to be commercially active, and even took up positions of political authority when widowed (Wills 1991, 61). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 (Freedman 1966,5 i). However, in this case, Carlos inherited less than the children of the “concubine.’1 Details about Tiong-T ay’s family will help to explain He married first wife Chu-Cua in China in 1855, and two years later Carlos was born. However, documents show that he had sired four other children with another Chinese woman named Ana Cuangst a “Chinese national” whom lie either met in M ania or brought with him to the Philippines. But in either case, I construe her to be the “second wife,” since their first son was bom at a much later date than Carlos. Their four children were: Baldomero (b. 1874), Felipa (b. 1879), Manuel (b, 1883), and Justina (b. 1886). In Ms will drawn up in 1892, he divided Ms inheritance estimated at approximately two hundred eighty four thousand and ninety five pesos into three equal parts: one-third (from which medical and other expenses were deducted) to be divided equally among fee five heirs Carlos, Baldemoro, Felipa, Manuel, and Justina; another third considered as “legitime” to be divided again among tie five heirs; and the last third, which was classified under mejorass . ie , an act leaving by will a larger share than the legatee by law had a right to, to be divided only among Baldomero, Felipa, Manual, and Justina, leaving Carlos with no stare o f this portion o f the inheritance. In Ms will Xiong-Tay stated that Carlos bad embezzled twelve thousand and four hundred three pesos, twenty nine cents and four cuartos when Carlos was the treasurer ofliong-T ay’s business.122 Consequently, he might have lost tie good graces of Ms father for what he did. In fact the amount malversed was deducted from the total o f Ms inheritance (see RMAO EBC 1895, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 871, tomo 12, no. I09G).1 2 3 Thus, even though he was the eldest son o f the main wife, Carlos {fid not enjoy the special privilege which would have been accorded. Mm had he been in China. In the preceding inheritance cases, we can see that there seems to be an overturning of not only what it means to be a “real Chm^e” but mm what it means to be a “Chinese” daughter or son, i.e., i f we are to view these children, as many present-day Chinese in the Philippines would do, as part o f a “Chinese” family. Clearly, their fathers treated them differently from the way Chinese sons or daughters would be treated in China. Several other cases included in this chapter reflect this practice o f treating a woman, whether as daughter, sister, sister-in-law, granddaughter, mother-in-law, mother, or wife o f the testator, in ways that granted her equal access to the inheritance left behind by the male testator; or empowered tier to make decisions as tutors o f the testator's children, or as executor of the testator's will. These cases are found in the testaments of the following testators: Federico R. Correa Lao-Sama (RMAO EEC 1899, 875, tomo 10, no. 1117); Jose Dy Tongco (RMAO FD 1872, 427, tomo 2, no. 134): Franco Reyes Pue Jo (RMAO FD 1872, 427, tomo 2, no. 462): Felipe Tio Tuosay (RMAO FD 1872,427, tomo 2, no. 569); Juan Go-Qco (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 2, no. 350); Manuel Maizano Cue Bmtin (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 2, no. 443); Jose Beinieti Cua Tuaco (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 2, no. 457); Jose Aug Qneeo (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 2, no. Which business this was is not specified. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 469); Lorenzo Co-Tongeo (RMAO CR 1892, 846, tomo 1, no, 10); Marian© de Ocampo Lao-Sinco (RMAO CR 1892.846, tomo 3, no, 370), These cases show how the study o f the intersection o f gender and ethnic identities can provide us with a more complex picture of “Chinese'5 identity. “Chinese,> s “ Spanish/’ “ Catholic'"'? Finally, I want to show how, even if they were “Catholic" or naturalized Spanish subjects, three testators still managed to keep their “CMnese-ness,” in spite of the fact that upon the act of conversion or naturalization,, one was expected to act like a good Catholic and faithful Spanish subject M arried to two women in China w ith whom he had a total o f thirteen children, Mariano Velasco Chuaehengeo, who was a Catholic, divided Ms twmescm assets only among Ms male cMidren. He married Sy Saeia in accordance with the “rites of Ms nation,” and with whom he had four male adult children at the time of Hie writing o f Ms will, and later on married Maria Consolacion Aug QMnio, with whom he had nine children. He declared that according to the lav/s o f his nation in which he contracted these two marriages, daughters did not receive any rights to the inheritance, since they would eventually marry o u t1 2 4 Instead, the four daughters 123 The will drawn up byTiong-Tay in 1892 is contained in this file from 1895. This particular file pertains to the execution and final arbitration o f Ms will. Some of his assets included three buildings, six warehouses, ta rte e n houses, and shares or flocks in different companies (RMAO EEC 1901,877, tomo 1, no. 69), Freedman writes that eece married, a woman lias ho further economic d ates m her natal family, who will begin to treat her ' - ‘as a kind o f guest’1 (1958,31), See also Bernhardt 1999,9-46. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 1 would only receive a ‘Valuable gift” iregalo de importancid) from their mother (RMAO EBC 1901,877, tomo 1, no. 69).125 Similarly, Sy Tiong-Tay, who m a n ied h is first wife Chan Sink in China, also claimed in Ms will that upon Siniif s death in 1883, their conjugal property was not liquidated (RMAO EBC 1895,871, tomo 12, no. 1090). He stated that the reason for this was “that their society p.e, conjugal partnership] never existed since such society is a consequence of the contract o f mairiage celebratedunder Spanish laws, (and) that their wedding was celebrated under the laws o f China which do not recognize such society.”126 Thus, Ticng-Tay argued that during Ms first marriage all the assets were o f Ms legitimate and exclusive property without any obligation o f dividing them w hen his marriage with Sinin was dissolved by her death.127 Furthermore, as regards his second wife Ana Cuanga, Tiong-Tay stated that their conjugal property could not count from the date when fie married her in Catholic 12^ This was presumably a dowry because Chinese customary law provided for such to daughters (see Bernhardt 1999,1-2). It is unclear however where Maria Consolaeion and their children were residing, akhoujrfi it was not uncommon for the Chinese to bring their mestizo childten to China. On fee other hand, Maria Coasoiacion could have been a concubine who was brought to Manila, Caries Palanca, as noted by Wickberg ({1965] 2 000,174n. 16 and 18), testified in 1899 before the Philippine Commission feat- most of the Chinese women in Manila were either prostitutes or concubines, and feat they numbered around 2,000, out of a Manila Chinese population of between 22,000 and 23,000. Also, it. is interesting to note that of their nine children, two had solely Chinese names (Cfaua locchiong and Chua Ticaoco) while the seven others had Western or Catholic names added to ttseir Chinese names (Pedro Velasco Chua Chengco, Jfosd V dasco Chua CSiei^eo, Floreneia Veltseo Chug Chengco, Maria Concepcion Velasco Chua Chengco, Francisca Velasco Chaa Chengco, Rita Chua Chengco and Damiana Clara Chengco). It is possible that Chua locehioag arid Chua Ticaoco were b a n in China, and that the rest in Manila, and presumably baptized in Oa&oiic rites. 126 For information on marriage practices in China and the rights of fee widow, see Bernhardt and Huang 1994; Watson and Ebrey 1991. 12 / Spanish law required feat a after fee death of a person, his or h e - property should be distributed to fee rightful heirs. See Articles 806 to 808 o f the Spanish Civil Code which spell out the rights o f “forced heirs” to inheritance (Fisher 1947,305-306), R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 rites on 2 September 1891, for both, o f them were still o f Chinese nationality. But since their m arriage was performed under Catholic rites, their union was not subjected to the laws of China either. Thus, in this line o f reasoning Ana Cuangsi still deserved a share in the conjugal property, but only counting those acquired from the day o f Tiong-Tay’s naturalization on 25 December 1891 up to the time o f Ms death.128 However, in recognition o f Articles 835, 838, and 839 of the Civil Code, she also inherited a portion o f her deceased husband’s assets.129 He died in 1892. The third case involves Federico R. Correa Lao-Santa, another Catholic convert who was married to Greg or r a Espejo. in. Ms will, which he drew up as he prepared to go home to China, he left one-half of Ms entire inheritance to Gregoria and their three minor cMldren Ramon, Maria Salud. and Cenon, while leaving the other half to his “other legitimate son” Lao-Tian-Chiao, who, based on Ms Chinese- sounding name, was most probably bom in China and o f a Chinese wife, but brought over to the Philippines at a young age (RMAO EBC 1899, 875, tomo 10, no. 1117). However, instead of equally dividing the inheritance among the four children, he chose to give more to Ms Chinese w ife’s son, and thus seems to have followed Chinese custom wMeh often gave preferential treatment to the children of the main 128 Far Tiong-Tay’s application for nataralizatwe, see his file in RMAO 2® no. 26. 129 Article 835 states that “The hereditary portion allotted in usufruct to the widowed spouse must be taken from the third of the estate available for the betterment of the children.” Article 839; “In case of the survival of children o f two or mere marriages, the usufruct per taking to the widowed spouse of the second marriage shall be taken form the third at the free disposal o f the parents,” Article 838; "The usufructuary rights of the surviving spouse may be satisfied by the settlement upon him or her by the heirs o f a life annuity or the income from some specific property, or by the payment o f money, as may be determined by agreement between the parties, or, in default o f such agreement, bv judicial decision.” See Fisher 1947,316-317. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 wife. Similarly, Federico Gamiz Go-Sequieng, another Catholic, gave Ms m m a bigger share o f Ms inheritance. In Ms will he bequeathed a third of Ms wealth to Ms five sons in China, with the two-thirds remaining to be divided equally among them and their two sisters (RMAO CR 1892,846, tomo 3, no. 395). Thus, in the four cases above, we can see that despite their being baptized or naturalized, and in consequence expected to behave like a “Catholic1 * or a “Spaniard,” these testators still followed “Chinese” practices. Although the laws relating to inheritance and wills applied equally to all those who lived under Spanish colonial rule, including the Chinese, these testators still managed to appropriate certain Chinese customs in the dispensation o f their wealth.13 0 At a time when one's identity was not yet defined within the context o f a temtorially-bound nation-state, a “diasporie subject” was able to draw from different cultural traditions, customs, and practices that accounted for an identity that was at dice multiple, fluid, and flexible. If we look at the specific familial practices o f these Chinese individuals and families who lived in the latter pari of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentiefh-cantuy, we will be able to take a different view o f their identities: their identities were not rigid, fixed or unidimemional. Instead these people were able to play simultaneous roles by appropriating and negotiating the different etlino- 130 A report submitted by Brigadier-General Otis to fee Secretary of War in Washington states that “a Chinese person altering the islands came as m individual migrant and was treated as a Spanish subject, whose business and domestic relations were entirely under the control o f the local laws. These laws provided for the estate cf a deceased resident Chinese the same as if h e had been t Spanish citizen” (quoted in Jensen 1975,27). However, it. was possible that the secular laws may have not been uniformly implemented and may have provided some leeway for the Chinese, just as we have seen with Church laws. Furthermore, drawing up a w il allows a perse® to dispense o f his or R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 religious classifications and sociocultural practices that they had access to. They could be " ‘chinor “sangtey” or ‘"Catholic,’'—at least in so far as their choices and decisions reflected—all at the same time or at different times, depending on the context. Thus, in playing with different identities, crisscrossing them as the situated dictated, they wielded a kind of power that allowed them to collude with the eoioiM regimes o f truth and power, and at the same time, act “obliquely to them, and systematically set out to transgress the shifting boundaries set by [these •regimes]”' (png and Nonini 1997,20). Moreover, their ability to appropriate practices from different cultural traditions suggests that they had a different understanding of these categorizations, an understanding that was different from hegemonic group. Changes under American rule During die period covered in this study, eonditiais allowed for individuals to construct their families and identities that did not tie these to a particular temtonally- bound space. However, due to increasing Chinese nationalism, and the application of racist and anti-CMnese American immigration policies, things began to change as the twentieth century progressed. Chinese nationalists propagated the idea o f a superior “Chinese” race, and thus discouraged intermarriages. Similarly, American discrimination toward the Chinese whom they viewed as fomiing a “Ydlow Peril” influenced or reinforced whatever negative attitude local inhabitants o f the Philippines might have had of the Chinese. Moreover, the strict laws introduced by her inheritance as he or she pleases, without being constrained or bound by the existing Jaws o f the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 the Americans pertaining to citizenship and immigration, discriminating against the Chinese more than any other “alien” group in the Philippines, made it more difficult for a Chinese to maintain two families—one in the Philippines and the other in China. For instance, they ruled that a mestizo offspring whose Chinese father was “•Chinese” would also be considered Chinese, but would have the option to change his/her status upon the age of majority. This had the effect o f discouraging local women from marrying ‘‘ •aliens.” Furthermore, they prohibited any person from having two nationalities, and insisted on profession of loyalty to just one nation Thus, it became increasingly difficult for a Chinese man to maintain a wife in China as well as a wife in the Philippines, for such a practice n ig h t be used against Mm when he applied to become a citizen o f a nation, or establish residence within it. In fact during the American colonial period anyone considered a polygamist was barred from entering the Philippines (Insular Collector of Customs 1912, 23). In a case involving a dispute over the inheritance o f Sy Quia. a.k.a. Vicente Romero Sy Quia, we can glean from the statements given by the justices how the American discriminatory attitude toward the Chinese affected the familial practices of the Chinese in the twentieth century. On 9 January 1894, Sy Quia died intestate, leaving behind personal and real property worth 1 million pests. Two weeks later, the Court o f First Instance of the district of Qiaapo ruled that Ms local wife Petrorala Encanmeioii and their four children were die “heirs abinstestate” (Felix 1969,120). However, a complaint was filed in 1905 contesting the inheritance. This complaint country in which the inheritance is located. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 came from the descendants o f a Chinese wom an named Yap Puan Niu. The plaintiffs claimed that Sy Quia married Puan Minin China in 1847, six years before he m arried Petronila Encamacion in the Philippines, On the other hand, the defendants insisted that Sy Quia’s Philippine marriage was the legal one and that lie never contracted any other marriage. Thus, both parties argued that they were the sole legitimate heirs. Upon receiving the complaints, rebuttals, and testimonies and counter-testimonies of witnesses from both parties, the court on 26 February 1908 rendered a judgm ent declaring that both the descendants o f Yap Puan Min and Petronila Encamacion (who had died in 1906) were the legal heirs of the property of the estate o f Sy Quia. However, both parties appealed and brought their case to the Philippine Supreme Court. As before, each one tried to question the paternity and status o f the otter party, and continued to claim to be the sole legal heirs o f Sy Quia. The principal question that the court, tried to establish was whether there was enough proof to sufficiently establish fee Chinese marriage. On 19 March 1910, fee five justices o f fee Philippine Supreme Court ruled, with one justice dissenting, Hat fee Chinese marriage was not adequately proved, on the grounds feat the Chinese family failed to ' produce documentary evidence that Sy Quia was legally married to Yap. The justices pointed out that tie testimonies given by the witnesses on the Chinese side with regard to fee actual occurrence of the wedding were often contradictory. Moreover, they found the testimonies as not reliable, since they were made in Chinese, as well as in a place far away, Le, in Xiamen. Given this distance, one concurring justice, an American, opined feat fee R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chinese party’s witnesses could have easily fenvent(ed) as they pleased and colorfed) (their testimonies) as they w ould, ,, (and) fabricated) and falaftled) wife utter impunity” (Felix 1969, 159), Also, the justices dismissed the hooks feat the Chinese side brought to the court. The books were supposed to have contained specific laws and provisions on citizenship, marriage, and inheritance in China. The information contained therein would have strengthened the argument o f fee Chinese party that Sy Quia was “a subject o f the Chinese Empire and feat Ms estate [therefore] should be distributed in accordance with the laws o f China” (147). However, the books were in Chinese and had no Spanish translation. Thus, their authenticity was questioned, and they were judged by the justices to be “useless and o f no value” (154). Furthermore, they ruled that Sy Quia, having lived in the Philippines for more than fifty years, should be considered a Spanish subject, even though there was no documentary evidence to show feat lie had actually applied for Spanish naturalization. Lastly, they stated that even if fee Chinese marriage was valid, fee inheritance rightly belonged to fee Petronila and her descendants, for they argued that Petronila had brought 5,000 pesos into the marriage, and from this amount, Sy Quia made Ms fortune. Following Spanish law which provided that a spouse had a right to conjugal property, particularly if that particular spouse had brought m oney into the m arriage, the justices decided th at only P etronila Encamacion and subsequently her children were the rightful heirs to Sy Quia’s estate. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 8 The Chinese party appealed to the United States Supreme Court. However, on 14 April 1913 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Philippine Supreme Court It is interesting to note that one of tie reasons given by the Supreme Court for its decision was feat it questioned the long lapse o f time (11 years) that it took the Chinese party from the time of Sy Quia’s death to bring the matter to the court. But upon close reading o f the reasons given by the Philippine and U.S. Supreme Court justices, one can sense a discrirmnatoiy attitude against the Chinese party. For example, one of the justices as I pointed out in the preceding paragraph expressed suspicion over the testimonies o f fee witnesses produced by the Chinese party, on the basis that these testim onies were made in Chinese and with an interpreter before the U.S. consul in Xiamen, Furthermore, they considered the absence of documentary evidence o f the Chinese marriage as a strong case against the Chinese party, thus putting into question the validity o f its claims. However, tie judge o f the Court o f the First Instance in Quiapo and one dissenting justice o f the Philippine Supreme Court accepted the testimonies o f its witnesses. The disserting justice argued that among people aged 50 and above there was probably no one who could actually “prove by documentary evidence, in the absence o f public record, fee marriage of their parents” (Felix 1969, 167). Furthermore, he stated feat there was no proof “ feat the Chinese Government had a system o f public records of marriage at the time of the marriage of Sy Qma. wife Ms first wife Yap Pm Mui, or feat they have R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 any such system now” (Felix 1969, 167). Lastly, he said that he believed that it was not flie intention of the . . . wise legislators of the Spanish Government, where a mart having a legal wife and children marries another woman and has children by such other woman, that the effect of the second marriage was to turn over to the second wife and children all of the property M o v in g to him, to the prejudice of the first wife arid legitimate children (195). Thus, we can see from this case feat during the American colonial period, the judicial system introduced by the Americans, carrying with it the American notion o f “ •family,” “kinship,” and “marriage,” worked against the continuation of fee Mud of diasporie and border-crossing family arrangement that existed before. By insisting on proper documentation to prove a marriage, the justices who ruled in favor of Petronila and her fam ily undermined a long-standing acceptance o f the local inhabitants o f the Philippines of Chinese men mdntaining two wives and families, one in China and another locally. In fact the descendants of Sy Quia’s Chinese and local wives knew each other. It was shown in court that Petronila w en gave Sy Joe Lieng and Sy Yoc Chav, two grandsons o f Sy Quia from fee Chinese line, an amount o f4,000 pesos, Joe Lieng and Yew Cfaay claimed that this amount was given as part of their inheritance. This amount was even entered in fee accounting books o f Sy Quia’s brother. However, the justices dismissed this piece o f evidence since the accounting entry did not explicitly specify that this money was given as part of the inheritance (Felix 1969,137). On the other hand, in the inheritance cases I have discussed previously. declarations made by the testators o f having another fam ily in China w ent R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 unquestioned by the Philippine kin. I suspect that one reason why it took the Chinese party 11 years to bring their case to the court was that they thought that Petronila and her children recognized them also as rightM heirs and would apportion their share accordingly. Unfortunately for tie Chinese party, Sy Quia died intestate, i.e., without leaving a will as the other testators in this study had done. With the introduction of an American judicial system that was prejudiced against the familial practices o f the Chinese in the Philippines and in China, the intermingling and interaction that these two sets of families may have initially enjoyed diminished, and over time, may have become hostile. And with the introduction o f the Chinese Exclusion Act in the Philippines, the set was staged for a further dichotoimzation o f the '■ ‘Chinese” and “Filipino” in the Philippines. As for the Catholic Church, several forces hampered its civilizing efforts toward the Philippine Chinese. In 1898, the Doiranican priests fled the Philippines in the afterm ath o f the anti-clerical sentiment o f the 1896-1898 revolution. Consequently, the parish of Binondo was placed under the secular clergy, who. “did not have the necessary personnel to understand the Chinese and their language” (Pax Romana 1966-1967, 5). This situation remained till 1923, when the ArcMjishop of Manila and the Apostolic Delegate returned to the Dominican priests the task o f administering to the spiritual needs of the Chinese. The Binondo Church was destroyed during the Second World War, and a temporary chapel was built. In 1955, Juan Velasco, the exiled bishop o f Xiamen, was appointed by the Pope to be the Director of the Chinese Apostolate m the Philippines. Since then, three more R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 parishes for the Chinese have been erected outside o f Binondo. A! so, foreign missionaries expelled from China after the Communist takeover of 1949 established more Catholic schools for the Chinese population. Thus began a more concerted and systematic attempt from the Catholic Church to reach out again to the Chinese in the Philippines.1 3 1 Consequently, a generation of Catholic Chinese in the Philippines with a stronger Catholic indoctrination than their parents’ generation arose after the 1950s. In spite of this, the influence o f the older generation o f Chinese, who practiced Chinese religion, remained strong, causing these Catholic Chinese to continually negotiate the different cultural and religious traditions they have been exposed to, as my own experiences have shown. But whether we/they are ‘‘true Catholics” or not vis-a-vis the rest of the Filipino Catholic population is a moot and academic question. i j l In 1954. it was estimated that out of a Chinese population of 78,250 in Manila, there wens 19,288 Catholic Chinese, or roughly 25 percent of the total. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 Chapter 3 The Chinese Merchants in Turn-of-the-Twentieth-Centuiy Manila; Precursors of Modern Chinese Traosnationalism in the Philippines Introduction China's rise as an economic power and the emergence of “tiger” economies in several Southeast Asian countries with a significant Chinese population in the last twenty years have elicited increased interest in the study of the “overseas Chinese” as part of a “Greater China” economic bloc (see, e.g., Wang 1993). The concept as it is currently understood often refers to the single and unified economic polity resulting from the political unification of Hong Kong, Macao, and mainland China, and the increasing economic trade between south coastal China and Taiwan (Harding 1993). However, the concept ai so refers to the informal processes of integration and interaction going on among these four, as well as their relationship and interaction with Singapore and other Chinese communities in Southeast Asia.5 3 2 The Greater China question as currently debated arises from a combined mixture of fear, awe, admiration, and self-interest in a China that is fast becoming a m ajor econom ic w orld power. On the one hand, there is the big pull for An earlier version o f this chapter was presealed at the “New Frontiers for Chinese Overseas Research”-Fourth International Chinese Overseas Conference, Sun Yat-Sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy. Academia Sirica, Taipei, Taiwan; 26-28 April 2001. 132 T}je reason why the Chinese in Southeast Asian countries are traditionally viewed as part of Greater China is due in part to their geographical proximity to China and also due to China's long history of interaction with them. This does not mesa fnat the Chinese in other parts o f the world do not or cannot be regarded as part of this Greater China polity, especially with increasing contacts between them and China. Bat this idea will have to be studied elsewhere. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 multinational companies and overseas Chinese capital to invest in China. With its freer economic policies, especially in the light of its unification with Hong Kong, which has one of the most liberal market economies in the world, and its potentially huge market of more than one billion people, China is indeed an attractive place to invest. On the other hand, an " ‘Economic Greater China” also becomes a fomtidable force with which to contend. As David Shambaugh points out, the combined economic prowess of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and mainland China would account for the “world's third largest GNP. largest foreign exchange reserves and third largest foreign trade turnover” (1993, 655).133 Therefore, as it begins to grow richer and with its baiance-of-trade in the last decade constantly tipping in its favor, China now is able to build up and modernize not only its economy but also its military. Soon, it may also be able to establish itself as a military superpower capable of reconfiguring, and subsequently dominating, the existing power relations in East and Southeast Asia and probably in the world. Thus, the rise of Greater China is both a boon and a bane for other countries, and the current discussions and studies pertaining to the political and economic consequences of a Greater China arise from this mixed bag of feelings posed by the economic integration of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macao, and mainland China. However, in speaking of a Greater China, there is also a cultural dimension, i.e., of a concept of a Da Zhongfma (Greater Cultural China).134 This concept comes That is, should Taiwan and China eventually unify politically. ^ For more information of this concept of Da Zhonghua,. see Gold 1993,907-925. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 from the recognition that China has always been proud o f its long history and cultural tradition, and that the Chinese state from time to time in the past had participated in the propagation of such a concept for patriotic reasons. Technological and scientific advances in aviation and telecommunications certainly make it easier for China today to cast this cultural network over the Chinese people, living within China or without. Consequently, this myth of a “Greater China” political, economic, and cultural bloc has not only sewed to fulfill the ideological and political agenda of rabid nationalists and xenophobes but also resulted in ethnic tension and division in societies with a significant Chinese population. The Chinese in the Philippines are a case in point. While comprising only about 1.5 to 2 percent of the total Philippine population of 80 million (circa 2003), they have historically played an important role in the local economy. However, due to their economic prosperity and position, they have also become the object of both—on the one extreme—admiration and envy, and—on the other—hostility and derision from the local government and the native population. During a spate of kidnappings involving Chinese victims in the early 1990s, an indifferent Philippine government gave these cases low priority, in contrast to its quick response to solving cases involving the abduction of American or Japanese nationals (Aug See 1997a). Furthermore, the close links of certain Chinese businessmen to former president Joseph Estrada (who was removed from office on charges o f corruption and cronyism) only enhanced the perception of some Filipinos that the Chinese In the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 Philippines are loyal only to their economic interests and to China and thus do not deserve the sympathy of the Filipinos (cf. Jose 1999; Doronila 2000). Unfortunately, past studies regarding the Chinese in the Philippines and their business practices do little to dispel the notion that the Chinese live in the country with vested self-interests. For one, they often treat the Chinese as a homogeneous group with little or no interaction at all with the wider population. Furthermore, in their analysis of their business practices, they talk about the presence of a “Chinese’5 way of conducting business that is rooted in a “Chinese” culture (see, e.g., Limlingan 1986; Omobundro 1981; Wickberg [1965] 2000; Wilson 1998; Wong 1994). Some of these “ Chinese” cultural traits include xinyottg (trustworthiness or credit worthiness), guanxi (networking), a strong family orientation, and a hierarchical or patriarchal pattern o f decision-making. In constructing such traits as uniquely “Chinese,” these studies may have unwittingly contributed to ethnic division and tension in the societies they are studying, bringing to their readers the image o f a strange, m ysterious, and thus suspicious group o f people. M oreover, such explanations can be used to “reinforce and legitimise feelings o f cultural or even racial superiority” on the part of the Chinese (Hodder 1996. 14). To avoid the perpetuation o f reified concepts such as “Chinese family values,” “guanxi ” or “Cotifucian capitalism” in. explaining the success of Chinese businessmen, some scholars suggest instead regarding these terms as “discursive tropes." Such tropes and discourses have a genealogy that is constantly cast and recast in cultural terms both by Chinese and by Westerners, including academics. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 6 Being connected to the ideological or political aims of hegemonic groups, they are therefore in need o f deconstruction and study. Thus, in their edited volume Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics o f Modern Chinese Trmmmtmnalism (1997), Aihwa Ong and Donald Nonim trace the constructions of such concepts to the late 1970s and 1980s when Southeast Asian governments became increasingly concerned on what to do and how to deal with the Chinese who had become more of a permanent than a temporary fixture in their countries. Consequently, studies done on the overseas Chinese during this period focused on their being “Southeast Asian,3 " and attributed their economic success to their retention and practice o f certain cultural practices (e.g., Suryadinata 1989; 1997). Ong and Nosini point out that in the 1990s, scholars also began referring to the “ "intrinsic and timeless features” of Chinese culture that persist among the overseas Chinese communities in Southeast Asia as a way to explain their economic success (1997, 8). Such an interpretation only panders to the ideological and political (sometimes nationalistic) agenda of dominant groups that seek to reify “Chinese-ness” to rally people behind their cause. Ong and Nonini argue instead that we need to ground the study o f these people in their historical specificity, i.e., within a period in history characterized by an increasing “mobility of people, commodities, ideas, and capital” (1997, 10). Consequently, a kind of “third culture” that they refer to as “modern Chinese transnationalism” has arisen out of the “new transnational economic processes that transcend the porous political boundaries of nation-states even as they now penetrate them” (11). Seeking to study this phenomenon, the several essays found in this R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 7 volume investigate the “multifaceted and shifting experiences of diaspora Chinese living under, yet reworking, the conditions o f flexibility” (12), Such flexible strategies include the acquisition of multiple citizenships or the dispersion of family members in different countries. They also focus on “the ways in which people's everyday lives are transformed by the effects of global capitalism, how their own agencies are implicated in the making of these effects, and the social relationships in which these agencies are embedded” (13). More specifically, they study how the Chinese “have eluded, taken tactical advantage of, temporized before, redefined, and overcome the disciplinings o f modem regimes of colonial empires, postcolonial nation-states, and international capitalism” (19). Following their lead, I aim to do the following in this chapter: First, I will review past works dealing with the Chinese in the Philippines during the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries. In particular, I will discuss how they explained the successes of these merchants and then provide evidence from my own research to show why their explanations are incorrect. Second, in line with the overall hypothesis of this dissertation, I will argue that during the period under study, the depiction o f the Chinese as constituting an “enclosed ethnic enclave” is inaccurate, since there was extensive intermingling between Chinese merchants and other ethnic groups. Third, using Ong and Nonini’s framework regarding “modem Chinese transnationalism,” I will focus on some of these merchants’ attempts to negotiate the different policies of the Spanish colonial regime to localize them into disciplinable subjects. I atm to do this by looking at R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 some of their “border-crossing” practices. I conclude this chapter by describing how the Chinese in the Philippines in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries continue to engage in these flexible strategies. Studies on the Chinese merchants of Manila; xinyong and its application Among works analyzing the business practices o f the Chinese in the Philippines, much has been made of the “unique” Chinese characteristic of xinyong, i.e, the practice of extending credit based on the trustworthiness of the person (e.g., Amyot 1973, 66-67). Deals such as those involving the lending o f money or establishing a business are supposed to be made face-to-face and on the spot without the need o f a signed contract, but on the basis of an intimate knowledge o f the person, a shared ethnic-cultural background (e.g., same hometown or surname), or the recommendation of a trusted person. In their studies o f Chinese business practices during the latter part of the Spanish colonial period in the Philippines, Wickberg ([1965] 2000) and Wilson (1998) point out that xinyong was widely used by the Chinese merchants. In their transactions, verbal agreements were usually made first, after which they became binding to the parties involved. Subsequently, documentation and contracts would follow to formalize the deal made. Three notarized contracts I found in my research seem to provide evidence for this type of arrangement.135 The first case involves the establishment o f a ^ As in the other chapters, m rny of the sources for this section corns from notarial records filed under the heading Protocolo de M anila at the Record Management and Archives Office in Manila (RMAO). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 company called “Taijitf that was capitalized at 84,000 pesos (RMAO GH 1901, 830, tomo 5, no. 619); the second the dissolution of a company with an asset of roughly 16,000 pesos (RMAO FD 1877, 435, tomo 2, no, 704); and the third the separation of one partner from a company with a start-up capital of 40,000 pesos (RMAO FD 1878, 436, tomo 2, no. 124),06 However, upon closer examination of these three documents, the presence of detailed arrangements found between business partners suggests that while it might have been possible that verbal agreements had been made before these contracts were drawn up, it is hard to believe that such formal and elaborate arrangements could have come into effect without writing things down. A closer inspection of the details of the clauses shows that conducting business back in late Spanish colonial Philippines involved more than xinyong. For instance, in the first document under consideration involving the establishment of “Taijin,” a company that would buy and sell cotton, textile, and thread from Europe and other countries, there are eighteen clauses pertaining to the different aspects of the business, such as the management and administration of the company: the duration of its existence.; the powers of the manager; and the date of balancing the company's assets and liabilities. In the fifth clause it is stated that while the manager and administrator of the company (Cu Un-Jieng) had the power to terminate the contract and liquidate the company, he could do it only after the 100 The exchange rate between the dollar and the peso during this time was roughly 50 U.S. cents to 1 Philippine Peso, a rale that was officially pegged in 1903. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. no convocation, of the other partners. Furthermore, the eleventh clause states that the annual profit due to each partner would be placed under the “credit” column of their respective current accounts, which would be opened in the books o f the company and which would not earn any interest. However, the different partners could dispose of 80 percent of the amount credited to their account after the closing of the books. On the other hand, the rest (20 percent) would be left as capital reserve of the company. Finally, in the eighteenth clause, whenever disputes or conflicts would arise among the partners in the management of the business, the dissenters could call upon arbitrators comprising of three Chi nese merchants of Binondo. However, by calling upon such arbitrators, the dissenters renounced their rights to resort to litigation after the arbitrators reached a decision. In the second case, in which a company was dissolved after the death of one of the partners named Lim Yng-Chud, three “experts” (perm s) had to be hired to do an accounting of the firm 's assets. An inventory o f the assets was made, and the value o f these balanced against the liabilities such as debts and expenses for the interment of the deceased. Finally, the document includes a clause stipulating that the widow of Lim Yng-Chud should set aside 100 pesos from the share she would inherit, which was to be given as a legacy to her mother-in-law in China. As for the third case involving the decision of Lim Tengco a.k.a. Lim Yee Siengqui to puli out his shares from the company “Van Tuitong” in the document he drew up together with the representative of the other shareholders, Jose Munoz Lim Tangco, reference is made to three Chinese accounting books which contained R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill information regarding the initial capitalization of the joint-stock company. These books showed that the partners had initially intended to raise 80,000 pesos, but managed only to raise half the amount In the same document both a breakdown of the amounts contributed and the equivalent shares of the twelve partners are also carefully stipulated. Based on this division, Lim Tengco a.k.a. Lim Yee Sleogqiii was entitled to 1,000 pesos and 5 reales. In the last paragraph of the document he stated that he had already received this amount in cash and that he had counted it to his “complete satisfaction,” and that he renounced his right to a demurrer of this money and to the two-year allowance provided by the Laws of the (Spanish) King for him to make such a claim .13 7 Finally, by signing a letter o f payment, he rendered as invalid in law and outside of it whatever was stipulated in terms o f his share in the company in the contract drawn up on 8 August 1877. From these three cases it can be inferred that xinyong was not enough to conduct business among these Chinese merchants. The complex and myriad rules and processes that governed the business practices of people during the late Spanish and early American colonial periods required the concerned parties to have at least a working knowledge of the regulations, laws, and procedures in establishing and conducting businesses and m ust have necessitated several consultations, negotiations, and adjustments even after verbal agreements haw ! been made.138 Seen 13/ As provided by law, a deaauier is an objection one can faring to a court when some money be/she is entitled to has not in fact beat delivered and paid to fain/hsr. I ' * O The contracts drawn np during the Spanish colonial period were first governed by the rules o f the “Novissim a Recopilacidn, the Siete Partidas, die Laws of Toro, and such special statutes of the Spanish Cones as the Crown had made applicable ( k the Philippines)- * (Fisher 1947, v il After 1889, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112- In this light, xinyong cannot be regarded as a “unique” feature in the manner by which these Chinese merchants went about doing their business. Furthermore, it can be pointed out that, as based on the third case, the Chinese merchants did record their agreements, whether in Chinese books or in legal documents.139 Finally, it can be gleaned from the second and third cases that agreements between different parties in which one party was obligated to perform a future act honoring any agreement entered into was and had to be documented and notarized. At times, even among kin and friends, xinyong was not enough. Furthermore, since many Chinese merchants engaged in money-lending, they often drew up documents to provide evidence for the transaction, and included ail the necessary safeguards to protect their credit. For instance, in my research I found some documents called “acta de p ro testo r which are acts of protest drawn up by people whose debtors had refused or failed to pay their debt. One such case pertains to Cayetano Chua Chiaco, who on 14 February 1901 filed a complaint against Chua Farruco, Cayetano produced a promissory note dated 14 December 1900 indicating the New C ivil Code o f Spain was instituted in the Philippines. Even after they colonized the Philippines and established their own government, the Americans continued to use this Code as the basis for civil law. This New Civil Code “(was) still essentially the fundamental law governing the acquisition, conveyance, and transmission of property, the incidents o f its ownership, and the creation and extinction o f contractual and extra-contractual obligations” during the American colonial period (Ix-x), 139 w iekberg suggests that the reason why we find many Chinese in M anila during this period leaving behind many Spanish docum ents is that after about 1870, Southeast A sian colon ial governments began to “tighten up (their) practices and intervene more and more in the affairs o f (their) subjects” (Letter to author, 23 March 2001). However, the Chinese in the Philippines were used to drawing up contracts even while is China, so that a change In Spanish colonial policy was probably not difficult for them to follow . Furthermore, I argue that ev es without this change in Spanish policy, the Chinese had kept records o f their transactions, as seen by the numerous references to “Chinese books” in. their contracts. For a study o f how this stricter control was implemented In the Philippines during the latter half of the nineteenth century, see- Bartkoff 1996. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 that on this date he lent Farruco the sum o f 1,000 pesos to be used for “business operations” and to be paid back in two months. However, on the due date, Famico reneged on the agreement. Subsequently, upon receiving Cayetano*s complaint, the notary public went to the store of Farruco to demand compliance with, the conditions stipulated in the IGU. Farruco paid 700 pesos, and promised to pay the remaining sum by the 23rd of the same month. True enough, on that day the promise was fulfilled, and Cayetano appeared again, before the same notary to sign a carta de pago (receipt or acquittal of a debt) (RMAO GH 1901, 830, tomo 3, no. 229). Thus, transactions involving large amounts could not be left to xinyong alone. Loans in most cases had to be recorded. In some cases, even small amounts were recorded. For instance, in the document involving the protocolization of a testament drawn up by a rich merchant by the name of Sy Tiong-Tay who died in 1892, we see in the seventh clause a list of seventy eight debtors, both Chinese and non-Chinese, with their respective debts amounting to as little as thirty pesos to as much as thousands of pesos (RMAO EBC 1895, 871, tomo 12, no. 1090). Although it is not stated where the list- came from, Tiong-Tay had left some kind of paperwork or documentation that allowed him to keep track of the debts owed Win. Wickberg also writes that xinyong was prevalent especially in the cabecilla- agent system. The cabecilla is the equivalent of the tmvkay, which is the Hokkiert word for “head of a company.” Often a wholesaler or importer of goods as well as a financier, the cabecilla hired agents, who were mostly Chinese themselves, to distribute his goods to the provinces. The latter would usually open up their own R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 sari-sari (Tagalog word meaning “of several kinds”) stores from which to distribute these goods. But in order to start their business, they borrowed money from the cabecilla, who would lend them some start-up money based on their credit worthiness (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 72-80). However, the existence of numerous mandaios (powers-of-attorney) shows that xinyong was not enough. Certain businessmen appointing others to represent them in the running of their businesses drew up these mandates. Some o f these powers included the power to intervene in all the businesses owned by the grantors; sell their goods in the best way possible; employ or fire people from the businesses, deposit their money in the banks; represent them in litigation or any other lawsuits; and create and execute ail acts that the grantors would have done and practiced themselves had they been present. These mandates were drawn up by towkays or owners of businesses who granted powers to their agents to represent them in their businesses elsewhere, or when they traveled back to China or to other islands or countries. Thus, from these documents we see that these agreements could not sim p ly be b a s e d on o n e ’ s x in y o n g . O th e r m e rc h a n ts — -C h in e se or otherwise—dealing with these agents would have demanded proof that the latter indeed were legally authorized to enter into agreements on their towkays’ behalf. Spanish colonial policy also required it. In the section above, I have tried to show through various examples of transactions the Chinese merchants entered into that during the period under study, xinyong could not be regarded as a unique “Chinese” cultural trait. In fact, the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 incidence of xinyong being used by the merchants in their business dealings is not as high as past scholarship has described it. This is not to say that the Chinese did not use xinyong. However, they did not have a monopoly on this practice.140 The Chinese as an enclosed ethnic enclave Past scholarship on the Chinese in the Philippines lias also tended to portray the Chinese as a separate and homogeneous ethnic enclave. While it may be true that in certain periods of Philippine history the Chinese themselves might have closed in upon them selves—especially in tim es of persecution—to protect themselves, during the period of this study I argue that they had various interactions with people of other ethnic groups, and thus did not constitute an “enclosed ethnic community.” For example, in the mandates discussed above, although many o f the merchants chose to grant general powers-of-attorney to their fellow “ p a isa m s” i.e., “someone from one’s own country,” o f the 214 cases I collected, 88 or over 40 percent involved Chinese merchants choosing n o n -p a isa n o s.M o st o f the non- paisanos named in these documents were either Spanish attorneys or lawyers living HO Wickberg suggests that the question we need to address instead is not whether fee Chinese ia the Philippines used xinyong or not, but under what circumstances they found it expedient to use i t and under what historical and personal circumstances (Letter to author. 23 March 2001), For an example o f a study that tries to distinguish the use and non-use of xisvong, see Tong and You® 1998. I would like to thank Edgar Wickberg for providing me this citation. H I The manner by which I collected these cases was to focus on years based on 10-year intervals, with the aim of including at least one year from each decade from the 1860s to fee 1900s. The set of protocoios at RMAG begins in 1866; however, I picked 1S67 as the starting year due to the completeness of the volume found on that year. Then, I picked the year 1872, and then proceeded to look at the years 1882, 1892, and 1902. As mentioned in the introductory chapter, as of summer of 2000 the only available protocoios open to the public are those up to the year 1903. 'The addition of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 6 in Manila, and to whom the powers were given to represent the oiorgmms (people drawing up the contracts) in legal and judicial matters.142 While it can be argued that the level of interaction between these Chinese merchants with the non-Chinese individuals named in these documents was superficial, since the relationship was based on an official business, the interaction did not end there. Such ties also extended into the familial lives of these people, as in the case of the Chinese inviting non-paisanos of high social standing to act as padrinos (godfathers) at their baptisms or their children's weddings. In many cases, the Chinese also assigned non-paisanos to be the executors of their testaments. Thus, non-Chinese lawyers or those working in the legal profession also provided personal or moral support to their Chinese clients. For instance, Felix Dujua, one of the notary publics in Binondo, whom many Chinese approached to draw up contracts, also became the padrino o f Ong Juntas, who was baptized on 6 June 1883. Juntan adopted his padrino’s name and thus became Felix Dujua Ong Juntan (AAMIM 1901, 20.D.11, folder 3). The fact that Felix Dujua was mestizo and lived in Binondo also helped him attract many Chinese clients as well as friends.14 3 1897 was based on the premise that including a year from the revolutionary movement against Spain (18%-1898) might reflect some changes in the business practices o f the Chinese merchants. 142 The ethnic classification o f these ‘'non-paisanos5 * can be gleaned from their surnames, the classification appended to their names, and the fact that only Spanish or Filipinos could become lawyers at that time. 143 jje was h0m in 1837. His father was Juan Dujua, and Ms mother was Valentina Tangayco. He was married to Manuela Juan, and their children were Maria Consolaeion, Maria de los Remedies, Benito, Maria del Socorro, Jose Atilaao, Maria de! Rosario and Maria de! Cannes (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 2, no. 437). His siblings were Eulogia, Maria, and Diomsia (RMAO CR 1902,856, teaio 3 . 11 0, 501). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 While most Chinese chose to grant powers-of-attorney to fellow Chinese when it came to finding people to represent them in their businesses* some Chinese merchants also chose non-Chinese individuals. Examples of Chinese merchants giving general powers-of-attorney to non-paisanos Include Vicente Vi Yulian granting these powers to “Filipino Spanish” Miguel Ramos (RMAO FD 1867.421, tomo 1. 22 May); Antonio Quintana Ctma Guian to non-Chinese Cefermo Bautista of Batangas (RMAO FD 1872,427, tomo I, no, 161), and Sy Liemban to Ciriaco Sadie y de la Cruz (RMAO CR 1892, 846, tomo 1, no, 52).544 Furthermore, in nineteenth-century Binondo and its surrounding districts, where at least fifty percent of the total Chinese population in the Philippines could be found and operated their businesses, the Chinese, mestizos, indies, Spaniards and other Westerners lived side by side, went to the same parish, and thus intermingled with one another. While certain streets such as Rosario or Gandara might be filled with stores owned by the Chinese, in other streets like Anloague mestizos Narciso Molo Agustin Patemo y Pineda and Mariano Limjap were neighbors of the Chinese Francisco Manzano Yap-Tico and Pedro Sy-Quia (see RMAO EBC 1902, 878, tomo 3, no, 182). Moreover, many of these stores were also located under the houses or on the properties of mestizos and indios. Finally, while there may have been some “anti-Chinese5 ’ movements in the 1880s and 1890s (see Wickberg [1965] 2000), these were not sufficient reasons for 144 Hisfwnic-sounding names usually refer to non-Chinese individuals, unless the documents states otherwise. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 the Chinese to form themselves into a tight group, since in their day-to-day activities, especially in their business practices, they continued dealing and interacting with people—merchants, laborers, creditors, customers— of other ethnic backgrounds. Thus, just as we saw earlier that the Chinese granted powers-of-attorney to non- Chinese, they also entered into business contracts with them, forming joint companies. For instance, out of the 61 contracts I collected involving either the establishment or dissolution of companies, 9 of them involved businesses between the Chinese and non-Chinese. Table 6: List of contracts involving Chinese merchants entering into business contracts with non-Chinese merchants Name of Chinese Name of non- Type of Document (Source) partner/s Chinese partner/s Joaquin Elizaga Tan Angco Tomas Sy Cangco Pablo Chan Chiocco Cue Capco Tan Pitco Cue Sonraan (deceased) Sotero Cembrano Co-Luyco Antonio Cembrano Co Tuaco Ramon Aeulle and Establishment of opium smoking-rooms others Luisa Maria Madora Januaria Limchungpeng (widow of Cue Sonman) Braulio Mariano Tito Galicia in Manila, Laguna, Batangas, Cavite, Bataan. Pampanga (RMAO FD 1872. 427, tomo 1, no. 49) Establishment of a sinamay store (RMAO FD 1872,427, tomo 2, no. 542) Separation of hardware and general merchandise stores in Manila Iloilo (RMAO FD 1872,427, tomo 2, no. 747) Establishment of business renting of arbtirio of public markets in locos Sur (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 1, no. 175) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 9 Table 6. (continued) Name of Chinese partner/s Name of non- Chinese partner/s Type of Document (Source) Yu Seco a.k.a. Yu Natalia him Yutov Establishment of sugar business, located Suat Florentine Yu Jangco Juan Rico Yu Joco a.k.a. Yu Suciong Vicente Tan- Tiong-An Rosario Chun Chico Tam Po Chua Sengco Lim Boco a.k.a. Lim Tambo Antonio Tan Leco Tam Po Chua Sengco (widow) Ciriia Ochangco (widow of Jose Santiago Tiaoqui) Quintin Montes Hermogenes Tantiangco y de los Santos (from Bataan) Enrique de los Santos y Paz Nicolas Gatdula y Reyes Modesto de los Santos y Santos Ygnacio Samson v Borja Simplicio de los Santos y Santos Julian Reyes y Domingo Lamberto Abell ana y Juares Hermogenes Tantiangco y de los Santos at the property of Ciriia Ochangco and her children (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 1, no. 189) Dissolution of a store of textiles and yam from Europe (RMAO CR 1902, 856, tomo 2, no. 288) Establi shment of a casco business named "Tantiangco y Compahia" (RMAO CR 1902, 856, tomo 3, no. 654) Dissolution of a company named "Paz Palanca y Compania”; company was into buying and selling fish (RMAO CR 1902 856, tomo 4, no. 696) Dissolution of a casco business named "Tantiangco v Compania” (RMAO CR 1902, 856, tomo 3, no. 700) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 Some contracts even involved female non-Chinese merchants. For example, the Chinese Pablo Chan Chiocco and the india Luisa Maria Madora together established a sinamay (a kind of fiber) store in Manila (RMAO FD 1872. 427, tomo 2, no. 542); while mestizas Natalia Yutoy and Ciriia Ochangco entered into a sugar business with the Chinese Yu Seco, Florentine Yu Jangco, and Juan Rico Yu Joco (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 1, no. 189). It was also difficult not to be involved with female merchants, especially mestizas. My research shows that many establishments or stores were located in the property of mestizas. Examples indude the sugar business that the widows Natalia Yutoy and Ciriia Ochangco established together with their Chinese business partners. The store was located in the property owned by Ciriia and her children (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 1, no. 189). More details regarding mestizo proprietresses will be discussed in Chapter 4. The image of the Chinese as an enclosed community was perpetuated by the policies of colonial rulers and the accounts o f outside observers. As I have mentioned in Chapter 1, during the Spanish colonial period, the colonial rulers considered the Chinese as a separate legal and ethnic group, along with two other groups, the mestizos and the indios. Later on, the American colonial rulers divided the population into “Filipinos” and “aliens,” with the Chinese categorized in the latter category. However, past scholarship used the framework o f these colonial rulers to discuss the ethnic relations of the Chinese with the larger population. In so doing, they w ere influenced by the anti-C hinese stance o f these colonial governments, and the latter5 s oft-repeated attempts to segregate the Chinese from the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 other ethnic groups. Consequently, their analysis of ethnic relations between the Chinese and other groups also pointed toward a hostile relationship between them. For instance, the Chinese were supposed to have taken over the wholesale and retail trade from the m estizos during the latter part o f the nineteenth century, thus explaining why there was animosity between the two groups (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 148-154; Wilson 1998, 132). But as I will point out in the next chapter, the mestizos (including female offspring) and the Chinese were engaged in both enterprises where one group did not necessarily dominate the other. Rather, their relationship was more symbiotic and cooperative. Following the binarist approach to the analysis of ethnic relations, Wilson describes the cabecilla-agent system in the following terms; newcomers from China (called the invernado or “transients” by the Spanish government) were recruited by the cabecillas who were m ostly radicados. i.e., “long term residents.” The invemados, he describes, . . . were dominated by the cabecillas and isolated from the rest of Philippine society, but the cabecillas who held the reins could not afford to be isolated. In contrast to the transient Chinese, the radicado cabecillas had to have a commitment to long-term, if not lifetime, residence in the Philippines and to participation in the civic life of Manila to achieve their positions of prominence (1998, 134). Tims, Wilson concludes that the “greater Chinese community” was a “closed ethnic community under tight rein”145 However, I argue that these invemados, who also 143 Wong also describes Chinese business practices ia Manila during the American colonial period (1898-1946) as pan o f an “essentially enclosed Chinese economic system (1994,236). I tend to agree with this assessment in that daring the first half of the twentieth century, the rise in both Chinese m d Filipino nationalism, coupled with American racist policies against the Chinese, brought the Chinese R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 became agents of these cabecillas, were n o t using W ilson’s words, “physically, economically, and socially alienated” from other groups (1998, I32),1 4® As one of my documents shows, even newcomers could break into business and thus interact with the locals. On 1 December 1897, 33-year-old Uy-Dico drew up an instrument granting powers-of-attorney to his 1 1 paisano c fm im x f (Christian countryman) Cornelio Uy-Colian to represent him in his businesses. However, despite the fact that he had only arrived in the Philippines four months before,147 Dice was able to speak “average Spanish” and thus drew up this instrument without the need for an interpreter (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 4, no. 473).14 8 From this example, it may be inferred that “new arrivals” like Uy-Dico managed not only to leam Spanish fast, but also to establish their own businesses in a short tim e.149 Edwin H Warner, giving a description o f the “coolies” in the in the Philippines to organize themselves more closely, and create a “closed” community. However, more studies should be made to gauge the extent of their separation and exclusion, for even as they were targeted as members of an “alien” community, and closed in on them selves, in other aspects o f their lives the Chinese might have maintained intimate ties with the locals. ^ It must be noted, however, that in his more recent works, Wilson has changed Ms analysis of ethnic relations between these Chinese agents and other ethnic groups, agreeing with, my own analysts that the Chinese community did not form an ethnic enclave m d that ethnic identities were more fluid and ambiguous (see, for example, 2003). 147 The document states: “The “chim " Uy-Dico [is] thirty-three years old, single, laborer. living in Binondo, without any cedvJa personal (identity document), bin in having new ly arrived in the country, exhibits instead a provisional certificate no. 1 issued by the Gobersadorcillo (lit.: “small governor”) of the sangleyes (i.e., the Chineses on the I5 8 *of August of this year* (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 4, no. 473). ^ In fact, Uy-Dico signed Ids name in script, and not in Chinese dim eters. 149 In discussing the long history of exchange between ths Chinese and the natives of Me Philippines, Ang See (200 i) points out that there is a need for more studies mi the contributions of Filipino culture to the southeastern coast culture of China. She shows, for example that certain Hoktten words were derived from Tagalog or Spanish {through Spanish Manila). *>.' mg 1 0 this long history of exchange and travel, one can infer that a Chinese going to the Philippine* v r the first time might have been 'Trained” in his village or town before coming to the Philippines. Relum ing Chinese might have brought back with them certain skills and knowledge they gained from the Philippines, and which R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 Philippines at the turn of the twentieth century, says that as soon as a "coolie can save a little money he goes out somewhere and establishes a small shop” (U.S. Philippine Commission 1900, 191).150 Furthermore, if these invemados were really recruited as agents and did well their job of representing the cabecillas in their businesses elsewhere, how could they spend their whole time being isolated from the natives? They often traveled to places where no or few other Chinese had ever gone before.1 5 1 They went to the remotest barrios, lived there and befriended the natives, and even established intimate relations with some locals and settled there.152 Finally, past scholarship tends to perpetuate the image of a separate and homogeneous “Chinese” business enclave by neglecting to point out that many of the Chinese merchants during the Spanish colonial period knew how to speak Spanish. While the Spanish colonial government was unhappy with the way these Chinese merchants kept their business records in Chinese, issuing for instance in 1865 a they then passed on to others. Thus, Wickberg writes that the qiaaximg (i.e., home villages o f “overseas Chinese”) o f the Philippine Chinese could have been a “kind o f seedbed o f Philippine skills and practices,” Consequently, a “newcomer’ k the Philippines may have already been equipped with certain skills and knowledge on how to survive in Ms new surroundings (Letter to author, 4 December 2001). I would like to thank Wickberg for suggesting this idea and for directing my attention to Aug See’s paper. 159 Edwin h. Warner identified him self in front of the Commission as being a merchant, and member o f the firm called Warner, Bames & Co. He had been a resident of Manila for twenty-six years at the time of Ms interrogation (U.S. Philippine Commission 1900,191). 151 Changes in Spanish colonial policy pertaining at their freedom o f movement after 1850 aided in their geographical expansion to different parts of the Philippines. For example, in 1847-1848, the governor-general issued some decrees that loosened the restrictions k the movement of the Chinese within the archipelago, such as the extension of the amount o f time that a Chinese could stay m the provinces from three to twelve months (Wickberg [1965] 2000.53,61.147). 152 •j’ jje extent therefore of close relations between the Chinese living in the provinces and the natives may have differend significantly from that o f the Chinese living in urban areas, where there was a bigger Chinese population. Thus, there, is a need for s o re studies on the Chinese outside Manila. Some studies have been made, notably Oimrirandro 1981; Reynolds and Reynold 1998; and the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 regulation requiring Chinese ship owners to keep their records in Spanish, this does not preclude the latter5 s ability to use Spanish in dealing with others (cf. Andrade 2000). But this uncritical acceptance of the colonizers’ perception of the Chinese ostensibly keeping to their “Chinese” ways has led Wilson to conclude that it was only in the American colonial period that, with the establishment o f the Anglo- Chinese School in 1899, a group of “literate, bilingual and professionally oriented young men” was produced (1998, 180). However, from an investigation of these notarial records one can see that many o f these Chinese could speak, write, and understand Spanish. For instance, out of a random sampling o f forty-two (42) Chinese who appeared before a notary' public to draw up a contract or instrument in Spanish, only seven (7) needed an interpreter.!53 And out of these, four (4) needed an interpreter from Spanish to Tagalog, since, according to the notary public, they knew Tagaiog better than Spanish!154 Furthermore, thirty-four (34) of them knew how to sign their names in script, while only eight (8) used Chinese characters. Finally, there was no absence of “professionals” during the Spanish period. As in the case mentioned earlier involving the dissolution of the company. Chinese peritos different articles found in Ang See 1997b and Aag See 1999. Larkin 1993 also has a section on the Chinese in his study of the Pampangans, Most o f these works locus ©a coatesaporary times. 153 These documents were culled from a set of documents that 1 collected ia the summer of 2000. Focusing on the years from 1875 to 1901,1 made cop ies o f docum ents pertaining to Chinese merchants. Out o f the thousands o f entries in the indices of the protocols that I scanned, I collected forty-four (44) docum ents, most of which are pow ers-of-attoraey (mandatos de poder), The breakdown of the type o f documents are as follows: establishment and dissolution o f companies - 3; pow ers-of-attom ey - 27; deeds o f sale - 4; acts o f giving charge to another - 2: declaration o f property - 1; cancellation of mortgage - 1; cession and transfer of rights of rent - 1; act of filing a letter of refusal to pay a debt - 2; letter of payment - 2; act o f raising a ship - 1 . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 or “experts” could be hired to check the books of a company (RMAO FD 1877, 435, tomo 2, no. 704). Furthermore, one executor of an instrument (Tin CMco) was an adm inistrator o f public services and escrihim te (clerk) o f Chinese characters (RMAO EEC 1890, 866, tomo 5, no. 560). He was one of the several Chinese who were not only professionals but also professionals who could speak and write two or more languages. Thus, we see from above that in studying the Chinese merchants in the Philippines and their business practices, previous scholars have not only used a deterministic and reified cultural trait to explain their success, but also treated them as a homogeneous, separate, and distinct group. But as I have argued, during this period in history not only is there nothing unique about die way these Chinese conducted their business, but also they were not part of an “enclosed ethnic enclave* with its own set of business practices.155 In fact I argue that it was not until after 1910 that the “Chinese” were viewed generally as a distinctly separate group from an equally distinct “Filipino” group, at a time when nationalistic fervor was rising both in China and in the Philippines, causing ethnic boundaries to be hardened. Furthermore, these scholars5 approach not only perpetuates a binarisf view o f ethnic relations that were not historically rooted in the realities of the time, but also serves ^ T hese were Chua Pueoo, Gng Tuon, Li-Krt, and Chua So. who also signed their names in Chinese ui the document that they drew up to grant the power-of-aitomey to lose Lopez Pagas sad Getm im o Jose (RMAO GH 1901, 830, tomo 6, no. 763). 1>5 xfrg question that Wickberg suggests should be posed instead is this: under what circumstances did the Chinese rely upon each other, and create friendships with osiers (Letter to author. 23 March 2001). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 to bolster the constructions of post-colonial governments and nationalists of the “Chinese” as either an unassimilable group or one with superior cultural traits. Flexible strategies and border-crossing practices; dispersion of bodies and wealth and name-changing How then do we study the Chinese merchants and their practices without resorting to a deterministic version of their culture and a reification of their ethnic identity? One way is to go beyond or veer away from referring to them as territorially-bound subjects, and this means to regard them instead as “diasporic subjects” {hence, instead of “overseas Chinese”) living in a period characterized by connections, flows, and links to more than one place and one cultural fragment. By using “diaspora” as a trope with which to describe the lives and experiences of these Chinese, we can thus avoid the trap o f using nation-centered discourses o f their identities (McKeown 1999). Instead, we can emphasize their multiple positionalities that allowed them to collude as well as evade the local discip! brings of the colonial governments determined to control them. As discussed in Chapter 1, from the middle of the nineteenth century, the number of Chinese coming to the Philippines greatly increased, from 5,700 in 1847 to 30,000 in 1876 and to 90,000 around the turn of the twentieth century. This rise in their num ber could be attributed to several reasons, such as the im proved transportation between China and the Philippines with the invention o f the steamship, and the more lax immigration and emigration laws of Spain and China, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 respectively. In an attempt to control their number and their activities, the Spanish (and later on American) colonial government designed various policies, such as imposing a quota on the number of Chinese allowed to enter the Philippines, or taxing them the highest. However, due to their itinerant lifestyle, and to their being persons-in-diaspora, like many o f their other Southeast Asian counterparts, the Chinese merchants in the Philippines managed to establish businesses in other places such as Hong Kong, Xiamen, Singapore, or in other parts of the Philippines outside Manila. Their economic ties in other places allowed them to manage their finances and businesses in ways that were not territorially bound to one place. They could play with their money, transferring it to oilier places or placing it in several countries sim ultaneously as they deemed politically and econom ically expedient and beneficial. They also dispersed family members, maintaining one household in China and another in the Philippines, or one in Manila and another in other islands of the Philippines, or sent their children abroad in order to obtain an education, to manage their businesses, and to profess loyalty to more than one empire. Many of them acquired Spanish citizenship while earning merits for their socio-political involvement in China (see Wilson 1998). Thus, the practices of these merchants can be considered the “precursors of modem Chinese transnational! sor’ (Ong and Nonini 1997, 12-18).156 156 For specific works dealing with modem Chinese transaatioualism in different parts of the world, see, for example, Ong 1999 and Hsu 2QG0, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. J 2 8 Among the Chinese in the Philippines, there is one practice they engaged in that I would like to discuss and use as another example of their “border-crossing’" practices. This involves the practice of using multiple names while conducting their businesses. But before I discuss this practice in detail, let me provide more historical background on Spanish policies governing the Chinese. As I have pointed out in Chapter 2, the Spanish colonial government instituted a policy that granted special privileges to those who converted to Catholicism. By converting to Catholicism, a Chinese merchant could acquire a godfather or marry a native woman. From an influential godfather, a Chinese could then expect both material and emotional support, while from a native woman, he could expect to raise a family that would provide him with the necessary human labor to manage his business, even as he kept and supported another family in China. However, in order to receive approval for Catholic conversion, a Chinese merchant had to fulfill certain conditions, such as being adequately instructed in the Catholic faith; showing proofs o f good moral conduct and o f long-term residence in the Philippines; and acquiring a Hispanie/Christianized name upon baptism. But according to Chinese custom, keeping and passing on one’s family name to one’s descendants was (and continues to be) an important way to show respect to one’s ancestors. The Spanish government recognized the importance the Chinese attached to their surname and thus allowed them to retain them.157 Thus, upon conversion, — •' In m effort to make it easier for the government to track its native subjects, the Spanish Governor-General Nareiso Ciaveria decreed In 1849 that all natives of die Philippines who previously did not have surnames be given one. He pointed out In his decree that mam’ people “siiatiarily adopt R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 the Chinese adopted a Hispanic/Christian name, which they did by taking the surname (and sometimes even the personal name) of their sponsor. But they also retained their Chinese name (hence their identity) by appending this to their Hispanic/Christian name. Thus, Tan Quien-sien became Carlos Palanca Tan Quien- sien, and Sy-Pioco became H o Barrette Sy Pioco.158 By using such a practice to name themselves after baptism, the Chinese merchants not only satisfied Spanish colonial policy and managed to participate in the colonial economy, but also fulfilled their filial duty to their ancestors by retaining their Chinese name. Such a practice was indeed “border-crossing,” for it did not peg the identity of the Chinese to one particular place. Moreover, these Chinese merchants in the Philippines—whether Catholic or not—were simply applying a practice in China that allowed individuals to have multiple names. While going through the legal documents they drew up I noticed that several individuals were referred to or referred to themselves as “so-and-so o sea (“or to be known as”) so-and-so” or “so-and-so p a r otro nombre (“by another the names of saints, (which) results in the existence of thousands of individuals having the same surname,” As a consequence, there is much “confusion with regard to fee administration of justice, government, finance, and public order.” This in turn,, hm “far-reaching moral, civil and religious consequences, . , , because fee family names are not transmitted from fee patents to their children, so that it is sometimes impossible to prove the degrees of consanguinity for purposes o f marriage, rendering useless the parochial books w hich in Catholic countries are used for all kinds of transactions.” On the other hand, people “o f Spanish, indigenous, or Chinese origin*8 already wife surnames may m ain them and pass them on to feeir descendants (Philippine National Archives 1973, x). Sponsors were usually well-known, well-established, wealthy, or influential members o f Manila’s society, bat could also be intimate friends or business associates of these converts. Tan Qoisa-siea’s sponsor, Carlos Palanca, was a Spanish colonel (Wickberg [1965] 2000,199) white Sy P iece's was likely a member of fee B arreto family of Portuguese and Indian lineage who had settled in Manila in the eighteeafe-centuty and owned several businesses (Legarda ! 999,229). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 name”) so-and-so.” Thus, for example, Jose Munoz Lim Tanco (a baptized Chinese) was also known as Lim Tiongjanqui, and Lim Vanliongqui (a non-Christian) was also known as Lim Oco. This practice o f possessing several names has been observed for centuries in China. The ways by which a Chinese acquired other names were as follows. First, a person could receive a xiao mittg or “small name” that was given at birth. A few years after his birth, he could also receive a da ming or “great name.” As an adult, he could also acquire a style name called hao} which often was also a courtesy name. In the Philippines, the hao o f the Chinese appeared in legal documents as a name with the generational name found in one’s personal name being dropped and then the character for “older brother” {transliterated and read as “co”) being appended to the remaining character.159 Thus, for instance, Tan Chueyliong was also known as Tan Chueco; Lim Conchoqui was Quintin Lim-Choco; and Lim Yee-Siengqui was Lim Sengco.1 ® Based on these different ways o f adding names, I counted from the same random sampling mentioned earlier 41 (out of 79) individuals who had more than one name. Considering the possible permutations of names based on this practice in China, it is no wonder that when a witness was asked by the U.S. Philippine Commission why he favored the exclusion of the Chinese from the Islands, he said: “Because . . . (t)hey go into business transactions and get into trouble, and they I:> 9 According to Tessy Aug See {personal commumcatioa), in many eases, the generational name o f the person was dropped and the second character retained. The second character was then appended with the honorific “eo.” However, this practice was not followed afl fee time. Another type of name one could have was the hie hao, i.e., an alias, a m m tie plume or pan name (Louie 1998,46). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 generally run away and make a complete failure. A Chinaman may have twenty names instead o f one” (U.S. Philippine Commission 1900,166) (italics mine]. Though the combining of their Hispanic/Christian name and their Chinese name for Christian Chinese converts was not strictly a business practice, it was nevertheless an essential step they had to take for the greater success o f their economic enterprise. On the other hand, for non-converts, their practice o f having multiple names while doing business in the Philippines reflected a certain kind of positionality that could have aided them in escaping the efforts of colonial authorities to locate them. Thus, these Chinese merchants made use o f a ' ‘ ‘border-crossing” practice that enabled them to “segue from one discourse to another, experiment with alternative forms of identification, shrug in and out of identities, or evade imposed forms of identifications” (Ong and Nonmi 1997, 26).1 6 1 Not only did they negotiate the policies of the Spanish and American colonial governments to localize them, but they also managed—even inadvertently—to confuse the colonial masters. Fifty years later, the U.S. government already out of the Philippines as colonial masters, still continued to grapple with the multiple names of the Chinese. In 1953, the U.S. State Department, through its Office of Intelligence Research, came out with a manuscript called “Directory of Chinese Personal Names in the Philippines.” The foreword says that similar directories were being made for the Chinese in other Southeast Asian countries. No doubt the purpose of this directory was to keep track Although Ong and Noninx in their study focus on the practices of modem Chinese transnationals, they point out that “modem Chinese transRatioaalisaC has its historical roots in colonial times i.e., at R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 2 of the “overseas Chinese” during a period of intensified Cold-War conflict with China and the rest of the “Communist world.” However, the creation o f this directory also is an indication of the long-standing problem that non-Chinese had had with Chinese names. Thus, it is stated that the “purpose of this directory (was) to furnish a key for research workers concerned with overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, to enable them to disentangle the confused references to Chinese names appearing in the local non-Chinese press, directories, and political accounts1 ' (U.S. Department of State 1953, 1) [italics mine].162 In the next section, I will look into the life of Carlos Palanca Tan Quien-sien, who was considered one o f the most, if not the most, prominent Chinese in his community during his time. I will use his life and his practices as examples of the border-crossing practices commonly used by Chinese merchants of his time. the time of European colonial expansion and increasing American domination in the Pacific fl 997 12-18). 162 During the American colonial period, the Chinese also adopted a practice in which they bought somebody else’s “dazT or “dua d t in Hokkiett whies was the immigrant certificate of registration, in order to enter the Philippines legally. Consequently, the person became known 'ey another name, and the assumed surname is passed down to later generations. This resulted in many Chinese in the Philippines today possessing a Chinese surname not really their own. This practice is akin to the practice of those immigrating to China as “paper sons.” For more information regarding this practice in North America, see- Hsu, 2000,81-84. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 Carlos Palanca; the consummate border-crossing diasporic subject General background Carlos Palanca Tan Quien-sien was bom on 6 June 1844 in Tongan County, near the border of Zhangzhou and Quanzhou prefectures in Fujian,1 6 3 His mother s name was Lim-Chia-Niu.364 Caiios went to the Philippines in 1856. when he was 12 years old, and undertook an apprenticeship in a relative's draper business (Wilson 1998, 150). He was poor and uneducated, but taught himself to read and write. Over the years he became a successful businessman, as well as an established political figure in his community. He lived in Bisondo, and owned a store and a house on Rosario Street, now T. Pin Pin (Lim 1980,16). Not far away on San Fernando Street was the tribunal o f the sang!eyes, where he reported for work during Ms terms as gobernadorcillo o f the Chinese. He was married to the mestiza Luci&na Lim- Guinco,1 6 5 with whom he had four children: Engracio, Aiejandra, Catalino, and Paula.166 He died in September 1901, at the age of 57 (Wong 1994, 32-33). 163 jje must be distinguished from other Carlos Palansas of Ms time, and o f later times, fo r instance there was another Carlos Palanca Cue Tongling found in my research (see RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 1, no. 88). Another Carlos Palanca widely known in the Philippines today is Carles Palanca Tan Quin-lay (b. 1869). Carlos Palanca Tan Quin-lay took Carlos Palanca Tan Q aieit-Sien as his godfather, and started the Manila-based La ToncieSa distillery ia 1902 (Wong 1994,181). 364 Little eise is known about his mother, except that in the testament Carlos drew up ia 1882. be bequeathed to her part of his property (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 2, no. 349). I have yet to find information regarding Carlos’ father. ^ Luciana’s mother was Maria Dueepee, herself a mestiza. Maria bequeathed to Lucians all her properties and other assets, as Loc-iana was the only heir, and made tier executor of her w ill at the same time, Maria left a testament dated 14 September 1882, in the year she died (RMAO FD 1882, 445. tomo 2, no. 481). 166 wickberg erroneously identifies Engracio as Ignacio ([1965] 2000,201a. 81). H is Chinese name was Chen Ziyan, but was commonly referred to as Chen Gang. Aiejandra married Emiliano Jao Boacan on 17 May 1892. Emiliano was the son o f Frandsca Yap y Lim and Ygnaeio Jao Bonean. Some controversy surrounded the marriage, for Francises had to ask R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 34 Carlos as a merchant: trans-empire links and other border-crossing practices By the time he was in his 30s, Carlos had prospered and secured a place within the ranks of the cabecillas. He was very successful in textiles, but also had diversified business interests. He was involved in “agricultural brokerage, money- lending, running the cock-fighting and opium monopolies, operating retail and import-export operations and had invested widely in Chinese businesses throughout the M anila area while expanding his agent network and investm ents into the provinces” (Wilson 1998, 150), Among the products he imported was rice, and lie exported sugar to Hong Kong,167 His business partners in the sugar-exporting business were the Chinese Ong Jun Goo, Francisco Ong Posuy, and Po Guiyao. He and a certain Chiong A-cho also exported tobacco to Hong Kong (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 85), Furthermore, Carlos was a major coolie broker and a tax-collector for the Spanish government. He was considered by many to be “the wealthiest o f the cabecillas, and was reputed to have paid 68,000 pesos per year for the license to operate the largest of the great cock-fighting arenas in Manila , . ” (Wilson 1998, 1 5 0 ).168 Meanwhile, his annual tax amounted to 20,O C X ) pesos (Wilson 1998, 150; Wickberg [1965] 2000, 113, 200). His high position as a major tax payer can be seen in his tax classification. He belonged to the highest class of head-t&x payers, Akgaadra to sign a document certifying that she had married Emiliano o s her own free w ill, and that, they were married at the chapel of t he Beaterio de Santa Catalina, a half-hour after she left the house of her father. For more details, see RMAO CR 1892, 846, tomo 2, no. 260. 167 He also imported lamps, paper lanterns, fancy woods., and dried vegetables from Japan in 1893 (Wickberg [1965] 2000,85). 16^ This amount was somewhere between US$3O,0G0-35,00O (Wilson 1998,150a. 314) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and was ranked number "]/' among tax payers of the same classification (see, for example, RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 4, no. 438). In the following section, I will present some of my own findings with regard to Carlos5 businesses and use these to corroborate what other scholars claim to be the kinds of businesses Carlos engaged in. The purpose of including these details is to provide future researchers on Carlos with more information regarding Ms business empire. I will also use the data to show Ms wide interaction with people from different backgrounds. His involvement in the retail business: * On 18 June 1872, Carlos bought from the “Christian Chinese’ 5 Joaquin Ong Seco a.k.a. Ong Suatco. a store that sold oil. flour, and other goods. The store was located on the first street of Santo Cristo, and designated with the number 37. The sale of the store, which included its furniture and collectibles, amounted to 1,658 pesos, 2 reales (RMAO FD 1872 427, tomo 2, no. 367). His involvement in money-lending: * On 7 December 1871, Carlos lent to fellow Chinese Luis Oraca Sia Pongco 12,000 pesos. The loan was to be paid back by the end o f two years counting from the date the contract was signed, and with an annual interest o f twelve percent. As guarantee. Luis placed under special mortgage a house of lime and blocks (caly canto) situated in the district of Quiapo and the lot on which the house was built (RMAO FD 1871. 426, tomo 2, no. 430). * On 28 June 1872, Carlos and the Chinese Francisco Ceiix Yap Que loaned out to the Chinese Cue Maseng, Cue Sioco, and Cue Taco the sum of 12,000 pesos, payable in 6 months. The contract also stipulated that debtors were placing the following as guarantee: two stores owned by the three debtors; and a warehouse o f pottery (alfaferid) with its oven o f rubblework; a house of wood; field of rice seedlings; carabaos and other goods found in the property o f a certain Regino Limchingpin in Mandalaya, San Felipe Neri (RMAO FD 1872,427, tomo 2, no. 395). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 • On 16 October 1875, Carlos made out a loan to the Chinese Calisto Yap Queco (Quiecco) in the sum of 3,500 pesos. However, the loan was made out to Calisto without any interest, and was payable in 2 months from the date of the drawing up of the contract (RMAO FD 1875,431, tomo 2, no. 485). • On 29 October 1875, a certain Chiu Slngvoc, a Chinese, drew up as instrument stating that he had borrowed 530 pesos from Carlos, and that the payment was past due. He requested Carlos to allow him to pay 50 pesos monthly, until such debt was paid (RMAO FD 1875, 43I, tomo 2} no. 526). In another instrument drawn up on 28 October 1875, it is shown that Singyoc also owed Carlos a total of 6,157 pesos, 1 real, 5 cuartos for comestibles procured from Carlos’ store in Santo Crisio, and that he promised to pay this debt in four years (RMAO FD 1875, 431, tomo 2, no. 525). • On 19 June 1897, the Christian Chinese Jose Temprado Yap-Chatco, 51 years old, widowed, a businessman living in San Fernando, Pampanga, declared that on 3 December 1896. he borrowed 900 pesos from Carlos. In exchange for this loan, he had ceded to him for a period of six months, the rights and shares of half of 10 parcels of land located in the town of Apalit, Pampanga. The 10 parcels o f land consisted of the following measurements (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 2, no. 197); - 1 hectare, 72 areas (equal to 100 square meters) and 42 centi-area (100th part of an area) - 34 areas and 35 centi-areas - 4 hectares 79 areas and 15 centi-areas - 4 hectares, 93 areas and 12 centi-areas - 66 areas and 34 centi-areas - 3 hectares, 30 areas and 31 centi-areas - 2 hectares. 67 areas, and 15 centiareas - 1 hectare, 20 areas and 6 centiareas - 76 areas and 76 centiareas - 1 hectare 59 areas and 42 centiareas Having paid back the loan on this date, Jose formally received back from Carios these 10 parcels of land (RMAO CR 1897, 851. tomo 2, no. 197). On this same date, Jose also paid back the amount of 1,600 pesos which Carios had given him under the act of retroventa (reversion sale, often to the original seller or vender) ia exchange for half of the several properties the former owned in different sitios and towns in Pampanga. For having R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 paid back the money he received from Carlos, Jose in return gained back his properties (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 2, no. 198).169 His involvement in opium contracts: * In November 1867. Carlos filed a petition with the Civil Governor to hold another auction for the renting of the opium monopoly in Bulacan.i fl) Apparently, Carlos lost his bid in the first auction. But even though Ms request was granted, he still lost in the second bidding. Having lost the bid, he requested the Yntendencia Genera! on 13 July 1869 to return his document of deposit (RMAO VP, Carlos Palanca 1853-1898). * On 8 November 1880, Carlos and Christian Chinese Vicente Aldecoa Uy Champo acted as bondsmen to Cristmo Bantog, an Indio of Binondo who borrowed the sum of 57.000 pesos and 72 centavos from indio Manuel Perez, after having won opium contracts in the province o f Pampanga. Cristino borrowed this sum from Manuel, and promised to pay back the amount in 38 months (RMAO FD 1880,441, tomo 2, no. 676). * On 15 Septem ber 1897, Fermin A. Viliaba Cua Buco. a Christian Chinese, single, 39 years old, and a businessman, transferred the contract which he held provisionally of the opium-smoking rooms in the province of Bulacan to Carlos. The Intendeneia General de Hacienda awarded the contract to Fermin by the, on 3 August for the sum o f2,200 pesos and 24 centavos.1 7 1 Fermin paid a surety amounting to 220 pesos, 2 centavos and 4 octavos, and this surety was transferred to Carlos Palanca as well (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo3, no. 344). * On 18 December 1897, Carlos, having won the contracts to the opium- smoking rooms in Bulacan, granted the pow er-of-attoraey to the “Christian Chinese5 5 Agapiio P Uy Tongeo, to represent him in the said contracts in said province. Agapito was a resident of Maiolos, a town in Bulacan (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 4, no. 517). 169 For a complete list of the properties involved, see RMAO CR 1897,85!. tomo 2, b o . 198. It must be noted that Carlos him self availed of loans from others. On 23 June 1875, he and Antonio Caong both received a toan from lose Tan Tiaojsy in the amount o f 5,480 pesos, 7 reales and 13 cuartos, and from Yu Choeeo the amount o f 4,519 pesos and 7 cuartos (totaling 10,000 pesos), with the condition that the loan was to be paid at the end of 34 months from this date. The payment was to be done by paying 300 pesos monthly until the sum was fully paid, with the first payment being taking place on 1 August of that year (RMAO FD 1875,431, tomo 2, no. 254). 1 Buiacaa is approximately 15 kilometers north of Manila. 1,1 The Inteadincia General de Hacienda was an office of the Spanish colon ial governm ent overseeing financial matters. For more mfonnatkm, see Corpuz S 957,80-81. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 3 8 Apart from these businesses, Carlos on 26 August 1880 invested 1,000 pesos in the lum ber business owned by Manuel Scare!!a The lum beryard was in Camarines Norte.172 and part o f the contract stipulated that the lum ber to be delivered to Manila was to be consigned to Carlos Palanca (RMAO FD 1880,441, tomo 2, no. 505).1 7 3 From some of the details of his business dealings, we see that the business empire of Carlos indeed reached far and wide, across the Philippine archipelago and beyond. Thus, we find documents drawn up by Carlos granting powers-of-attomey to different people to represent his business interests in other places. Some o f the agents to whom Carlos granted these powers and the places where they represented Carlos include the following: * Silvino Reyes, an indio who lived in Tadofean, and to whom the power was granted to allow him to collect the sum of 1,078 pesos 3 reales and 15 cuartos owed to Carios by the Chinese Chua Chunco, who lived in the town of Tanauan.17 4 The amount represented the goods that Chunco had taken from Carlos. Silvino was to represent Carlos in the courts of the province o f Leyte, or anywhere the suit against Chua was taken to (RMAO FD 1872,427, tomo 2, no. 492). • Indies Carios Saguii of San Fernando, Pampanga, and Felix Meileza of Sorsogon, province of Aibay.l n Carlos granted these general powers-of- 1 /2 Camarines Norte is located approximately 350 kilometers southeast o f Manila. i7- 5 Farther details of the contract stipulated that both the owner (Manuel) and the investor (Carios) would report to each other, with the owner having the obligation to inform the capitalist what was being dons with his money, and the latter to the former as to fee sales o f the timber. Profits and losses would also be divide! equally between fee two (RMAO FD 1880,441, tomo 2, so . 505). 1 Tacloban is the capital of Leyte. Leyte, an island in fee Yis&yan region, is approximately 700 kilometers from Manila. Tanauan is also in Leyte Island. 1 Albay is approximately 500 kilometers southeast of Manila, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 attorney on 2 June 1875 to represent him in said provinces (RMAO FD 1875, 431, tomo 2, no. 223). * the “Christian Chinese” Ciriaco Yap-Cueeo. a resident o f Manila, to whom Carlos granted on 16 November 1897 ample and enough powers to reclaim, collect and receive all the money, values, or effects that were owed to Carlos from the province of Batangas and its towns.1 /6 Ciriaco was also empowered to sign or issue receipts and ail other documents, and to represent Carlos in all legal and judicial matters that may arise from his business dealings in the said province (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 4, no. 438). As we can see, Carlos had business interests in several places in the Philippines, such as in the provinces of Albay, Batangas, Bulaeam, Leyte, Camarines Norte, and Pampanga. Although no study has yet shown that he had business interests outside the Philippines, Carlos must have had some investments in. China, as was common with Chinese m erchants o f his stature. In fact, he traveled frequently to China. This can be gleaned from the times that he granted powers-of- attomey to certain people living in Manila. In one instance, he visited China for at least two months in 1882. Before he departed, he granted powers-of-attorney to the Christian Chinese Pablo Ortiga Chan-Chioc on 30 June 1882 (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 1, no. 322; FD 1882,445, tomo 2, no. 451).1 7 ? A rundown of his business interests (some already mentioned earlier) also points us to his wide contact with the different ethnic groups in the Philippines. Although his business associates were mainly Chinese, he also relied on or dealt with 1/0 Batangas is approximately ! 10 kilometers south of Manila. j -7 -7 1 ’ ' Earlier on, he also granted powers-of-attomey to the Chinese Manuel Yap Coco on 9 March 1875 to represent him in ail his businesses, and to oversee and manage all his properties and goods in Manila and in the provinces. This conferral of powers could indicate another period o f time when lie traveled abroad (RMAO FD 1875, 431, tomo 2, no. 105). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 4 0 a lot of non-Chinese businessmen (e.g., serving as a bondsman to Cristmo Bantog of Binondo) or professionals in managing his businesses. Thus, he also granted powers-of-attorney to several Spanish or Filipino Spanish attorneys to represent him injudicial and extra-judicial matters. The examples below indicate who some o f these individuals were: • Rafael Gonzales Llanos, an “Espaiiol,” to whom Carlos granted the power on 7 October 1875 to represent him in a case filed against him for the non-payment o f 1.000 pesos (RMAO FD 1875, 431. tomo 2. no. 465).178 • Vicente Socorro, lose Crispulo Reyes, and Flacido Canas Buenaventura, to whom Carlos (in his capacity as the legitimate representative of Ms wife Luciana Limquinco) granted on 24 February 1893 the power to represent the him and Ms wife in the different. Courts of Peace in Manila and in different towns; and to Geronimo lose, Marcelino de Santos, and his substitute Vicente Santos to represent them in the Royal Audtencia (RM AO VP Carlos Paianca 1853-1898, S423). A lthough in the document no ethnic designation accompanied the names of these lawyers, they were either Spanish or Spanish Filipinos as Spanish policy dictated that only members of these two ethnic groups could practice law (Corpuz 1957, 30-31). • Jose de Castro y Quezada. Luis de Figuerrola Ferreiti, Ygaacio Santiago y Sanchez, Pablo Soier y Soier, and to Jose Nieto y Caiadad, all attorneys in the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of the Villa v Corte of Madrid, and to whom Carlos granted on 11 May 1897 the powers to represent him alternately and “indistinctly in all judicial matters that he (could) have in the said Superior Tribunal, allowing them to procure all the necessary documents for the cases, and to solicit all other effects necessary in carrying out their duties (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 2, no, 160), In a “substitution of power” document, Carlos also transferred the power-of- attorney conferred to him by the Spanish or Spanish Filipino Mafias Saenz de Vizxnanos y Lecaros, who was representing the company called “Aenlie y Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 Compania.” Carlos was granted the power-of-attorney on 26 January 1892 to represent the company in its leasing of the opium rents in the province of Manila, and the district of Morong during the triennium of 1892-1894. Carlos in turn granted the power o f substitution to Jose Crispulo Reyes, an attorney of the Court of the Is 1 Instance, and also to Geronimo Jose, an attorney of the Rea! Audiencia. Both were given powers to represent the company in all judicial, administrative, ecclesiastical, and secular matters (RMAO CR 1892, 846, tomo 1, no. 114). In the triennium of 1895-1897, Carlos, along with the Christian Chinese Antonio Elizaga Yap-Caong, again received the same power-of-attornev from Marias. He, in turn, again transferred these powers to the following individuals: Justo San Jose y Antonio, Eugenio Luron, Vicente Socorro, and Placdio Canas Buenaventura; all Spanish or Filipino Spanish 1 awy ers/solicitors of the Courts of the Ist Instance of Manila and to Geronimo Jose, Vicente Santos, Jose Gervasio Garcia, and Ramon Velasco lawyers of Real Audiencia (RMAO CR 1897. 851. tomo 4, no. 452). Thus, the different people to which Carlos granted powers-of-attomey shows his wide interaction with people from different ethnic groups. lit his novel E l Filibusterismo, Philippine national hero, Jose Rizal, also show us the extent of this interaction. Rizal devotes a chapter in the novel to a character named “Quiroga;’ a “Chinaman5 ’ who “aspired to set up a consulate for his nation” (Rizal 1996b, 128), Speculations have been made as to who this Chinese character was based on, A historian, Wencesiao Retana, thought it was another prominent Chinese at the time, 1 <8Incidentally. Carlos was gobemdarcillo of the sangieyes at tire time. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 Mariano Velasco Chuachengco. But Jose Alejandrino, a close friend of the national hero, and a general during the revolution against Spain and the war against the United States, believed that Quiroga was Carlos Palanca. Wickberg sides with Alejandrino’s claim, since Carlos also aspired to set up a Chinese consulate in the Philippines ([1965] 2000, 201). I tend to agree with Wickberg5 s assessment (cf. Wilson 1998). Carlos was the most powerful and well-known Chinese during the last decades of the nineteenth century, and his fame (or notoriety) could not have escaped Rizal5 s notice. Using this premise of Quiroga as Carlos Palanca, of vice versa, we can see from the opening paragraph of the novel that Carlos intermingled with Spanish people, mestizos, indios, and other ethnic groups that made up the heterogeneous society of Binondo: In the evening of that same Saturday, Quiroga... was hosting dinner at the top floor of his large bazaar on Escoita Street. His feast was very well attended: friars, bureaucrats, officers, merchants, all his customers, partners or sponsors, were in attendance. His store provided the parishes and convents with ail their needs; he accepted the vales or IOUS of all employees, had loyal attendants, active and eager to please. The friars themselves did not disdain to stay in his store for hours, sometimes in full view o f the public, and at ocher times iti the inner chambers in pleasant company . ., (Rizal 1996b, 128) Duri ng Quiroga’s conversation with Simoun, the main protagonist of the novel, we can also see the extent to which he is represented as dealing with people of other ethnic groups, especially when it came to lending money. Quiroga, lamenting the difficulty of collecting money from Ms debtors, tells Simoun: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 An all the woli bollow money and no pay it, w hat's sa maita?. , .employee, opisial, lotenan, soiieL . . .lien del women, wibes, sallols, all dewoll” (Rizal 1996b, 133). Thus, we can infer from this that Carlos was engaged in business with people from all over “de woli.” As we have seen above, he lent money to several Chinese from different parts of the Philippines. But he also lent money to people of different ethnic, gender, and economic backgrounds. For example, he “financed without interest the initial sugar operations of Miguel Maivar. an indio planter who became a hero of the Philippine Revolution” (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 123n. 111). For a man of his stature, it was inevitable that he would have such wide interactions with people of different backgrounds. Furthermore, lie managed to negotiate the different cultural and political resources to Ms advantage. He made himself especially useful to the Spanish colonial government, by possessing, aside from material wealth, certain attributes, skills, and qualifications. For one, he knew how to speak Spanish. This can. be gleaned, for instance, in a document he drew up on 9 March 1875, in which it is stated that he did not need an interpreter because he knew Castilian (RMAO FD 1875, 431, tomo 2, no. 105).5 Also, he converted to Catholicism, thus making him eligible to hold a high position within the Spanish colonial bureaucracy. In the 1860s, he applied to be baptized in the Catholic Church, taking as Ms padrino, Colonel Carlos Palanca y Gutierrez, who was “a leader of the Spanish forces in the Franco-Spanish intervention of 1858-62 in Cochin China” {Wickberg 179 However, he must have spoken it with a heavy accent, as seen is RizaFs depiction o f the character Quiroga. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 [1965] 2000, 199) and whose name he adopted. He also applied for Spanish citizenship, and in 1875 was elected gobernadorcillo o f the sangleyes (lit. “little governor of the Chinese”), a post that he held three times over the next 26 years.180 Among Ms duties as gobernadorcillo were to act as the spokesperson for the Chinese community, and to cooperate with Spanish authorities in maintaining peace and order. In addition to being gobernadorcillo, he was in charge of the Gremio de Chinos, the Tribunal de los Sangleyes, and the Comunidad de Chinos as mentioned previously (Wilson 1998, 152-153). Wickberg writes that Carlos was supposed to have “abolished vice in the Chinese community .. . put a stop to police extortions of the Chinese, obtained an abolition of the death penalty for crimes committed by Chinese, and, through his personal connections in high circles in Spain, kept Spanish legislation from being harder on the Chinese than it was5 ’ (Wickberg [1965] 2000. 200).1 8 1 He took a leadership position in the Comunidad de Chinos which was responsible for raising funds for the building of a new Chinese hospital in 1891 and donating land for a Chinese Cemetery (Wilson 1998, 151; Wickberg [1965] 2000, 188). He was said to have engaged in many philanthropic works, and as a person of high-standing in his community, Carlos acted “as padrinos for newer arrivals, just as 180 xhe years in which he served as aobemadorefllo were 1875-1877: 1885 (interim's; 1889 (interim) (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 246). 181 For instance, a policy made by the Spanish colonial government required that all Chinese herbalists to follow all the health and sanitation laws observed by non-Chinese druggists. But a protest was filed through the Chinese charge in Madrid, and thus the Spanish Colonial Office exempted them from normal sanitation regulations, “provided they could produce herbalists' licenses from medical halls in China, certified by Spanish consuls in China,w This rule also was rescinded later in 1892. The Spanish charge communicated with Carte (Wickberg f 1965] 2000,223-224), Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 Spaniards had done for them” {[1965] 2000, 192n, 62),182 This consequently gave rise to a number of Chinese with Carlos Palanca as their Htspanidzed names, such as Carlos Palanca Tan Quin Lay mentioned at the beginning of this section. In recognition of his years of meritorious service, the Spanish government awarded him honors, bestowing upon him the Medal of Civil Merit and the Grand Cross o f Isabel the Catholic, as well as the Protection of Isabel the Catholic (La Encomienda de Ysabei La Catolica) (Wilson 1998.152; Wickberg [1965] 2000.201; RMAO VP Carlos Palanca 1853-1898, $488), Yet, despite his professed loyalty to the Catholic Church, Carlos did not forget his Chinese heritage. For one, he, like many of his contemporaries as seen in Chapter 2, continued believing in Chinese deities while professing to practice Catholicism. In the house of Quiroga, Rizal describes the walls of the living room as a “mix-up,” stating that there were lithographs of effeminate Christs; the deaths of the Just Man and of the Sinner made by Jewish houses o f Germany to be sold in the Catholic countries, , .(and there were) Chinese prints on red paper representing a man seated, of venerable aspect with a calm and smiling face, behind whom stood his servant, ugly, horrible, diabolical, threatening, armed with a lance with a wide cutting blade (1996b, 129). 182 fo r example, he was the padriao of Joaquin Palanca Co-Tuaneo, who was baptized o h 18 July 1874, at the San Fernando de Dilao parish. Joaquin also was known as Chua-Chongco (AAMIM 1875,18.E.14, folder 8). He was again the godfather in the baptism of MmaaoPalanca Yap Tameo, who was baptized on 14 July 1874, in a church in Pandacan, Manila (1880, 19.8.6, folder 3), of Ambrocio Palanca Tan-Chioco (1880-1881, J9.C.7, folder 2), who was baptiasd on 7 December 1879 at the Binondo Church, and o f Joaquin Palanca Cue Jongang and Manuel Yu-Tavco. who were baptized on 24 September 1882. and 27 Januarv 1878, respectively, at the Binondo Church (1885 19.E, 13. folder 7). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 Rizal goes on to say that the “Indios cail [this ugly man] Mohammed, others, Santiago or St. lam es/’ stressing that the " ‘Chinese do not give a clear explanation of this prevalent duality” (Rizal 1996b, 129). Wickberg hypothesizes the man seated as Guam Gong, a Chinese warrior-tumed-deity considered by many overseas Chinese as lucky. The “ugiv” man behind him may be Zhang Fei, one of the heroes o f the Peach Garden Oath (E-mail communication, 9 January 2003).183 Thus, despite his being a Catholic, Carlos believed in Chinese gods. While he was a member of the administrative board of the Comunidad de Chinos or the Shan-chfi Kung-so, an organization in which he was often recognized as its leader, a Buddhist temple called Chong Hock Tong was erected in the Chinese cemetery. Furthermore, despite the fact that he had pledged allegiance to the Spanish crown, he maintained strong ties with China. For instance, he and other prominent Chinese merchants fought for the establishment of a Chinese consulate in Manila, As early as the 1880s, Carlos, along with three other influential Chinese in Manila. Joaquin Barrera Limjap, Yap Liong-quin. and Co Chi-ltii went to Hong Kong to present their petition to Zhang Zhidong, Governor-General o f Guangdong and Guangxi, and Zhang Yinhuan (Chan Yin-huan), who was the Chinese ambassador to the United States, Spain, and Peru (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 215-216; of. Wilson Another reason why Wickberg thinks this man seated is Guan Gong is his association with Santiago (ef. [1965] 2000,193). Both Guaa Gong and Santiago are known for their assertiveness and heroism. Consequently, non-Chinese like Jose Rizal may have associated Guan Gong with Santiago. Zhang Fei is popular among the many Chinese in Southeast Asia. I would like to thank Edgar Wickberg and John E. Wills, Jr. for suggesting iiiis to me. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 1998, 154-15 5).3 84 The request was granted but nothing came out of it as Spain was embroiled in its own problems. In the fall of 1889 and the summer o f 1890, Carlos petitioned the Zongii Yamen (Office for General Management of Foreign Relations) to review the Spanish taxation and residence policies, and the recent reinstitution o f a ban on Chinese practicing medicine in the Philippines. He " ‘criticized these policies as cruel, petty, and harmful to the economic well-being of the Philippine-Chinese, and asked that the Yamen try to convince the Spanish government to overturn them, and allow the establishment of a Chinese consulate” (Wilson 1998, 156). However, nothing came out of this request either. The next time that Carlos and the other Chinese sought to establish the consulate was in 1896, the year when the revolution against Spain broke out in the Philippines. According to Wilson, the Chinese leadership felt trapped between the rulers of the Philippines, first Spanish then American, and the Filipino rebels. It was these forces that posed the greatest danger to the Philippine-Chinese community 184 Yap Liong-quin may be Franeiso Manzano Yap-Tico or Antonio Yap Caong, and € o Chi-lui may be Federico Co Sequieng or Juan Lecaros Co-Lico (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 216). According to Wilson, “the first consular campaign, ia the ISSOs, coincided with the anti-Chinese m o\err.cn: in the newspapers and literature of the Philippines that attacked the Chinese domination of the eeor-omy and sought to restrict Chinese immigration. At the same time, the Spanish were also increasing taxes for the wealthiest segment of the Chinese community. These anti-Chinese campaigns rarelv posed a physical threat to the Chinese; however, the situation changed is the mid-1890s when the forces of Filipino nationalism targeted the Chinese” (1998,155-156). Over the years, as anti-Chinese polemics waned (from 1890 to 1896), so did the requests, although Wilson writes that titis might have been due also to the discouragement of the Chinese from trying further. But with the Revolution against Spain gaining ground, starting in 1896, attempts were revived in seeking the assistance of the Qing government (157-158). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 because they were beyond the control of its leadership. Thus, the Chinese elite responded by turning to their home government for protection (1998, 157-158). In today’s society, professing one’s political loyalty to one nation while professing the same to another reflects what Dag calls “flexible citizenship.” This flexibility can be seen, for example, in the possession of more than one passport, a practice considered illegal in some countries. But as seen from the lives of Carlos and the other Chinese in the Philippines, this practice o f having more than one loyalty was acceptable during the time when nation-states were, not yet fully developed or formed. Carlos and his contemporaries could profess loyalty to both China and Spain since they never conceived themselves yet as part of a nation, i.e, as part of a “territorial and legal institution with authority and responsibilities, and to which they, as citizens, had binding obligation” (Wilson, 1998, 174). Instead, they saw themselves, even as they had become Spanish subjects, as also subjects of a Chinese empire that was territorially boundless, mainly culturally determined, and which derived its fundamental authority from its mission to morally transform the world. The local Chinese elite also saw no inherent contradiction in the idea that a Chinese cabeciila could serve both the Qing and the Spanish empires, and could appeal to each on a situational basis. This is evident in the fact that many of the cabeeillas that appealed to Beijing were also Catholic Spanish subjects. The socio-economic environment and Spanish policy encouraged them to conceive of themselves as a distinct cultural minority and both governments offered the institutions to reinforce that identity, but this did not prevent them from seeking alliances with both sets of political power-holders (174). During the natives’ fight to gain independence from Spain, Carlos did not take sides. However, when, the Spaniards imprisoned some mestizos, he “argued in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 behalf of some of them and helped secure their release” (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 200). He also was supposed also to have approached Aguinaldo about the possibility of an opium monopoly when the latter set up his revolutionary government (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 201).185 Finally, Carlos poured his energies into helping the Chinese community. Wickberg writes that he was “famous as an arbitrator of disputes” ([1965] 2000, 200), resolving disputes within the Chinese community and filing lawsuits oa behalf of others. For instance, on 19 October 1875, he was asked by the store owner of “Siongquiat” Juan Licaro Co-Lico to protocol the accounting made between the Chinese books of his store and that o f another store “Siongsuy,” with that of the Chinese Antonio G o-W yco {sic). He certified that the two accountings matched. Three days later, he rubricated the first and last pages of the books of both stores (RMAO FD 1875, 431, tomo 2, no. 519). Furthermore, we have seen in the previous section how he was asked to play the role o f guarantor to other Chinese merchants. His name and stature in society was needed to assure creditors o f the credit worthiness of the people they were dealing with. Several Chinese also entrusted him with the power to look after or represent their businesses. For instance, on 23 October 1872, Tan Joco empowered Carlos to represent him in the dissolution of the company called “Lim Tiongjitf that tbe former co-owned with the Chinese Domingo 185 Nothjjjg ^ known, about Carlos' reaction to the American occupation of fee Philippines. He, however, agreed to testily before the Philippine Commission to give his views about the Chinese in the Philippines whether to allow coolie laborers from China to come to fee Philippines. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 Tan Chaoco, Yap Chingjin and Jose Canete Tan Quinco (RMAO FD 1872. 427, tomo 3, no. 690).186 Other Chinese who granted Carlos powers-of-attomey included: * Faustino Somosa Yap Tuco, who on 14 February 1882 gave Carlos powers to represent him in lawsuits and other matters (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 1, no. 67) * Lim Guatco, of Tangua, living in Binondo, single, businessman, 26 years old, who on 19 October 1892 granted Caries the power to represent him in all the contracts of tax collection (recmdacion) of the markets of the Quinta (established provisionally in Arroceros) and of the new market of Santa Cruz, and of the districts o f Quiapo, Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Sampaloc, San Fernando de Dilao, Ermita, and Malafe, and all that was connected in subleasing them (RMAO CR 1892, 846, tomo 4, no. 497)iS/ * Rafael Go-Tiaoqui, 39 years old, married, a businessman, living in Binondo, on 15 May 1897 conferred general powers to Carlos and to his brother Go-Guimyeng, with the powers to represent Mm in his business and official matters (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 2, no. 167) O f course, he was not always liked, and found him self em broiled in controversies and lawsuits. Many viewed him as a "'master corrupter, one who was willing to go to any lengths to get what he wanted, and very ambitious to be Chinese consul5 ’ (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 201). Indeed, one of the documents found in Ms file at the RMAO shows that Carlos was fined by the Customs Bureau for failing to properly declare the right gross w eight o f a shipm ent on an E nglish ship “Sungkiang” that came from Hong Kong (RMAO YP Carlos Palanca 14 M y 1896 S635). During Ms lifetime, Carlos also had enemies in the Chinese community who 1 S lf\ In the end. Domingo Tan Chatco and Jose Caftete Tan Guisco agreed to pay Tan loco the amount of 4,833 pesos 1 real 14 euartos, However, they cancelled this contract on 29 October 1872 1RMAO FD 1872,437, tomo 3, no. 702). 18/ The duration of the contracts was from 1 January of this year 1891, up to 31 December 1893. Carlos himself drew up an instrument granting the substitution of power to Ms country man Eusebio Reyes Quin Sy (RMAO CR 1892,846, tomo 4, no. 497). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 accused him of misappropriating charity funds, buying favors from Spanish officials, bullying local Chinese and blackmailing Chinese prisoners (Wilson 1998, 155). At one time, he was accused of swindling money (estafa) by a certain Yap Taco, who claimed that he had given Carios 800 pesos.188 The dossier on him found at the RMAO contains several litigations against him, or law suits he filed against others,189 In one case against him, a certain Tomas Fajardo, an indio who identified himself as working for Carlos, claimed that his amo (master) had kicked feint in the testicles. Consequently, he asked the Court of Peace of Binondo to serve Carlos the appropriate fines and punishment (RMAO VP Carlos Palanca 1853-1898,19 August 1892, S308-311),190 When the Americans took over the Philippines from Spain in 1898, Carios lobbied to have his son Engracio become the first consul-general. However, a group of “Cantonese, English, and German merchants in the Philippines’5 fought to place somebody else in the position (Wilson 1998, 1 6 7 ), * 9 1 Yet, in spite of his problems, and the scandals that beset him, he was indeed a recognized leader. Some years after his death in 1901, “a statue of Mm was erected in the Chinese cemetery” (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 201). 188 However, Carlos refused to hand over the money and claimed that he did not recall receiving such amount (RMAO VP Caries Palanca 1853-1898, S27-27b>. 189 For a list of some of these cases, see the bibliography ofLim 1980, 199 Thus, Carlos did not only employ coolie laborers from China, but also native workers. This can be seen as another evidence of Ms interaction with the local community, and of flexible boundaries. IQ ] ‘ Wilson (1998) has detailed the process and the fight between two contending forces. Thus, I will not go into the details here. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 Two more border-crossing practices Carlos’s shifting and multiple loyalties, and his ability to assume different identities (as sangley, Catholic, Spanish subject, loyal Qing subject) reflect the same kind of positionality that many of today’s diasporie Chinese have. Carlos’ wide interaction with people of different ethnic backgrounds (even income backgrounds), constant travels abroad, extensive business empire, hybrid cultural background, and savvy ways prefigure the cosm opolitanism o f present-day m odern Chinese transnationals. There are two more examples in Carlos’ life that can be compared to the flexible strategies employed by his modem counterparts. One was iris ability to disperse family members in different locales in order to increase his cultural, economic, and political capital. Aihwa Ong (1993) describes a similar strategy- utilized by “astronauts” in Hong Kong who send their children to study abroad. Upon graduating, these children are expected to establish a foreign branch of their family’s business, thus subverting and eluding the regulations of a particular nation state over their financial resources, in sending his son Engracio to China for an education, Carlos was also ensuring that Ms interests were not confined to just one place.192 Aside from giving Engracio a Chinese education, Carlos also aided Mm in purchasing an official rank from the Chinese government. Later on, he fought to obtain for Engracio the position of consul-general of China in Manila. In return, The exact dates of Engracio’s stay in China can not be ascertained, but based on the testament that Carlos drew up in 1882, Engracio was in China at the time (RMAO FD 1882.445. tomo 2, no 349). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 Engracio was able to secure for Carlos the honorary title o f Grand Master for Splendid Happiness (guanglu daifu), an award given by the Qing government for his efforts in establishing a Chinese consulate in Manila (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 200; cf. Wilson 1998, 151). One other border-crossing practice he engaged in was to acquire several names. Earlier in this chapter, I pointed out that the Spanish colonial government, through the Catholic Church and its policy of granting Spanish citizenship, encouraged if not required the acquisition of a Hispanicteed and Catholicized name for their subjects, including the Chinese. I argue that such policy was an attempt by the Spanish colonial rulers to control their subjects. However, the Chinese, baptized or not, managed to maintain several names, and thus several fields of identification. Carios, during his lifetime, -was simply Carlos Palanca (as some documents show), Carlos Palanca Tan Quien-sien, Tan Quien-sien, Tan Cliuey-Iiong. or Tan Chueco, For Carlos and Ms contemporaries, possessing more than one name was a practice they had back in China, and therefore it was customary for them to keep several names. Moreover, they realized that they could use this practice to negotiate and subvert efforts by dominant groups to localize them. During the American colonial period, they continued to play with their names. This they did by entering the Philippines under an assumed name. But as I will point out in this ch ap ters conclusion, while their adoption of a completely different name did not significantly alter their sense of who they were, this practice had an important impact on the self- identifications of their descendants on what it means to be “Chinese.'5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 4 Conclusion Despite the fact that after 1910, Chinese and Fiiipino nationalisms as well as American discriminatory policies hardened the ethnic boundaries between the “Chinese” and the “Filipinos,” causing the State to implement even more stringent policies to control their activities, many Chinese in the Philippines in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries continue to employ flexible strategies to elude the hegemonizing control of dominant groups (cf. Szanton-Bianc 1997). Some of the ways by which they do this can be seen from my own family's experiences. When the Americans took control of the Philippines in 1898 and legislated the Chinese Exclusion Law in 1903 which barred “coolies” from entering the country, they nevertheless perm itted “Chinese officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers for curiosity or pleasure” to enter and those who had been residing in the Philippines during the Spanish times to stay on.39 3 This law caused many of those who did not qualify to forge certificates of previous residence or to enter as “paper sons,” i.e, as sons (or daughters) of duly-registered Chinese.194 My own maternal grandfather, who was a “Lu,” entered as a “Tan.” Thus, my mother and my maternal uncles inherited this new surname. When in 1974 then President Ferdinand Marcos granted amnesty to overstaying illegals and allowed “aliens” to apply for naturalization, my fifth maternal uncle decided to be naturalized, for upon naturalization, he and his family could enjoy more rights that would redound to their 1 O ’ ? '■ Fora study of the Chinese Exclusion Law and its application to the Philippine Islands, see Jeasen 1975 and Alejandrino 2002. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 benefit. However, upon the birth of his first child four years later, he also wanted to change his name because he realized that he did not want his children, especially his sons, to be carrying the “fake” surname Tan. but the real one Lu. Thus, he went to a court to petition this change of name. However, the judge hearing his case needed a valid reason to approve his request and asked “Why should you still want to change your surname from Tan to Lu, when both are Chinese surnames anyway?” Thinking of a reason, he told the judge that he actually wanted to “Fiiipinize” Ms surname to go along with his application for naturalization years earlier. He managed to convince the judge by combining “Lu,” “Tan,” and “Co,” making his surname Lutanco, a name that corresponds to many “Filipino” surnames like Cojuangco, Tanseco, and Laochengco.195 This way, not only did my unde satisfy the conditions upon which the Philippine government approves the application o f change of names,196 but also fulfilled his wish of passing down to his descendants his real surname (E-mail communication, 13 February 2001).597 However, his wife, my fifth aunt, has another story. Her father, whose real name was Li Yushu, was less successful in having all his children carry their ancestor’s surname. When he entered the Philippines barely in Ms teens in the 194 por a S tu s|y ofhow this practice was used by the Chinese in California, see Hsu 2000,74-85. As will be discussed in Chapter 4, people who have these names for surnames, although they descended from Chinese ancestors, are generally regarded today as “Filipinos" and not “Chinese.” 596 According to Philippine law, a person desiring to change his/her name may do for a reason deemed meritorious by a judge of the Regional Trial Court. Sueh reason may include possessing a name that causes undue embarrassment, or is hard to pronounce. I would like to thank my cousin Jaclyn Lutanco for this information. 197 If I may add, changing his name to "Lutanco” also added a certain prestige to Ms status, since many of those who carry this type of surname belong to the elite of Philippine society today. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 6 1920s, he carried the immigrant certificate of registration of another man named Yu Sing. But upon interrogation at the port, the immigration officer (for reasons we do not know) added an alias—Chua Bio— to the aforementioned name. Thus, her father, who did not understand any word the officer said, became Yu Sing alias Chua Bio. When it was time for her father to get married and raise a family, he resolved that his sons would carry the real family name, Li (or, in the Hokkien translation, Dy). However, this was not to be so, for as my aunt recounts. We are 6 in the family: My eldest sister, Lilia, was bom at a time when the local civil registrar was not strict at all in registering babies" names. When the people in the hospital saw my father’s name as Yusing Chua Bio, they gave my sister the surname “Chua Bio.” My father didn’t mind that she was not sumamed “Dy,” as she was "just a girl anyway’ and wouldn’t be carrying the family name in the future. When I was born, my parents did not even bother to check what surname the hospital gave me. They just assumed it would be the same as my sister’s. But when a son followed me, my father moved heaven and earth for the “Dy” family name to be registered. So the first son was, to his relief, named “Jaime Dy.” However, when my second brother was bom, the hospital then already was stricter and insisted that “Chuabio” be used as a surname. But my father managed to get the “Dy” in, so he became “Enrique Chuabio-Dy.” A girl followed, and because my father couldn’t care less what surname she got, she became “Evelyn Chuabio.” The youngest was a boy. Unfortunately, the hospital messed up on the sequencing of the names, and so my brother was named “Albert Dy Chuabio.” As to her own name, my aunt had her share o f complications. She said, I was Lolita Chuabio all the way until Grade 2. We didn’t know any better as the first school I attended did not ask for my birth certificate when I applied. After we moved to a new house, I moved to a new Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 school and this new school asked for my birth certificate. However, even to my own parents5 surprise, my birth certificate registered my name as “Lolita YU”! Some smart alecky guy in the hospital must have remembered that the Chinese write with their names with their surnames firs t followed by their 2 first names, and immediately assumed that “Yu” was my fathers real surname. I almost did not get enrolled in school that year, as the school thought “Lolita Chuabio” and “Lolita Yu” were two different people! We had to get a lawyer to clear matters up and correct the name on all o f my transcripts. Such is the story of the Chuabio/Dy/Chuabio-Dy/Dy-Chuabio/Yti siblings (E-mail communication, 8 February 2001). And if I may add, o f many “ m odern Chinese transnationals” in the Philippines and other parts of the world today. In my own case, I carry the surname Chu, although my real Chinese surname is Go (in Hokkien; Wu in Mandarin). My paternal grandfather, seeking to enter the Philippines legally, bought the “duct d t (immigrant certificate o f registration) of a person named Cim Ongco. Thus, he officially became Chu Ongco, although Ms real name was Go Tingseng. Growing up, I did not really notice the discrepancy between my real Chinese name and my fake one. In fact, I took pride in being a “Chu.” Being the only son in the family however put pressure on me later in life to marry and carry on the “family name.” I did not really understand why it was so important to carry on the family name, except that it was an act o f filial duty. The importance o f carrying on the “Go” surname was lost on me who grew tip considering m yself as a “Chu.” One can im agine w hat this change in surnam e does to my peers w hose parents or grandparents adopted an even more different name. Upon naturalization, several Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 Chinese opted to change their names to that of their Filipino friends. Thus, I have Chinese classmates whose last names are Revilla. Castro, or Rodriguez. My father had also considered changing our surname to Zapanta, the name o f one of my godfathers. Today. I, along w ith many o f the C hinese in the Philippines o f my generation, usually just go by our English names. We use our Chinese names only in “Chinese” contexts: when in China or in Taiwan, or when speaking with people whose native language is Chinese. And though my primary identification is with my English name “Richard Tan Chu,” in time this may also shift depending on my life situation. And like my ancestors, I do not find any contradiction with being Richard Chu or Wu (Xingqi). In this chapter, I have shown that the use of culturally deterministic traits to explain the success of “Chinese5 5 merchants in the Philippines does not adequately reflect the lives and identities of these “Chinese” merchants. By placing the lives of these diasporic subjects within their historical specificity, and by investigating in more detail some of their border-crossing and flexible strategies, I have offered an alternative way to explain this “success,” and at the same time restored to these historical actors their proper agency. I have also attempted to show that the Chinese merchants did not form an ethnic enclave, but instead had various interactions with people of different ethnic groups. Through an investigation of their socio-cultural practices, I also have argued that their identities were multiple and flexible. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 In the next chapter, I will look into the lives of their mestizo offspring and showr how they were not only “Hispanicized and Catholicized'” but also “Sinicized,” and how1 they negotiated several identities. By doing so, I further challenge the interpretation given by past scholarship that the distinction between Chinese and mestizo identities were already hard and rigid during the late Spanish colonial period, and pose new questions on how to understand the formation of “Filipino” identity. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 4 Rethinking the Chinese Mestizos of the Philippines 160 Introduction One summer day in 1999, during my first visit to Bahay Tsinoy, also known as the “Museum of the Chinese in Philippine Life,” I was struck by the inclusion of some “Filipinos” in the segment of the museum featuring prominent Tsinoys.198 The word “Tsinoy” is a combination of the word Tsino (Chinese) and the colloquial term for Filipino, “P i n o y and is generally used today to refer to the Chinese in the Philippines.199 Those featured in this segment are supposedly Tsinoys who have played a m ajor role in the task o f nation-building. However, the Inclusion o f “Filipinos” such as Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, president o f the Philippines from 1986-1992; Jaime Cardinal Sin, the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Manila and the “first Tsinoy chosen for the highest position in the clergy”; and Anna Dominique “Nikki” Coseteng, a former senator, struck me as odd. Although these famous people bore Chinese-sounding names, they—to my mind— are not anymore An earlier version of this chapter has been published by the Centre for the Study of the Chinese Southern Diaspora, The Australian. National University. See Ctie 2G02. 198 Bahay means “house" in Filipino. In Chinese, the name o f die museum is “Fei Hua LisM Bowu Gnan” which translates as “Museum of the History of the Philippine C h i n e s e T. is housed in the .Kaisa Heritage Center located in Intramuros. Manila. The three-storey colonial styk Heritage Center was constructed in 1997 through donations from Angelo King, a rich CM osse-Anviio businessman. Aside from the museum, the Center houses the office of Kaisa, a library and researca center, m d as auditorium. The name Kaisa stands for Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran, Inc., or United, in Progress. Kaisa was founded in 1987 by a group of young Chinese Filipinos whose aim is to baiid bridges toward greater cooperation and unity between the Chinese and Filipino conmiumties. For more information regarding this organization, its history- and activities, see Tell 1990. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 “Chinese.’5 Thus, they are not “Tsinoys” but “Filipinos.” At best, they are what the Chinese in the Philippines consider to be tsut-si-a—a Hokkien word which literally means “someone bom outside,” but which figuratively refers to someone of mixed descent, who is thus not “pure Chinese.”200 Consequently, he or she is not lan-kmg, i.e. a Hokkien word meaning “one of our own.”20* In hindsight, I realized that my sense o f w onderm ent and confusion originated in my preconceived notions of who is “Chinese.” Ang See (1990b, 94; cf. McCarthy 1974, 1) writes that for someone to be considered an ethnic “Chinese” in contemporary Filipino society, he or she must meet the following general criteria: the person must have some measure o f Chinese parentage; some degree o f Chinese education; can speak or understand Hokkien; and lie or she must observe Chinese customs to the degree that he or she is considered by others, and by him self or herself, to be “Chinese.”202 Following this definition, 1, a Tsinoy myself, did not consider Aquino, Sin. Coseteng, or some of the others to be “Chinese”- —Aquino is four generations removed from being Chinese, Sin, Coseteng, and the others are either tsut-si-a, or are too much part of the mainstream Filipino society, or else too ^ For more information about {he Tsinoys, see Szanton-Biaac 1997. 200 As seen in Chapter 1, the Chinese in the Philippines are predominantly from the Mianan (i.e., “South of the Min river”) region of Fujian Province. Thus, the lingua jra m a among the Chinese in fee Philippines is Hokkien, the language spoken in this region. On the other hand, about 1 0 percent of the Chinese in the Philippines trace their origins to the Chtangdoag-Hong Kong region. In the Philippines, “lan-Iang” and “Chinese” are often interchanged, and thus can mean one and the same thing. For more information about the wavs of the Jaa-lang in the Philippines, see Chu 2001a, 130-131. oro ~ la terms o f “ Chinese parentage” as a signifier o f Chinese identity, it is not clear whether this refers to mothers or fathers. But since Chinese custom assigns children to the patrilineal branch of the family, it is most likely that a tsut-si-a reared as a “Chinese” has a Chinese father instead of a mother. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 Westernized, to be “Chinese.”203 The other “Filipinos” included in the exhibit are; Vicente Lim (1888-1945), “the first Filipino graduate of West Point” and general of the Philippine Arm)' during the Japanese occupation; Claudio Teehankee (1918- 1990). a form er Supreme Court C hief Justice; Ricardo Lee (1948-), a noted playwright, screenwriter, and columnist; and Vidal Tan (1893-1978), a one-time president of the University of the Philippines. On the other hand, I agreed with the inclusion of Tee Han Kee, Julie Yap Daza, Washington Sycip, Ang Kiu Kok, Betty Go Belmonte, Jose Mari Chan and Jeffrey Clung.204 Although these “Chinese” are not prim arily businesspeople, which w ould make them m ore recognizably “Chinese,” they can still be considered by the Chinese community as lan-lang, since Corazon Aquino’s Chinese ancestor was Martin Co CMok Huan, who came to the Philippines in the 1800s from the Hongjuan municipality in Zhsagzhou, Fujian Province. A son, Jose, later changed their surname to Cojoangco. Aquino is the surname of her husband, Benigao Aquino, Jr., who was assassinated in August 1983. On the other hand. Sin's mother is a Filiptaa, while his father is Sin Puatco from Xiamen. Fujian Province. Coseteag’s mother is Alicia Marquez, also a Filipiaa who married her fatter E rnes® Coseteng. Incidentally, upon the decision of the Kaisa Board the portrait of Nikki Coseteng was later removed from the exhibit. The decision was made after she supported the move by pro-Joseph Estrada senators to deny the m otion of the Senate Court to open two controversial envelopes allegedly containing the bank accounts of the ex-president, who was being investigated for malversion of funds. This denial prompted thousands of people to amass in Hie streets to protest what they perceived to be as obstruction of justice and the cover-up of truth. Subsequently, Estrada was ousted from the presidency and Ms vice-president Gloria Macapagal- Auoyo became the 13* president of the Philippines. 204 According to the caption placed under his portrait. Tee Han Kee (1880-1943), the father of Claudio, was the “first Chinese physician admitted to practice medicine in the Philippines^ and fee “first Chinese to serve under the Philippine Health Service” during the American colonial period; Julie Yap Daza (1942-) is a noted writer, journalist and TV personality; Washington Sycip (I921-), a businessman-philantrophist who founded the “country’s premier auditing and management consultancy firm, Sycip, Gorres & Velayo”; Betty Go Belmonte (1933-1994), publisher of Philippine Star, a daily, and whose father Jimmy Go Puaa Seng was the publisher of FooUen Times'* Ang Kin Kok (1931-), a painter and Philippine National Artist; Jose Mari Chan (1945-), a popular composer and singer as well as a sugar exporter; and Jeffery Ching (29®-), a classical musician who has won accolades throughout the world for Ms compositions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 they fulfill most of the criteria for being “Chinese,5 On one occasion, I asked Teresita Ang See, one of the officers of Kaisa, why people such as L ucid Tan. William Gatchalian, Henry Sy, or John Gokongwei—all successful and high-profile Chinese entrepreneurs—were not included. She answered: "'We made a conscious decision not to include any prominent businessmen” Without her needing to give an explanation, I already knew what she meant. Since others have often viewed the Chinese in the Philippines as businesspeople. Kaisa wanted to dissociate the Chinese from this stereotype by featuring Tsinoys who have succeeded in other endeavors. With the exception of Washington Sycip, all those featured in the gallery are engaged in professions that are not strictly entrepreneurial. To be sure, the museum is not misleading its visitors. Emblazoned on the panel found at the entrance of this particular gallery are these words: “Tsinoy : The Chinese who is Filipino or the Filipino Who is Chinese.” But why this confusion or disagreement in the perception and understanding of what is a Tsinoy?206 Part of the answer lies in what I have discussed in the Introduction. Recent scholarship has pointed out that ethnic identities are constructed and malleable. Thus, the meaning of “Chinese-ness” (and, for that matter, other ethnic categories) is 205 Tjju^ the ethnic identity of the Chinese in the Philippines (and in most of Southeast Asia like Malaysia and Indonesia) is closely tied to their socio-economic status, particularly that o f the merchant class (ef. Qmohundro 1981,84). For an interesting study of hew racial, and sodo-economic lines intersect in the formation of ethnic identities, see Bonaeidi 1972. 206 In fact, I was not the only one confused During ray second visit to the museum in the summer of 2001, a group of college students was also present. Most of these students were Filipinos.. While I was standing inside this Tsinoy exhibit, two female students entered. Seeing the portraits of Cardinal Sin and Corazon Aquino, one of them exclaimed: "P ilipinas na ba ho'?’’ (“Is this the Philippines Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 6 4 constantly cast, recast, negotiated, and renegotiated by different groups and individuals at different points in time and place. In its goals to build a “bridge of understanding between two cultures” and to work toward the integration o f the Chinese community into the larger Filipino community., Kaisa is willing to extend the definition of Tsinoy to include Filipinos o f Chinese descent.207 I, however, was not yet ready to do so. At that time, my understanding of ethnic identifies was still very much shaped by my own upbringing and education that pointed to a clear-cut ethnic division between the ian-lang and the hoan~uAm Having been influenced by Chinese nationalistic ideas on the superiority of the “Chinese” race and the desirability of keeping it “pure ” I had developed an almost instantaneous regard for the tsut-si-a as being not “real” Chinese. In fact, today many Chinese still shun or look down upon Chinese-Filipino intermarriages. In my personal experience, not only is the Chinese who takes a Filipino spouse considered unfilial, bat the Filipino spouse can also be treated with downright hostility, or at best with civility, but never really considered part of the family. Needless to say, there is this sense that their tsut-si-a offspring will grow up a hoan-a gong, literally a “stupid barbarian,” or a “Chinese'’ who cannot speak or understand Hokkien. already?) Apparently, the preceding galleries in the museum were to her mind, about China and the Chinese; thus, like me, she did not expect to see these people whom she identified as “Filipinos " 207 This is part of the Kaisa credo. In another attempt to include “Filipinos” as Tsinoys, the Kaisa para sa Kauslaran, Inc. feted m award to Ricardo Lee for his outstanding contribution to Philippine arts and culture. He was one of 22 Tsinoys conferred the Dr. Jose Rizal Award for Excellence on 18 June 2002, on the M isb irth anniversary of the Philippine national hero. Incidentally, the rest o f the awardees, who included taipaas Tan Yu, Alfonso Yuchengeo, Lueio Tan, George Ty, and Betsy $y, were "Chinese.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 But I have since come to realize the factors contributing to my discriminatory view toward the tsut-si-a. Apart from the influence of Chinese nationalists, one other factor that had influenced my thinking, and that of others, is the way past scholarship has interpreted the ethnogenesis of the tsut-si-a, otherwise known as “Chinese mestizos” during the Spanish colonial period (1565-1898). The most commonly held view, as advanced by Edgar Wickberg (1964; [1965] 2000). is that these mestizos, who comprised a separate ethno-legai classification during the Spanish colonial period, w ere a “special kind o f F ilipino” with little or no Chinese identity.2® When the Philippines passed front Spanish colonial rale to that of the United States in 1898, ethnic categories were simplified and nationalized. What was once a three-way classificatory system of sangleyes, indies, and mestizos gave way to a two-way classificatory system of “Filipinos” and “non-Filipinos.”210 T h e Chinese mestizos, whom ’ Wickberg describes as the most Hispanicized and Catholic of all the natives of the Philippines, chose to become “Filipinos ” Consequently, in the course o f the twentieth century, the term “mestizos” became associated with those of Caucasian-Asian ancestry instead. 208 “Hoan-a” is the Hokkien word for '"'foreign barbarian” which is often used by the Chinese in the Philippines to refer to the Filipinos. For a more personal account of the Philippine Chinese community’s perception, of die “fioan-a " see Chu 2001a. Edgar Wickberg writes that whenever the term “mestizo"' was used in official documents or in popular parlance, it often referred to “mestizo sanglev ” (Wickberg 1964,67). Retana also used this definition (1921. 127). And while there were mestizos espaP&ks (Spanish mestizos) in these cities, they were very few in number. Thus, in this chapter, when I use the term “mestizo,” 1 am also referring to the Chinese mestizos, unless specified otherwise. For some statistical data on the number of mestizo espaH ol and Spaniards in the city, one can begin with the vecindartos (tax registers belonging to a district) of Binondo, Sta. Cruz, and Toado, See RMAO V. 2 1° See Chapter 1 for the origin, of the word “saagley.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 However, in this chapter I will present an alternative interpretation of the ethnogenesis of the mestizos. Here, I argue instead that mestizo identity during the latter part of the nineteenth and early part o f the twentieth centuries was also multiple, ambiguous, and flexible. In spite of the fact that their legal classification was abolished or changed, a number of Chinese mestizos during the late Spanish colonial period not only lived out their identities as “Hispanicized and Catholicized” mestizos, but also as “Chinese” Likewise, at the beginning of the American colonial period in the twentieth century, although they could be legally classified as “Filipino,” they could be “Chinese” as well. It was only later on, during the second decade of the twentieth century, when Filipino and Chinese nationalism rose, that the “mestizo” identity of the Spanish colonial period gradually disappeared. Thus, I argue that even when “mestizos” had to identify themselves legally as “mestizo.5 ' and iater on as “F ilip in o ,” they m anaged to maintain th eir m ultiple field s o f identification. In this chapter, the following questions will also be treated: How and when did the mestizos “lose” their “Chinese” identities in the twentieth century (if at all)? How do the mestizos compare with the other “mixed” offspring in Southeast Asia, specifically the babas of Malaysia and the persmakmu o f Indonesia*'* How does a deconstruction o f their identities help us understand the processes by which “ ‘Chinese5 5 identities continue to be cast and recast in the Philippines and in other parts of the world? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 Wickberg and Skinner revisited: why “mestizos” became “Filipinos” As mentioned in the Introduction, the mixed-race communities in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Philippines developed into a “discrete and stable community alongside of, but clearly distinguishable from, Chinese as well as indigenous society" during the period of European colonialism in Southeast Asia 2il However, in the twentieth century these communities took divergent and different paths. The mestizos have “disappeared” into and have become one with the larger “Filipino” community, while the babas have been absorbed into the “Chinese” community, and the peranakcms persisted as a separate ethnic group, distinguishable from the totoks (or “pure Chinese”) and the Indonesians (Skinner 1996).212 Among scholars who have studied the mixed-race communities in Southeast Asia, Edgar Wickberg and G. William Skinner have given the most comprehensive and important explanations as to why the mestizos of the nineteenth century have disappeared and become “Filipino” in the twentieth century. In this section. I will 1 On the other hand, in Thailand and Cambodia, “obstacles to assimilation on the pari of the progeny of mixed marriages were either absent or so weak that full incorporation into indigenous society occurred before any intermediate system could be stabilized’ " (Skinner 1996,64). 2i2For studies regarding the babas, see Purcell 1948, and C,B, Tan 1988. For theperam kam s see Purcell 1965; Wilkoott 1956; Sutvadinate]9Si; 1993. However, one anonymous reader comments feat it is not entirely accurate to say that fee babas m Malaysia have been absorbed into the Chinese community while the peranakam in Indonesia persisted as separate ethnic group. According to this reader, “the babas in M alaysia also call themselves ‘peranakan’ and both the Chinese peranakans in Malaysia gad Indonesia have remained separate categories of Chinese rather than as separate ethnic groups '’ The reader further adds fas: ;a Indonesia today, “the so-called totok Chinese (‘pure Chinese’) are merging into the peran«k<tn category, while in Malaysia, more and more babas are merging into fee mainstream ‘pure' Chinese. But in Malaysia the babas as a whole remain a distinct category of Chinese.” I would like to thank this reader for pointing this out to me. Unfortunately, fee reader did not mention any work that could corroborate this view. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168 provide an overview o f their explanations, which I have divided into three categories: political, economic, and cultural Political explanation The transition of the “mestizo” as an ethnic classification that used to refer to those of Chinese-indio or Chinese-mestizo ancestry to that of European-Filipino ancestry started when the legal distinction between indtos and mestizos was removed with the abolishment of the tribute system in the 1880s (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 1 4 1 ) 213 when the Americans took over the Philippines from Spain in 1898, they simplified the national classifications of people into “Filipinos,'’ and “non-Filipinos,” with the latter falling under the classification “aliens.”214 The American colonial government decreed under the Philippine B ill o f 1902 that all those who were Spanish subjects prior to 11 April 1899 were deemed citizens of the Philippine Islands. Their children who were born in the Islands were regarded likewise (Azcuna 1969, 75). As for the Chinese, the application o f the Chinese exclusionary law's o f the United States to the Philippines allowed those who could produce certificates of residence in the Philippines before 1898 to stay in the Philippines, but it also barred many from applying for Filipino citizenship 215 In effect, mestizo ^ Despite the fact that legal distinctions were removed in the 1880s, in the districts of Santa Cruz and Binondo separate tax registers for mestizos and indios were still maintained until 1898. See RMAO V Binondo and Sta. Cruz. 214 In 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines, along with Cuba, Guam, and Puerto Rico, to the United States for the sum of twenty million dollars, as stipulated in the Treaty of Paris. The Americans occupied the Philippines till 1946. ^ For more information about succeeding laws on citizenship during the American colonial period. see .leasers 1975,163. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 children whose parents remained Chinese subjects were also considered “Chinese.” and thus aliens. However, upon reaching the age of majority or emancipation, they could become Filipino citizens but needed to state so within a year.216 Thus, when the American colonizers simplified national classifications into “Filipinos” and “aliens.” by 1900, “ (t)h ere was no longer a third ethnic status as an alternative for Chinese mestizos ...” (Wickberg [1965] 2000,141). Wickberg believes that for the most part Chinese mestizos chose to become legally classified as “Filipinos.” Economic explanation However, political events such as changes in government policy only partly explain the ethnogenesis o f the mestizo to being “Filipino.” There also were economic reasons why the mestizos did not choose to become “Chinese.” After large numbers of Chinese were expelled in the 1760s following their support of the British occupation of Manila, the mestizos took over the businesses left behind by the Chinese, By 1850 they “dominated almost all branches of trade, controlled those industrial sectors important for commerce, and were the chief moneylenders and (after the Catholic Church) land investors in the countryside” (Skinner 1996. 55). But in the latter half o f the nineteenth century, the Chinese returned in bigger numbers, and reclaimed the trade and industry they once dominated. Thus, the mestizos began to modify their occupations by moving out of the wholesale and retail business and into landholding and production of export crops (Wickberg 216 Filipinos were not considered citizens of the United Slates but rather citizens of the Philippines. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 [1965] 2000, 143, 149), Moreover, the Chinese were supposed to have cornered the industry involving opium and revenue farms, and penetrated the countryside through their intricate cabecilkt-agent system as described in Chapter 3. As a result, antagonism between China-born Chinese, on the one hand, and mestizos and indios together, on the other, increased (Skinner 1996, 85). Cultural explanation Finally. Wickberg argues in his works that there was a cultural basis for the mestizos opting to become “Filipinos.” He points out that during the Spanish colonial period, “the . . . mestizos were more Spanish than the Spanish, more Catholic than the Catholics,” who “[rejected] their Chinese heritage.. .[and] were not com pletely at home w ith their indto heritage” (1964. 97). However, when Hispanicization reached a high level in the nineteenth century, especially m the urban areas, many indios. whether upper- or lower-class, were also Hispanicized. Consequently, the mestizos increasingly identified themselves with the indios in a newr kind o f “Filipino” cultural and national consensus (Wickberg 1964, 97). It “took a special effort for a mestizo to identify himself with China, an effort the majority did not wish to make, given the mestizo cultural outlook (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 31)2H They, however, enjoyed certain privileges sueh as the protection of their personal and properly rights (Fisher 1947, IS). 41' Mermo (1969) seems to hold a different view . He w rites that one o f the characteristics o f the Chinese mestizo is that he “in general feels h im self closely knitted to his Chinese ancestry and instinctively identifies him self with the Chinese com m unity.” M oreover, he writes that this identification with China is “naturally stronger in m estizos o f recent formation,”' which will go on Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 1 To sum up, in the latter part o f the nineteenth century, the m estizos underwent both a political and cultural “Filipinization” (Wickberg 1964, 95-96). Consequently, when faced with the decision to either becom e “Chinese” or “Filipinos,” it was almost natural for the m estizos to choose the latter. The antagonism between the Chinese and the mestizos brought about by economic competition only added to the incentive for the latter not to be associated with the former. However, while I agree with Wickbeig that by 1900, there were indeed many mestizos who had chosen to become “Filipino” by legal classification. I disagree with his interpretation that they also disappeared as a cultural and social group. I believe that in the first decade o f American occupation in the Philippines, the Chinese mestizos were still culturally and socially recognized as a separate entity. I base my argument partly on the records gathered from the First Philippine Commission formed in 1899. In one of the sessions held by the Commission to tackle the “Chinese Labor” question, the commissioners also conducted a hearing on the “Chinese mestizo.” This shows us that at least around 1899, and, I would posit, for a few more years beyond 1900, the m estizos had not yet been considered culturally as belonging to the wider “Filipino” community. Even lames A. LeRoy, the personal secretary of Dean Worcester, and whose writings about the Philippines until '"several generations (have) passed,” after which “their peculiar family traditions fade into the common pattern of Filipino society” (47). However, upon closer examination of his work, one can see that the “m estizos” Merino refers to in his work pertains to those o f the twentieth century, although Ms work is found in a book on the Chinese in the Philippines for the period from 1770 to 1898 (see Felix 1969). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 from 1900-1909 “exerted a major force on American public opinion” (Gleeck 1996, iv). in 1905 still distinguished between “pure-blooded” Filipinos and Chinese mestizos (cited In Gleeck 1996,64}.218 Moreover, despite the fact that they might have been highly Hispanieized and Catholicized during the latter part o f the nineteenth century, I argue that many mestizos managed to maintain their “Chiiiese-ness ” Thus, they were not a “special kind of Filipino” -who rejected their Chinese heritage. In fact, Wickberg himself describes mestizo culture as a hybrid of Chinese, Spanish, and indie cultures ([1965] 2000, 31). One manifestation of this hybridization was the way mestizo surnames were formed. Often, the mestizo offspring would combine the surname and personal names of their Chinese father to form their own. Hence, the surnames Cojuangco, Tantoco, or Lichauco that many prominent Filipino families bear today.2* 9 Kinship terms in mestizo households such as those used to address elder siblings also were derived from Hokkien. For instance, the words used for different siblings in a Worcester was one of the members o f the Sehunnan Commission sent by President McKinley to study the general situation of the Philippines in 1899. 219 yijg 0fljer two ways by which mestizo offspring formed their surnames were to either use only the Chinese surname or a Spanish surname (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 32). As for surnames m en as Cojuangeo, the procedure for adopting them was to combine the surname, the first name, and to drop the last the syllable o f the first name, and add the suffix “eo” (front the Mandarin Chinese word “ g e ” meaning “older brother”). Skinner hypothesizes that the use o f this surname, which later became associated with “Filipinos,” became increasingly popular in the late nineteenth century, sad signaled the “impending demise of (the) creolized cnUuie” (1 9 9 6 ,63a. 36). However, in ray own research o f baptismal records, particularly those kept by Eladio Neira, O.P. in the Sandaario ds Ste. CriMo Parish in San Juan, Metro Manila, I found that the use of such surnames already was common way back in the seventeenth century (Archive o f the Sto. Domingo Parish, Parian, tamo 2, Libra de Bautizos, siglo XVII, 1626-1700). Moreover, not all mestizos “FiMpioizeti” their surnames. In so far as my research shows, the earliest entry of a surname with * ~ co ” dales back to 1649. I also observed that in the eighteenth century, these surnames tended to only have two syllables, e.g. Liangco, Coco, H ieo, Chance, Tieo, Sianco, Qaenco, Chisco (Archive o f the Sto. Domingo Pariah, Parian, tomo 2, Libro deBautizos, siglo XVIII, 1710-1734). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173 Tagalog household are “a te ” “ditse” “same” to refer to sisters in order of seniority and “k u y a “diko” and “sanko” to refer to brothers.220 The Hokkien equivalents of these words are ua-cM” “di-chi ” “m -ch t for sisters and “ge,” "di-ge” and ustm-gen for brothers.221 The clothing for mestizo males around the mid-nineteenth century was a combination of Spanish, indio, and Chinese influences, with their shirt being a knee-length camisa de chino (lit.,“shirt of the Chinese”) which was worn with loose trousers and a European-style top h a t222 Furthermore, what is considered today “Filipino” food, and no doubt eaten in mestizo households in the p ast is heavily influenced by Chinese cuisine and styles o f cooking. Finally, Chinese-mestizo houses generally conformed to a “modified Chinese plan, with a central court” (Skinner 1996, 62). Thus, these examples point to a close and deep interaction between Chinese and local cultures in the mestizo household that helped mestizo offspring maintain a strong sense of “Chinese-ness.” Another reason why I believe that the mestizos were not estranged from their Chinese cultural heritage was that the physical environment in which they lived constantly exposed them to it. It was well known that Binondo was a community of 220 Tagalog » the language spoken by the natives of Manila and its surrounding provisoes. The word is also used to refer to the native people of these places. z.21 fo r more Chinese-derived Tagalog words, see Manuel 1948. <lIj. Female mestizo clothing however, combined Spanish and indio influences. Furthermore, until the early nineteenth century, the Chinese were prohibited from dressing like the indios and the mestizos. This was to allow the Spanish authorities to distinguish the form er from the latter. Moreover, baptized Chinese were required to cut their queue as a sign of loyalty to Spain and die Catholic Church, although by the late nineteenth century, there were no more decrees requiring the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 mestizos, Chinese, and rich indios living side by side.223 As we have seen in Chapter 3, in streets like Anioague,224 mestizos Narciso Mole Agustin Paterno y Pineda and Mariano Limjap were neighbors of the Chinese Francisco Manzano Yap- Tico and Pedro Sy-Quia (see RMAO EBC 1902, 878, tomo 3, no. 182). Thus, there were substantial opportunities for these groups to interact with each other. This can be seen from the creation of a kind of language that can be described as a “Hokkien- Tagalog pidgin,!! or, as in the words of a German scholar. “Cliinotagalospanisclie'5 (cited in Skinner 1996, 60n. 26). And, as we also saw in Chapter 3, just as there were many Chinese who knew how to speak Spanish or Tagaiog, some mestizos also knew how to speak Hokkien. Moreover, in the Binondo Church, “Catholic Chinese and mestizos were co parishioners [who] sat together opposite the indios . . ” (Wickberg [1965] 2000,35). The “close-ness” that the mestizos and Chinese parishioners had developed between themselves can be gleaned from their reaction to the incident involving the Binondo festival La Naval of 1887. When the Governor-general Teirero granted the indios preferred status in the ceremonies, reversing a long-standing practice of granting the m estizos— who had been the m ajor source o f financial support fo r this festival—preferred status, both the mestizos and Catholic Chinese protested his Chinese to dress differently. Instead, they could dress as they desired, even in the way that indios and mestizos did (Wickberg [1965] 2000,191). See also Chapter 1 o f this dissertation ^ Jose Rizal, in his satirical novel Noli M e Tangere, also cites in numerous times how fee streets of Binondo are filled with “Europeans, Chinese, natives” (Rizai 1996a, 49,51). 224 The word comes from the Tagalog word “anlmaguL*’ which stands for “carpenter.” The street was named as such because there used to be many carpenters who built houses made o f wood, cane. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 decision by withdrawing from the festival and closing their shops (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 138). Also, during the month of May, mestizos and Chinese alike embarked on a pilgrimage to Antipolo to revere the Virgin of Antipolo who was identified with Mazu, the patron deity of the Hokkiens (Wickberg [1965] 2000,193). Furthermore, in Chapter 3 , it can be seen that these two groups had various business dealings with each other, venturing into joint projects and other exchanges (cf. Chu 2001b). Tims, the economic competition between the mestizos and the Chinese as pointed out by other scholars may have been overstated.225 Additionally, in my archival work, I have come across civil and criminal cases is which the leaders of both the Chinese and mestizo communities had to cooperate with each other in dealing with problems involving their constituents. One can point to the location of the tribunals of the mestizos and the Chinese as a sign of that “closeness,5 ' Whereas the tribunal of the indios was located on Sevilla Street, that of the tribunals of the Chinese and the mestizos were located side by side on San Fernando Street (Guia Oficial de Pilipinas 1890, 119). Finally, Manila’s Chinese population, especially in the nineteenth century, was constantly replenished. This was due to the more liberal immigration law in the Philippines, lax emigration law in China, as well as the invention of the steamship in and nipa living there (Retana 1921.34). Today, the .street is called Juan Lana (Ira and Medina 1977, 50; cf. Ocampo 2000, 81). Bambi Harper, in her column in PDIt 6 July 2002, states that a friar Fernando Falgosio ia the 1870s wrote that the Chinese and the mestizos both controlled the wholesale business ia Manila. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176 the 1800s that made for easier travel to and from China.226 Consequently, the growing number of Chinese in the Philippines provided wide opportunities for the mestizos and the Chinese to mix. Many mestizo children, particularly males, were sent to China for their education (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 168). Upon reaching adolescence, they were then sent back to the Philippines to help their fathers and other male kin in running the family business/es. There was even one case I found where a mestizo was bom in China.227 Thus, from these examples, one can argue that mestizo offspring during this period, whether bom in Manila or in China, or sent to China at a young age, were very much in touch with their “Chinese-nessT For while legal classifications may be changed overnight by legislative fiat cultural practices and thus, self-identitlcations, take a longer time to approximate legal classifications. In fact, they may never approximate them. One reason why Wickberg and other scholars have assumed this perspective toward the mestizos as Filipinos is that they have not distinguished in their studies between first-generation mestizos and mestizos of later generations. For while it is true that many mestizos might have identified themselves culturally more with the Hispanicized and Catholic indios, and that many eventually became “Filipinos,” I 226 As pointed out in Chapter 1. the population of the Chinese in the Philippines before 1850 was estimated not to have been more than 20,000. However, after 1850, their numbers grew to 30,000 in 1876,60,000 in 1886, and to aa estimated 90,000 is the 1890s. '-i ‘ This was Jose de Mareaido Yu-Chuidian ( s o b of Antonio Yu-Cixaidi.au. a Chinese, and of Dolores Chuaquico, a mesiiza). He was bom ia the city o f Xiamen and was classified as mestizo sangley in the Philippines, as gleaned from his marriage application to wed Aiejandria Urbano, aa India from Santa Cruz, a district ia Manila near Binondo (AAMIM 1890-1891, 20.A.2}, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 believe that in their individual lifetimes, particularly among first-generation mestizos, their identities were more multifaceted, ambiguous, and fluid. In fact such a distinction was probably evident to many who lived during those times, as can be gleaned from the testimony given by one o f those called by the First Philippine Commission to describe who a “mestizo” was. This person, Carlos Paianca Tan Quien-sien whom I have introduced in Chapter 2, was a prominent Chinese businessman who served several times as gobernctdorcillo (lit., “small governor”) of the Chinese during the Spanish colonial period.228 When asked by the Commission to give his definition of a “mestizo,” he responded: In the commencement a Chinaman marries a Tagalog woman and they get children from that marriage, and their children marry in time, and the descendants o f that marriage are called mestizos (U.S. Philippine Commission 1899-1900, 224). Does this mean that, in the eyes o f the Chinese like Carlos Paianca Tan Quien-sien (incidentally, Carlos himself married a local woman and had several mestizo children), their mestizo offspring, though iegaliy classified as “mestizo,” were “Chinese”? Unfortunately, this question can not be clarified from the rest of Carlos5 testimony. At the very least, his response seems to indicate that the Identity of first-generation mestizos was ambiguous, and that it was only after these first- generation mestizos intermarried that their descendants were clearly classified as mestizos. z28 j|e was gobemadoreitio from the years 1875-77: 1885 (interim): and 1889 (interim) (Wicteber®' [1965] 2000,246). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 8 In the following section. I will buttress this view further by giving two examples of first-generation mestizos. As seen from the lives of Mariano Limjap and Ildefonso Tambunting, mestizos also possessed multiple identities, enabling them to segue from one identity to another, and causing others to view them with confusion. Mestizos of the late nineteenth centsry and early twentieth century; sangley, Chinese, mestizo, Filipino? Mariano Limjap Mariano Limjap was bora in Manila on 29 October 1856.223 His father. Joaquin Limjap, whose Chinese name was Lim Cong Jap, came to fee Philippines as a young man, and eventually became a rich merchant who made his fortune in businesses such as the export of sugar and the granting of crop loans.230 Mariano’s mother, Policarpia Nolasco, was from Binondo and was a mestiza. Upon Joaquin’s death in 1888, Mariano inherited some of his father’s businesses but also established some of Ms own. Like his father, Mariano was a successful merchant. He also was well-known in his community, and was once a m beza (i.e., '‘headman”), as well as gobemadorcillo of the mestizos of Binondo.232 For all Ms participation in various 2^9 jjjg other brothers were Jacinto (b. 30 August 1865-d. 7 'December 1923) ana Apolonio (b. 9 February 1869-d. 23 November 1889). However, there is a dispute as to when Apolonio died. The date here is based on the inscription found at tbs North Cemetery. However, In Joaquin' s testament, it is stated that Apolonio died when he was six months old (RMAO FD 1881.443, t o o L no. 202). 230 por more < |etails on Joaquin Limjap’s life, see Chapter 5. ^ Lira (1930, 249) writes that he was a cabeza and gobemadorcillo o f the Chinese in Binondo. However, I dispute this information, as borne out by my own archival research. See, for example. RMAO VP Mariano Limjap, in which a document dating to 1889 and pertaining to B onifacio Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 socio-civic activities, the Spanish government decorated him with the distinction of Caballero de la Real Orden Americana de Isabel la Catolica. However, Mariano also took part in the revolution against the Spaniards. He was one of the financiers of La Liga Fill pina.232 He was arrested on 16 September 1896 on suspicion of complicity in the revolution of August 1896, but was released on 29 March 1897. In 1898, he was called by the revolutionary movement to act as an adviser on financial matters, and along with two other mestizos, Pedro Patemo and Teiesforo Chuidian, he headed the Republic’s financing group.233 Together, they authorized the signing of paper bills issued by the Republic (Manuel 1955, 249; Bone an y Limjap 1997, 40).234 When the Americans invaded the Philippines, he continued Ms fight for independence. Later on, he was captured by the American forces in Pangasinan, brought to Manila, imprisoned, and later released235 As we will see in Chapter 5, after his release Mariano managed to continue engaging in Ms various businesses, and also branched out into real estate development, Mariano Limjap’s case deserves special attention in our discussion of mestizo identity because we may consider his life as representative of some mestizos in Ms Cobarrabias' case states that Mariano was gobemadorciilo of fee mestizos. Likewise, he was listed as a cabeza of the mestizo harangay (ie ., the smallest adaanistrative unit in ilie Philippines) number 16 in Binondo in 1875. See RMAO ¥ Binondo 1871-1898. Was this “error” intentional on Lias's pari, ia that he did not consider Mariano as “Chinese”'? z32 La lig a Filipina was founded by Jose Rizal ia 1892. Its members frequently met at the house of s Chinese named Doroteo Ongjuuco in Binondo (Boitcsn y Limjap 1997,34), its primary goal was to work for political and social reforms in the Philippines, 233 jn o m q£ ^ documents at the RMAO, Mariaao Limjap requested to purchase anus. Whether these were to be used to aid the revolutionary movement is unclear. See RMAO VP Mariano Limjap. ^ He also assumed other roles such as that of Inspeetar-geseral of the Railroad. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180 day. W hilst, from the point o f view o f the Spanish and American colonial governments, Mariano was a mestizo and Filipino, respectively, I am going to argue, by pointing out certain events and actions in his life, that in his personal life, he had more than just one identity. Furthermore, he could shift these identities as the situation demanded. The first event involves the charge of estafa (swindling) against him in 1891. According to the plaintiff, Adriano Marcelo, who was a resident of Iloilo, Mariano’s father Joaquin had granted him (Adriano) the power to represent the business tycoon in his businesses in the said province.236 By 15 February 1885, Adriano was supposed to have earned an amount of 7,466 pesos as commission. But instead of collecting this amount, he asked Joaquin Limjap to deposit the money with the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank. Adriano had produced several items of correspondence between himself and Mariano’s father referring to this matter. However, Mariano, being the designated executor of Ms father’s will, contested Adriano’s claim, leading Adriano to charge him with estafa since he refused to turn over the money Adriano claimed to be his.23” One of the documents that Mariano Limjap submitted to the Court of the First Instance of Binondo, where the case was being tried, was a notarized record of him also being authorized to represent Ms father in the tetters businesses in Iloilo. In this 2j5 For other details regarding his participation in the fight for Philippine independence, see Boscaa y Limjap 1997; and Nffi 1996. ^ A city located on the island ofPanay, more than 300 kilometres to the south of Manila. 237 por more infonnation regarding ibis case, see RMAO VP Mariano Limjap. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 document. Mariano classified himself as a "mestizo espan ot (Spanish mestizo), causing Adriano’s lawyer to ridicule him for having the “audacity” to label himself so. According to the lawyer, “Ms face tells us that he is of pure Chinese blood, his father Don Joaquin Limjap being pure Chinese, and his mother being mestiza Chinese ”238 And he went on to argue that this constituted a crime under the Penal Code. The reason why the lawyer included this matter in Ms testimony was to argue for the duplicitous nature of Mariano Limjap. However, according to Spanish law, a son took the ethnic classification of Ms father. In this case, Mariano could simply be following his father’s classification, since Joaquin Limjap was a naturalized Spanish subject.239 Moreover, Mariano probably did not feel ill at ease in calling himself a “mestizo espafiol.” For instance, he spoke Spanish, as attested by other documents in the archives.240 Moreover, since “mestizo” could refer to both mestizo sangley 238 -['he question as to who constitutes a “mestizo” has been discussed ia Chapter 1. State definition o f who a m estizo was based on the ethnic classification o f the father or husband. However, the question o f “blood” was not clear. In the lawyer’s statement, Mariano was described as having “pare Chinese blood,” although technically., he had some "mestizo*’ blood. In one o f the moral cases discussed by the Dominican friars in their annual meetings, mestizos who had more than “1/4 Chinese blood” were only granted baptism and allowed to m any in the church after having undergone examination by the parish priest, a procedure applied to Chinese would-be converts. If they had less than 1/4 Chinese blood, then they were exempted just as indios were (Casas Morales 1884, no, 6). There was no reason given as to why these Dominican priests treated these Chinese with more than 1/4 Chinese blood in the same manner as they treated the Chinese, Is it possible that then, mestizos were grown-ups or adults seeking baptism, and were thus not baptized while infants'? If th:< were so, what would explain the reason for the delay ia their baptism? Does this indicate also that die Chinese father played a role in deciding whether their mestizo offspring would be baptized or not? In 1840, the Spanish government had made it possible for the Chinese to become subjects, i do not have the exact date o f Joaquin Limiap’s application for naturalisation, but is a document dated 8 O ctober 1878, he w as already id en tifie d as a S panish su b ject. See RM AO FD 1878, 436, tomo 2, no. 680. 240 One such document is the testament o f Cu Un-Jieng, in which Mariano is listed as a witness, and as being capable of understanding, and speaking. Soaaish. See RMAO GH 1901 „ 830, tamo 3, no. 290. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 and mestizo espafiol, the qualifiers saagley or espafiol could have been, in Ms view, interchanged easily.24 1 But even while he was certainly comfortable being part of the mestizo community, Mariano would have felt just as much “at home” with the Chinese community. As we will see in Chapter 5, partly due to Ms fa th e rs business connections, and partly due to his own, Mariano had extensive dealings with other Chinese merchants in Binondo. He helped Cu Un-Jieng, a Chinese who later became a prominent businessman and the first president of the Manila Chinese Commercial Council (later the Manila Chinese General Chamber of Commerce), start his own business. A document dating from 1900 also shows that he and his brother donated some money to their parrientes (relatives) in China, as directed by their father Joaquin in his will 242 A letter dated 27 August 2001 from the Secretary-general of the Overseas Chinese Association of Xiamen to Raul Bonean y Limjap, a great- grandson of Joaquin, shows that these relatives were in fact Mariano’s “Chinese” brothers 243 While there is no documentary evidence in support of the fact, i believe that Mariano was also fluent in Hokkien, having grown up in Binondo surrounded by 241 -what was the reason, for Mariano to have used such a classification? Unfortunately, I cannot ia d any rebuttal or reference to this matter beyond what I have just mentioned. The judge may have simply dismissed this matter since Mariano was legally a “m estizo espa&oi.” One wonders also how the Spanish mestizos viewed themselves vis-a-vis the Chinese mestizos. 242 In 1900, Mariano and Jacinto Limjap y N olasco appeared before the notary Genaro Heredia to donate the sum o f 3,000 p esos to three different “Chinos” (Chinese): Antonio Lim-SIang-CMt, Francisco Lira Slang Gang and Lina Siong Que. See Chapter 5 for more details. 24j See Chapter 5 for a fuller genealogical chart of Mariano’s family. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 his father’s kin and business associates, with whom he himself would be dealing or entering into business partnerships throughout his aduit life 244 In fact, a sure sign of his identification with the Chinese community can be seen from the incident involving the arrival of the Chinese cruiser Hal Chi on 8 November 1907. In it was His Excellency Yang Shih-ch’i [Shiqi], who carried the title of Junior Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, Works and Commerce of China, as well as of the Imperial Commissioner (The Manila Times 6 November 1907; cf. A. Tan 1972, 110). According to newspaper reports, the Chinese official and his entourage were given a “brilliant reception” by the Chinese Chamber o f Commerce. This reception, not quite coincidentally, was held by one of the most prominent “Chinese” businessmen of that time—Mariano Limjap,245 The front-page article states that: All the prominent Chinese residents of the city were present, to receive the royal commissioner and the officers of the cruiser Hai Chi . . . Major Robert H. Noble presented to the distinguished visitors the hundreds who called to pay their respects. In the receiving line were Consul-general Su Yu Tchu, Ho. H, E. Yang Shih Chi, Mrs. Limjap, Taotai Mue Yew Chung, Commodore Shin, and the President of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce o f Manila (The Manila Times 14 November 1907). The 6 November 1907 issue o f Cablenews American, in reporting the same event, also noted a band under the “direction of a leader of their own race,” using 20 musical instruments, mainly brass instruments and flutes, taken from the cruiser, to 244 In a personal communication to me. Ran! Beacan y Limjap said it was well known in Ms familv that Mariano Limjap spoke Hokkien. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 4 send forth “sweet music throughout the reception” while a local band played at the central court inside the mansion. Furthermore, apart from lights strung from one end of the place to the other, or circled around trees, there were also “immense silken banners of the Yellow Dragon of China (and) American flags.” And while Mariano Limjap and his wife Maria were busy entertaining his guests, his daughter, possibly the eldest Leonarda, was also busy “all the evening looking after the comfort of their guests, and received countless felicitations” (Boncan y Limjap 1997, 47). Is it possible, then, to surmise that Leonarda also knew Hokkien*7 This may be a possibility, given the close ties that her father had with many Chinese in Manila. Furthermore, exactly eight days prior to this reception, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce also hosted a “splendid reception at Mariano Limjap’s” to honor Secretary and Mrs. William H. Taft (Cablenews American 6 November 1907). The headline of the article states “Chinese Hosts,” and goes on to explain that the Tafts were honored by the Chinese Consul-general and leading Chinese in the city, among whom w ere “B enito Si Cobi eng, the president o f the Chinese Cham ber o f Commerce; Cu Unjien [sic], the ex-president of the chamber of commerce, and Tan Chu Tee, the instructor in English in the Chinese school .” And although Mariano was not listed as being one of the “leading Chinamen [sic],” Ms close association with the Chinese community, whether by way of business or close social relations, no doubt made him very much part of it, so much so that his house was often used to 245 Antonio Tan, in describing this event labels M ariano Liraiap a “Chinese millionaire” r 1972* 110). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 host important guests of the Chinese community. The Chinese community must have regarded Mm as very much part of their own that when the Spanish government awarded him the distinction of Caballero de la Real Orden Americana de Isabel la Catolica, they hailed this honor accorded to him (NHI 1996. 15 3 ) . ^ Thus, from these events, we can see that Mariano, who was a prominent businessman in his community from the late Spanish colonial period to the early American period, was capable o f playing different identities at different points throughout Ms life. Though he was legally a mestizo, a Spanish subject, and later, a Filipino citizen, he maintained strong ties with the Chinese community during his life and knew Hokkien. It could be said, then, that he must have considered Mmself at times to be also “Chinese.” And the fact that he had access to multipie identities allow ed him to segue from one id en tity to another, or to be all o f them simultaneously. Ildefomo Tambunting Another mestizo who closely identified with the Chinese and whose life reflected the ambiguous nature of mestizo identity was Ildefonso Tambiinfmg 247 Ildefonso was the eldest of two sons, and was bom in 1S5G.248 The second sou 246 jjjg involvement with the Chinese business community, however, must have been constrained b y - certain Chinese or Philippine citizenship requirem ents, for despite .ins high profile w ithin the community, he is not listed among the past presidents and officers o f the Chinese Chamber o f Commerce. If he was a Filipino citizen, then he probably was not eligible to be a member. 24' In other documents, his surname is spelled Tan-Buntiag. For consistency, I wiil be using “ ‘ Tambunting,” the surname that is also being used by tire descendants of Ildefonso today. 248 Although I have not found any document explicitly stating his date or year o f birth, this information is corroborated by his Chinese biography which states that he died at the age o f 72 is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 6 apparently died as a child (Huang 1936, 198). H is father, Joaquin Poeon Tambunting, was born in 1823, in Tangua (Tongan) county, Fujian, and came to the Philippines at the age of 20 249 On the other hand, lidefonso’s mother, Leandra, was bom on 12 March 1826.250 She was the legitimate daughter of Antonio Cosiam, a Christian Chinese, and Gregoria Tanleco, a mestiza from the barrio of San Fernando, Binondo251 His parents were married in 1848. Piecing together information gathered both from primary and secondary sources, I discovered that in 1897 Ildefonso was married to a certain Juliana UycMco (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 4, no. 435). And according to another source, he was married to Concepcion Lauengco, and had a son with her by the name of Antonio, who was bom on 1 June 1902 (National Souvenir Publications 1957,469), Thus, Concepcion was apparently Ms second wife. He also had a son named Manuel, who 1922 (Huang 1936, 199) and by many documents he drew op ia which be states Ms age, thus allowing us to extrapolate the year of his birth (see, for example, RMAO CR 1897,851, tomo 4. no. 427). 249 By the time lie came to the Philippines at the age o f 20, Joaquin had been married and widowed in China. Five years later, he applied to be baptized a Catholic, after having received the proper Catholic indoctrination in Spanish, a language he understood “immediately.” The permission was granted on 11 August 1848, and Jose De San Agustin, O.P., the cum intermo (interim parish priest) to the Christian Chinese o f the Church o f San Gabriel, baptized Joaquin on 13 August 1848 (AAM SC-SB 1833-1850, 34.D.10, folder 3). A month later, Joaquin applied to m am 's mestiza named Leandra Cosian (AAM IM 1848, 17.€.7. folder 9). in a notarized document he submitted to the ecclesiastical court of the Archdiocese o f Manila, he swore under oath that lie was “sokera” (single), instead of "viudo” (widowed). In the same manner, he also swore that he bad never bees married. Is a way Mis was true since—as we haw seea ia Chapter 2—the Catholic- Church did sot recognize non- Christian marriages. For the verification o f his eligibility to contract the marriage with Leandra, Joaquin presented as witnesses Faustina Gocfaaoo, a “sm gley crism no' (Christian Chinese), a native of Tangua, single, and 40 years old: and Vicente Tangquiat, also “sangley mst'mno'" native o f Chanchiu (Zhangzhou), married, 40 years old. All these testim onies were made on 30 September 1848, before the notary' public Ruperto Fernandez. 2® On 19 March 182-6, Bruno Alburo, O.P. baptized her at fee Most Holy Rosary m i San Gabriel Church o f Binondo, when she was 7 days old. Her godmother was a woman named Maria Candelaria (AAM IM 1848,17.C.7, folder 9). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 probably was begotten from Ms first marriage (RMAO GH 1902, 831, tomo 2, no. 133).252 Being the only surviving son, Ildefonso must have inherited much o f his parents5 wealth and business interests. He was supposed to have " ‘established the foundations of the family w ealth;5 including the chain o f pawnshops popularly known today simply as “Tambunting5 5 which, according to every shop sign, was founded in 1906. Other kinds of businesses he left behind include those in the shipping, insurance and real estate business. His wife Concepcion is also credited with helping him in the administration of the family business (National Souvenir Publications 1957,469). He died on 1 April 1922, at the age of 72. To a great extent, Ildefonso5 s life reflected many aspects and facets of the lives of other first-generation mestizos. As mentioned in the previous section, many mestizos were engaged in commerce, and this brought them into close and constant contact with merchants of other ethnic groups, particularly the Chinese. Ildefonso himself, in Ms businesses, often entered into partnerships with the Chinese. For instance, he owned a bakery called Panaderia Nacional and his partner in this business was one of the most well established Chinese businessmen during his time, Joaquin Barrera Limjap (RMAO FD 1879, 438, tomo 2, no. 567; see Chapter 5). Furthermore, as representative of his minor son Manuel. lie set up a shop for printing ^ At the time of her application to mam* Joaquin, Leandra** father Antonio was deceased, and thus her mother Gregoria gave the parental consent to the marriage. ~ tJ" 1 presume Manuel to he a son from the first marriage since at the time when the document from which his name was mentioned was drawn «p, i.e., in the year 1902., he was 23 years old. He was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 or selling prints together with a Chinese Cu Tongco (RMAO GH 1902, 831, tomo 2, no. 133). One o f his other businesses involved winning the bids for municipal contracts to collect taxes, and subcontracting them to other people.253 In fact, Wickberg identifies him as one of those who managed in 1881 to win two of the seven bids for municipal contracts in Manila, with the other five going to the Chinese ([1965] 2000, 113).254 In finding ways to carry out Ms duties in collecting taxes, he solicited the assistance of a Chinese Ciavino Hernando Cue Chingco, granting the latter the power to represent him in ali matters pertaining to the public contracts he had won (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 2, no. 482). With the money he possessed, he bought property from the Chinese, For instance, in 1882, he bought a building from the Chinese Simon Yu Quinsing a.k.a. Yu-Guey (RMAO ERC 1890, 866, tomo 2, no. 730). TIrus, from these few examples of his business dealings, we can see that he maintained close ties with the Chinese.255 And as we saw in Chapter 4, these ties thus probably bom in the year 1879 or 1880, when Ildefonso might have been married to first w ife Juliana Uy chico. 253 Since the seventeenth century', the Chinese had been involved in tax-famtisg ia the Philippines. However, this was limited to “collecting Chinese taxes or for supplying meat to Manila.” After 1850, the Chinese were allowed to bid for monopoloy contracts involving taxes on “public markets, weights and measures, livestock slaughtering, cockpits, and a general impost on carriages, horses and bridges.5 ’ The more lucrative contracts were those that involved opium monopoly contracts. For more information on these monopoly contracts, especially opium, see Wickberg [1965] 2000. 1 13- 119. 254 por more information regarding Chinese and mestizo involvement in moncpolv contracts, see Wickberg ([1965] 2000, 59,113-119,122-123, 149, 151). 255 Naturally, he also dealt in business with people In other ethnic groups, subleasing, for example, the contracts he won to mestizo Leoaeio Tansimsim y de los Reyes o f Bulacaa (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 4, no. 427) and to mestiza Monica Tongcoy Gonzalez also of Bakes® (RMAO CR 1897, 851, tomo 4, no. 510). Furthermore, he also granted powers-of-attomey to Spanish lawyers Francisco Rodriguez y Flavier Pablo to represent him legally in Bulacaa (RMAO EBC 1896,872, tomo 8, no. 845) and to Placido Canas Buenaventura and Felipe (Jeronimo ManeiHa to represent Mm before the courts o f Manila and in the Superior Tribunal o f the Royal Awliencia (RMAO FD 18 8 0 ,441, tomo 2, h o . 678). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 9 were not merely borne out of financial or practical concerns, but also out of sense of trust and affinity that allowed people to entrust their business matters to other people, even If they belonged to a different ethnic group. Apart from granting powers-of- attomey to Simon Yu Quinsing, Ildefonso had also drawn up a contract granting the same powers to Simon Yu-Vioco to represent him in his business interests in Cavite, a province south of Manila (RMAG FD 1882, 445, tomo 2, no 364), The Chinese, in turn, welcomed his assistance. Whenever the Spanish colonial government promulgated policies unfair or unjust to the Chinese, Ildefonso worked to reverse or abolish these policies. Recognizing his abilities, the Spanish colonial government appointed him caption (head) of the mestizos, and called upon him to act as arbiter whenever a dispute occurred between the Chinese and the mestizos. Furthermore, he would pursue and support policies that were advantageous to the Chinese (Huang 1936, 198). And how did Ildefonso live out his personal life? According to a short biographical sketch in Chinese written after his death (Huang 1936), Ildefonso not only was frugal and industrious like his Chinese father, but also treated the older Chinese with respect. He spoke Hokkien, revered his father upon the latter’s death by personally carrying his coffin, and having him buried in the Chinese cemetery. On the 7ft moon and 24A day of the lunar calendar, he would bring the favorite clothes of his father, and place them in front of the tomb, along with fragrant flowers and food. And for 50 consecutive years, on Ms father’s death anniversary, he would gather his friends and relatives and tell them stories about his father. Furthermore, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 he founded the Tan Family Association (Huang 1936, 198-199). Though these personal anecdotes about Ildefonso’s life could have been exaggerated a bit since they come from a source that might have a political and ideological agenda in identifying Ildefonso as loyal to his Chinese heritage, they do reflect a close affinity to the Chinese community.236 In fact, due to his close association with the Chinese community, some confusion might have arisen as regards to Ms ethno-legal classification. In one of the documents at the RMAO classified under his name, the circumstances surrounding a letter he wrote to the Civil Governor (of the province of Manila) points toward this ambiguity about his identity. In this letter, dated 24 February 1887, Ildefonso requested that the Civil Governor issue a letter to the coastguard certifying that lie (i.e, Ildefonso) was of Spanish nationality. The reason behind this request was that he needed to fulfill an “indispensable requirement” in order to have a ship he just bought registered under his name. This requirement involved presenting a certificate or proof showing that he was of Spanish nationality and that he had never forfeited or lost this nationality. Attached to Ms letter to the Civil Governor is another letter coming from the gobernadorcillo (presum ably o f M anila) and a num ber of 256 Wickberg uses this same source (Huang 1936), and echoes his source by writing that Ildefonso was “one of a very few prominent mestizos who openly identified them selves as Chinese and followed Chinese customs” (1964,95n. 109). However, this biographical account was published in 1936. 14 years after Ildefonso \s death, and thus can not be taken as accurately reflecting the practices of mestizos decades earlier. In other words, by 1936, many mestizos had already chosen to identify themselves as “Filipinos,” thus making Ildefonso’s case seemingly aa exception. But m I argue in this chapter, in the first decade or so of fee twentieth century, there were still many mestizos like Ildefonso who identified also as ‘'Chinese,” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 9 1 prmcipales (notable persons), addressed to the same Governor and stating that, indeed, Don Ildefonso Tambunting is mestizo sangley . . . and as those bora in Spanish territories, they being all equal, it is no doubt that the appellant belongs to his class as all those born in this country that is one of the Spanish provinces, and neither has it been made known to us nor have we heard it said that he had lost Ms nationality (RMAO VP, Ildefonso Tambunting, f. 20951). Thus, it can be inferred from these documents that there was some confusion or ambiguity about his identity that needed to be clarified. Others, such as the coastguard might have perceived him other than a Spanish national. And could it be hypothesized that he was viewed as a sangley due to his close association with the Chinese community and to his constant travels to China?257 These could have led the coastguard to think that he was not only not of Spanish nationality, but also that he had forfeited his claim to this nationality. Thus, from the lives of Mariano Limjap and Ildefonso Tambunting, both first-generation mestizos, we can see that mestizos in the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also managed to maintain strong ties with their Chinese kin and heritage, even if, politically, they were classified either as mestizo, Spanish, or Filipino.2^ 8 Furthermore, they managed to negotiate their multipie identities as they deemed fit. In fact, a ship named “Juliana’ ' which he owned was procured by aim in Hong Kong (RMAO GH 1901, 830, tomo 3, no. 296). 2=8 Comenge y Dalmau writes that in the 300 years o f Spanish colonization in the Philippines, there was only one mestizo, B onifacio Lim-Tuaco who requested the M inisiro de Ultramar in 1880 to change his classification to “sangley,” and to pay the tribute as “his ancestors (had) and to dress as Chinese” (Comenge 1894, 229; cf. Wiekberg ! 964, 66n. 11). Bonifacio founded the liquor company Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 Rethinking the mestizas Much of what we know about the history o f the Chinese mestizos in the Philippines and their identities is based on the lives o f male mestizos. As a consequence of a predominantly male-centered version of mestizo history, our understanding of mestizo history and ethnogenesis is incomplete. Thus, I have attempted to include the mestizas and their lives in this chapter. Documents left behind by or pertaining to mestizas are fewer and more scant than those of mestizos, but not lacking. I used mainly two sources: the marriage records at A AM, and the notarial records kept at the RMAO. In Chapter 2 ,1 have discussed and presented the information from the marriage records, and will be referring again to them in this chapter. But the bulk of information to be used in this chapter will come from the Protocobs file found at the RMAO. Focusing on the years 1867. 1872, 1882, 1892, 1897, and 1902,1 was able to identify 95 documents or cases Destileria Limtuaco, and his descendants continue to run the company. According to Ms biography, Bonifacio was bom in Xiamen, and “sailed for the Philippines in 1850 with the blessings of the Chinese emperor.” He was 36 years old then and was a “Mandarin trained in martial arts." Within two years o f his arrival, he set up his distillery at 135 Gandara Street, Binondo. The drink he invented became popularly known as Sioktong. It is further written that B onifacio was “aa acknowledged leader in the Filipino Chinese business community and in the distillery trade," aad th at in order to “com plete his integration into Filipino life,” he took on a Christian name and becam e known as Bonifacio Limtuaco. I surmise however, that, since he was classified as a “mestizo,” that he was bom in the Philippines, and was brought to China for Ms education, so that when he w est to the Philippines in 1850, he already had a Christian name. But this needs to be researched on further. He died while on a trip to Xiamen in 1887 (http;/ATOWtgeocilies.coiii/carioslega^}Megacyfiiroseng.Miri). He had two children, Carlos and Andrea. Carlos w as seat to the Jesuit A teneo M unicipal, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree, class of 1889. Carlos was supposed to have traveled to Xiamen shortly after his graduation, where he visited his ancestral home and died there before reaching the age o f forty. Consequently, the nephews o f Bonifacio took over the distillery (http; wvvw.limtoacodistilk^acom/heritageJbiml). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 involving mestizas, of which 91 will be used in this section,259 Although these cases make up a mere fraction of the total number of notarized documents found in these protocolos, they nevertheless constitute a significant and important source of data regarding some mestizas belonging to the period under study. In discussing about the lives of these mestizas, I will use as a starting point what Edgar Wickberg has written about them. According to him, mestizo mothers (along with indio m others) were supposed to pi ay an Influential role in the Hispanicization and Catholicization of their mestizo offspring. For in the absence of the Chinese fathers who often returned to China, the mothers were left with the task of raising their mestizo offspring, whom they reared as devout Catholics and devotees of the Spanish culture (Wickberg [1965] 2600, 33).2m In turn, it was this love for the Catholic-Hispanic culture that would lead these mestizos to fight for political reform, and later on the formation of an independent Philippine nation-state. Thus, the mestizas played an important supporting roie In the founding of the Filipino nation, for as I mentioned in Chapter I, many scholars consider these mestizos to be the founding founders of the Philippine nation-state. As I mentioned in the Introduction, the choice of the years was dictated by both pragmatic and theoretical considerations. I chose the years to Include based on the following method. I started with 1867 since this is the earliest year that had a complete set of documents. Then, 1 decided to look at the volumes at 10-year intervals, starting with 1872. I decided to include 1897 as this was ia the middle o f the Philippine revolution against Spain, and thought that the year might reflect some change in the behavior or choices of the mestizas involved And as I pointed out in the Introduction, notarial records beyond 1903 are not yet accessible to scholars. 260 por m attempt to reconstruct and describe the eariv Chinese-mestizo familv structure, see Zarco 1966. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 Apart from rearing their children up as Catholics and Hispanic, the mestizo mothers were supposed to have also trained them in business skills. Disagreeing with foreign observers who attributed these skills to their Chinese fathers, Wickberg hypothesizes that the skills o f mestizos could have come instead from the local mothers, who might happen to have some business sense themselves. Wickberg also writes that the business acumen that these mestizos exhibited seems “out of place” (1964, 99). He must be working on the assumption that mestizos and indigenous peoples in the Philippines did not. possess the same business acumen that the Chinese had, and since the mestizos were supposed to be “(r)ejecters o f their Chinese heritage,” they could not possibly possess the same characteristics as their forefathers’. By extension, the business skills of their mothers, whether mestizo or indie, seems also out of place. That these mestizas were very enterprising and business-minded is indeed borne out by the data from the Protocolos. O f the sixty-three (63) mestizas found in the cases, forty-nine (49) of them were proprietresses. For instance, Petr on a Chumbuque v Limjengco owned three prime lots in the city center (RMAO € R 1897, 851, tomo 2, no. 183), and Eugenia Lichauco y Lauchangco owned eleven real estates consisting of houses and lots situated in Binondo (RMAO CR 1902, 856, tomo 1, no. 96). Thus, many stores owned by the Chinese were located in the properties owned by these mestizas. For example, the general merchandise store of Jose Munoz Lim Tiengjan and Lim Congquian was located under the house owned by a certain Banjuat, widow of Sv Leg (RMAO FD 1872,427, tomo 3, no. 605). On Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 the other hand, the hardware store owned by Cue Capco, Tan Pitco, and Cue Sonman was located under the house of the property of a certain Maria Patera©, widow of a Chinese named Sy Leg (RMAO FD 1872,427, tomo 3, no. 747),^’ On the other hand, twenty-nine (29) were involved in some kind of trade, either as money-lenders, or owners of cascos (small sea-faring vessels used to transport goods) or business establishments. Mestizas Natalia Lim Yuoy and Cirila Ochaagcc established a sugar mill with a number of Chinese businessmen (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo !, no. 189). On the other hand. Siiveria Ranjuat had shares in the ship "Diamante” (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 2, no. 545) while Miguefa Tanongco bought and rented out a house in Binondo and wanted to evict her tenants (RMAO CR 1892, 846, tomo 1, no. 62). Finally, Franeisca Yap y Lim had various businesses in the province of Leyte, and the Chinese Joaquin Sy Oco and Uy Uco managed these (RMAO CR 1892, 846, tomo 2, no. 180). But where did the mestizas acquire their business sense in the first place? Studies have shown that before the advent or influence of Islam. Christianity, and Westernization, gender relations among the peoples of the Philippines and Southeast Asia tended to be egalitarian and complementary (e.g., Eviota 1992, Atkinson and Errington 1990; Reid 1988). Local women possessed some degree of autonomy in relation, to their bodies, and in relation to making decisions regarding their family or their possessions (Eviota 1992, 37), In the Philippines, daughters inherited equally 261 This practice o f mestizas owning property extended into the twentieth century, as we shall see ia Chapter 5 when the widow of Mariano Limjap, Maria Bscolary Co-Chayeo. owned several property ia Binondo and continued going back to A'Maatowir to collect rents. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 and women had been observed to be active participants in running the household, in farming and in trading with the Chinese (Scott 1994,143). In fact, “marketing was a female domain par excellence” in several Southeast Asian countries, including the Philippines (Reid 1988, 163). Thus, it is not surprising that mestizas had such business acumen with which to manage the wealth entrusted to them by their Chinese husbands, or the properties bequeathed to them by their Chinese fathers or mestiza mothers. On the other hand, can we not also theorize that these women’s business sense was acquired from, if not honed or enhanced by their extensive exposure to and involvement in the enterprises of their Chinese fathers or husbands? Thus, in a sense, what they passed on to their mestizo offspring was something they had also obtained from their vast interaction with the Chinese. And could we not hypothesize then that instead of viewing the Chinese as economic competitors, these women considered them as partners, not only in marriage but also in business? Due to their vast interaction with the Chinese, these mestizas most probably did not reject their Chinese heritage, and this kind of attitude could have been passed on to their mestizo offspring. Thus, I argue in this section that mestizo mothers could have actually “retarded” the mestizo-ization or indigenization o f their male mestizo offspring. As for their female offspring, the mestizo mothers might have also helped “retard” their “Fiiipinization” by encouraging them to follow their example of marrying Chinese men. It has been noted that mestizas and their families found marrying Chinese men to be financially advantageous (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 33; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 9 ? cf, Amyot 1973, 130-131). Furthermore, legal policy under the Spanish colonial regime did not provide any disincentive for mestizas to marry the Chinese, for as we have seen, a m estiza m arrying a C h in ese rem ained u n d er th e m esfiza classification.262 On the other hand, the Chinese and the mestizos also preferred to marry m estizas (Skinner 1996, 52-53). In my own research, the num ber o f intermarriages between Chinese men and local women seem to support the thesis that many Chinese men preferred to marry mestizo women, and vice versa. Focusing on the years 1870, 1875, 1880, and 1885,1 counted the number of intermarriages between Chinese men and local women and found that out of 146 intermarriages, 72, or almost 50 percent, were between Chinese men and mestizo women . On the other hand, the number of intermarriages between Chinese men and indio women was 69, or 47 percent of the total. Other intermarriages involved mestizo esparto! women (3 out o f 146 or 2 percent) and Chinese women (2 out of 146 or 1 percent). Even though the rate of intermarriage between Chinese men and mestizo women and between Chinese men and indio women seems to be almost equal, if we consider that, numerically, there were more indio women than mestizo women in local society, then this statistical finding, at the le a st suggests a high preference of Chinese men for mestizo women.263 ^ ft is also decreed that although indio women restained under their classification when marrying a Chinese, they nevertheless became classified as m estizas after the death of their Chinese husbands (see Chapter 1). However, these results are merely suggestive rather than conclusive. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 Thus, within Chinese-mestizo families, a mestizo daughter would marry a Chinese, repeating the pattern started by her own mestizo mother. An example is Agueda Gonzalez Yng Puico, whose father was the Christian Chinese Domingo Gonzales Yng-Puico and whose mother was Manuel a Ang-Yangco, a mestiza. In 1851, she herself married a Chinese named Antonio Sy Siengui (AAM IM 1851- 1853, 1882, 17.C.9, folder 3). Another example is that of Juliana Calderon Lim- Tongjirs who married Juan Pardo Tang-Silo, a Chinese Christian from Loagxi (Leonque) China in 1872 (AAM IM 1872, 18.D.10). Her own mestiza mother Tomasina de San Gabriel married her Chinese father Fernando Calderon Lim Tongjin twenty years earlier (AAM IM 1851-1853, 1882, 17.C.9). Finally, both the grandmother and mother o f Ildefonso Tambunting were mestizas who married Chinese Christians. From these exam ples, one can say that this pattern o f interm arriage reinforced or re-introduced these mestizas5 orientation toward their Chinese heritage. Once the daughters followed their mothers’ footsteps, they would have added to their already existing network of Chinese relatives from their father the relatives of their husbands.264 Likewise, the mestizo mother would have added an extended Chinese family if her daughter married a Chinese. And in such instances, the marriage could have been met with much approval from the mother. The case of Silveria Banjuat is There was even a case where a mestiza chose to many? a Chinese twice. Juana So-Gueco of Binondo in her testament declared that she was married first to Josh Tan-Tiongco, with whom she had a son named Cirilo Tan-Tiongco. After Jose died, she married another Chinese by fee name of Vicente Yu-tico, who at the time was in China and had been there for approximately six months (RMAO FD 1867,421, tomo 2,7 November). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 worth using as an. example. At 50 years of age and close to dying, Silveria Banjuat drew up her testament on 16 November 1882. In it she declared that she was a widow of a Christian Chinese by the name of lose Sv-Sec, with whom she had two living daughters named Ysidra Sy-Sec, 26 years old, and Laureana Sv-Sec, 19 years old. She had a son named Yaocencio Sy-Sec who was deceased at that time. She listed down her assets which included property valued at more than 80,000 pesos; as well as gold, jewelry, silver, and images of saints totaling 24,000 pesos in value. In one of the clauses of her testament, she was also leaving to her “Chinese” son-in-law Sy-De (who was married to Ysidra) the camarin (warehouse for light materials, or for storing agricultural products) situated in Calanate. Malolos, valued at 6,687 pesos and 4 reales. Also, she left with him half of the shares invested by her in the ship “Diam ante,” the amount o f which was equivalent to 5,000 pesos. These she bequeathed to him “for the good services that he had given her, and to whom she owe(d) much debt and favors, as he (was) the person of her utmost confidence.” Furthermore, she designated Mm as the executor of her will, and mandated that her two daughters live in harmony and to call upon Sy-De in case o f disagreements (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 2, no. 545). Such was her closeness to her “Ch’ mese- ness” that not only did she designate a Chinese to be the executor of her will, but also had as her testament's witnesses Francisco Martinez Cban-Juanchay, Joaquin Tierren Lim-Luyong, and Cipriano Lim Juansioe, all of whom belonged to the gremio de Sangleyes (Chinese gremio).265 In the same manner, another mestiza As seen in Chapter 1, the gremio refers to a quasi-rdigioas-poli'deai organization. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200 Juana So-Gueco in her will appointed her Chinese brother-in-law Catalino So-Gueco to be the tutor and guardian of her son Cirilo Tan Tiong-co, whose father was the Chinese Jose Tan-Tiongco but who had passed away. She also appointed another Chinese. Bartolome Barreto Jo-Guioc, executor of her will (RMAO FD 1867, 421, tomo 2, December 18). Moreover, some o f the m estizas had to contend with or accept the arrangement that their husbands or fathers had another family back in China. As we have seen in Chapter 2, several Chinese men had a Chinese wife as well as a local one. Thus, in the partition of her deceased husband’s wealth, Migueia Gang Jangc-o had to share the inheritance with her husband’s two sons by his Chinese wife, as well as his Chinese nephew. The two sons happened to be in China. But it is interesting to note that her husband in his will tasked his nephew Co-Poco to make sure that his two sons, whether they remained in China or come to the Philippines, be baptized Catholics.266 Whether Migueia had congenial relations with her Chinese in-laws was another matter, but certainly the fact that she had been married to a Chinese exposed her to a w ider extended Chinese fam ily, both in China and in the Philippines. With their husbands frequently traveling to China, or their relatives coming to the Philippines, and even in some cases, with they themselves being 266 This therefore opens up the discussion on how influential the Chinese fathers, especially Catholic ones, were in the Catholicizatios and Hispaniz&iioa of their children. On the other hand, Skinner notes that there “is some evidence that China-born fathers married to indigenous women may have been more diligent in ensuring that sons as opposed to daughters were reared as Chinese” (1996, 54s, 6). Future research will hopefully clarity their roles, but we may tentatively hypothesize that Chinese fathers, despite their constant travels, might so t have been as absent or as passive as Wickberg describes diem in rearing their children. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201 brought to China, many mestizas no doubt were very much aware o f their Chinese relatives.267 In most cases, they could not ignore them, and in some cases, as we have seen above, even embraced them as part of the family.268 Furthermore, if they themselves were not sent to China, some of their relatives were. Thus, when 33-year old Ana Sy-Yap y Gobonjua drew up her will and stipulated that the two sons of her deceased brother be heirs to her wealth, both o f her two nephews who were identified as Christians were living in China (RMAO NA 1895, 561, tomo 2, no. 306).269 Finally, their familial connections to their Chinese husbands or fathers meant that mestizas constantly interacted with other Chinese, especially if they themselves were engaged in business or inherited the businesses left behind by their deceased ones. For instance, after her Chinese husband Jose Chuidian died in 1860, Silveria Chua Quico decided with her husband’s business partner Jose Tiaoqui to continue 267 In fact, the husbands of three mestizas included in this section were either ia China or Hong Kong, or died there. Silveria Chua Quico’s husband Jose Chuidian died in Hong Kong in I860 (RMAO FD 1867,421, tomo 2, October 29); Juana So-Gueco’s second husband Vicente Yu-tico was in China and had been there for approximately six months at the time when Juana drew op her testament on 18 December 1867 (RMAO FD 1867, 421. tomo 2 ,7 November); and Cirila Qehangco’ s own husband, Jose Tiaoqui, died in China in the year 1882 (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 1, no. 201). Just as there were some mestizos who were brought to China (see Skinner 1996,53-54n. 6), there were local women who were brought there by their Chinese husbands, as noted by some missionaries in the Philippines. During my archival research at the Axehdiocesaa Archives of Manila, I chanced upon a case of a mestiza who had been brought to China and died there. H er name was Hoaorata Rivera and she was married to Francisco Lim Choaco y Agcoa (AAM RB 1899-1912,30.C.7, folder 14). But this practice was supposed to have caused untold harm and demoralization to these women (and to their children). Thus, in 1892, a decree was issued by Monsigaor Nozaleda requiring that ail matters regarding the request for intermarriages would have to be referred to the Archdiocese in order to, presumably, discourage the Chinese husband from bringing Ms local wife to China fGarctg 1973. 48). 268 One case even shows that the mestiza Eugenia Lichauco y Lauchaagco had an adopted Chinese daughter whom she named Maria Lichauco {RMAO CR 1902,856, tomo 1, b o . . 96). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202 the company that her husband and Jose Tiaoqui had founded. Seven years later, she and Jose Tiaoqui drew up a contract stipulating their decision to terminate the business, and upon liquidation of all the assets of the company, each one took in 14,382 pesos, 6 reales, and 14 cuartos. Fifteen years later, the widow o f Jose Tiaoqui himself, Cirila Ochangco, had to deal with her deceased husband's business partners in the liquidation of the business he left behind (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 1, no. 201). At the same time, however, she herself entered into a new business partnership with another mestiza and other Chinese (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 1, no. 189). As with other male merchants, who either traveled abroad or had business interests in the other islands of the Philippines, mestizas who engaged in business themselves also drew up mandates or instruments granting powers-of-attomey to other people, even to Chinese individuals. For instance, on June 28 1897 Pefrona A. Mendoza Dijiongeo, 25 years old, single, industrial, living in Binondo, granted general powers to the Christian Chinese Eiias M artinez N ubia Suija, adult, industrial, and living in Binondo to represent her in all her businesses. She also granted to the same person, along with a certain Francisco Gonzales, the power to represent her in all judicial matters (RMAO CR 1897. 851, tomo 2, no. 211). On the other hand, Ciriaca Teodora Ang-Gueco, whose Chinese father instituted her as Ms sole and universal heiress of his businesses in Binondo, was instructed to also share her inheritance with her father’s nephew and her father’s 269 Their youngest brother, who was also named an heir, was at that time still a “minor” and thus stayed behind in Manila. Ana’s sister Maaaela was also named eo-heir. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 concubine, both of whom were Chinese. Her father instructed her to do this out of respect to customs in China, and to share her inheritance with people with whom she had “ties of blood” (RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 2, no. 469). Thus, from their family situation in which part of their family lived in or came from China; the familial choices they made in taking in a Chinese husband or son-in-law; and their business dealings with Chinese businessmen, we can surmise these mestizas, just like Ildefonso and other mestizos, maintained strong ties with their Chinese heritage. Conclusion In the preceding sections, I have attempted to argue that we need to re-think our understanding of Philippine mestizos. One of my arguments is that they were not a “special kind of Filipino” ' with little or no Chinese identity. Rather, as the lives of certain Chinese mestizos and mestizas show us. they also were “Chinese.” Thus, their identities were multiple, and were much more fluid and ambiguous than past scholarship had depicted them to be. What then does this say about the mestizos in the Philippines as an “intermediate creolized community” (Skinner 1996, 52)?270 If we were to take into consideration the experiences o f these mestizos, particularly those of the mestizas, whose preference to marry Chinese men constantly brought them close to the Chinese, can we still regard the mestizos as part of a “discrete and Of the 63 mestizas included in this study, 29 of them had clear associations with the Chinese, whether in terms of personal or business relations. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204 stable [mestizo] community” (Skinner 1996, 51)? When we include mestizas in the history of the mestizos, how does this change the constitution of this community as “an indigenous-based creole” (Skinner 1996, 52) (emphasis mme)?2/J The approach I have used here necessarily veers away from the meta-narratives of nation-based histories that often try to categorize people under a distinct “either/or” or “Filipino/Chinese” binary that hardly reflects the actual lives and identities of many people. Furthermore, by showing that the self-identifications o f certain mestizo individuals did not always follow' the classifications created by the state, or were negotiated by people shifting from one legal classification to another, this chapter also opens up the question o f when the Chinese mestizos, as we know them, disappeared culturally as a group. Wickberg points to the turn o f the twentieth century as die time when this occurred. However, I would posit the view that they did so only around 1910 and after— at a tim e when nationalism in both the Philippines and in China led to an even greater hardening o f boundaries between ethnic groups.272 By tills time, the definitions of who was a “Filipino” and who was a “Chinese” had become more defined, so much so that the culture o f the Chinese mestizos were easily absorbed into, or subsumed under, one or the other dominant ^ It must be noted that “creole” as used in this context does not refer to people of mixed European- black descent as in the case of Latin or South America, but rather to people descended from ninoas between Chinese men and local women of Indonesia, Malaysia. Philippines, and Thailand 27z In fact, in my research involving Catholic Church documents such as baptismal records, I still find the classification “mestizo de sangley” still being used up to 1905. Apparently, while the state had stopped classifying mestizos as such, the Church still continued using this classification for some Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 cultures. However, though the Chinese mestizos eventually “disappeared” into the Filipino mainstream, some, I believe, had also been reclaimed back into the Chinese community. One reason why many scholars in the past have argued, as Wickberg has, that they became “Filipino” was that many prominent Filipinos today did descend from Chinese-mestizo families. However, if a study of family histories among the so-called Chinese or ulan-langt (lit. “our own people,” a Hokkien term used by the Chinese in the Philippines to refer to themselves) o f today were conducted, it could be shown that some of them also descended from the Chinese- mestizo families of the late nineteenth century, z7~ s But did the “Chinese mestizo” really disappear as a group? Marriage records from the RMAO in Manila indicate that intermarriages between the Chinese and the Filipinos continued well up until the early decades o f the twentieth century, albeit fewer in number.274 Thus, these intermarriages continued to produce—for lack of a better term— “mixed” offspring. However, as an increasing number of Chinese women were brought to the Philippines from the 1930s on, the number o f time. Thus, it would also be interesting to investigate- how the Church’s view on the mestizos differed from that of the state. 2 I still have to test this hypothesis through a more in-depth study. A possible ease to examine is the Limpe family, who in contemporary Philippine society is identifiabiy “lan-laag” but whose ancestor, Bonifacio Lim Tuaco* was a mestizo. 27‘ * My findings regarding intermarriages between Catholic Chinese and local women show that during the 1890s, weddings between them tapered. In fact, between 1892 and 1.899, no rcg*Mt:cd marriage involving Chinese Christians and local women in Manila could be found at the Arcmvcs c-f die Archdiocese of Manila. And from 1900 to 1920, the number recorded did not match, the same high number recorded earlier, especially during the ! 870s and 1880s, whoa as many 50 to 60 church weddings occurred per year. On the other hand, civil weddings continued, except also for the eariy years of the American occupation, when the unstable political situation in the Philippines might have discouraged many Chinese from settling (and thus marrying local women) in the Philippines. This Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 intermarriages diminished. It is at this point that M erino’s description of who a mestizo is seems to apply—that this offspring “in general feels . . . closely knitted to his Chinese ancestry and instinctively identifies him self w ith the Chinese community” (1969, 47). Part of the reason for this is that, as the Chinese community in the 1930s had become more close-knit, more nationalistic, and more inward- looking as an ethnic group, efforts were made to turn their “tsutsi-d' offspring into “ian-lang” or “one of their own.” It may be hypothesized that it was during this tim e th a t th e term tsut-si-a w as co in ed — a term th a t is only u sed In the Philippines.275 Thus, even though, in history textbooks the “Chinese mestizos” may have disappeared, they are apparently still “alive” among the Chinese community. In this sense, the tsut-si-a may be likened to the babas in Malaysia. In an attempt to keep their tsut-si-a offspring “Chinese,” Chinese fathers often sent them to one of the several Chinese schools in M anila 276 A s a consequence, many tsut-si-a became more closely identified with the Chinese community (Merino 1969). This may seem like a paradox then: for how was it that seems to indicate that there was a shift from a preference for church marriages to civil ones. However, more study needs to be done to see what factors led to this shift See also Chapter 2, 275 The earliest reference to this word can he found in Yang 1935. 1 would like to thank Go Bon Juan for helping me find this information. He also mentioned to me that for a time, the epithet “rswl- si-a siatT (lit, “sperm of a tsut-si-d’), was used as a derogatory term by the Chinese. However, it seems that no one uses this epithet anymore. 2 ~ '^ The first Chinese school, established la. 1899 and founded by the Chinese Consul General of Manila, was the Anglo-Chinese School. Majority of the first graduates of the school were mestizos (Xiao Lm ong 1949, 103; cf. Wickberg [1965] 2000.188). The number of graduates who belonged to the first class of 1913 was 4. By 1923. there were 20; and is 3 942., the number readied 209 {Xiao Lm ong 1949,453-467), During the American colonial period, the Chinese in the Philippines were allowed to establish and operate their own schools. By 1935, there were 58 Chinese schools in the country. For more Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207 as discrimination against the Chinese increased in the twentieth century, Chinese families with tsut-si-a offspring would stiil try to raise them “Chinese’5 ? One would tend to think that they would encourage their children to “integrate5 ’ into local society instead. A tsut-si-a friend o f mine recounted to me that in her own experience, her Chinese father encouraged her and her siblings to pass themselves off as “Filipinos,” and never a Chinese. According to her, her father’s own experience of being discriminated against as a Chinese left such a negative mark on him that he did not want his children to experience the same difficulties. However, she remembers that in her elementary school years back in the 1960s, she and her siblings were often considered “Chinese” by their teachers and classmates. In fact there was a time when her teachers asked each student what their citizenship was, and segregated the students accordingly. Despite the fact that she repeatedly told them that she was “Filipino,” her teachers still segregated her as “Chinese.” On the other hand, several-generation Chinese mestizos like Corazon Cojuangco Aquino who had long interm arried w ith other Filipino or sim ilarly m estizo fam ilies commonly identify themselves, and are identified by others, as “Filipinos.” My friend’s case may be an exception, but her experience points toward the need for scholars to continue investigating contemporary “mestizo” or “tsut-si-a” self- identifications.277 information regarding the Chinese schools established in the Philippines during the first half of the twentieth century, see A. Tan 1972,154-175. 27' Irene Limpe, a Ph.D. candidate in the Sociology Department o f Cornell University, as of this writing is working on a dissertation on the contemporary identities o f the Chinese and “Chinese Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 In the meantime, what is interesting is that the identities and identifications of these mestizos even long gone from the face of the earth continue to be cast and recast by different interest groups. Today, Mariano Limjap's name still crops up in certain “Chinese" sectors. As I mentioned at the beginning of this chaper, Mariano’s portrait is found in the exhibit of prominent Chinese mestizos at the Kaisa Heritage Center in Intramuros. And in the 1990 edition o f the Dictionary o f Overseas Chinese, published in China, his name is listed (Zhou 1990). On the other hand, Filipino nationalists would have it that he was a Filipino at heart, for he participated in the attempts to fight the Spaniards and the Americans, and helped build the Philippine nation. But as I have tried to show in this chapter, while different hegemonic or interest groups may have a different way o f constructing their identities, throughout their lives, offspring borne of intermarriages often negotiate and renegotiate these identities in ways that allow them to transgress the boundaries set by these groups.278 Seen from the perspective of their lives, the terms “mestizo,’5 “Filipino,” and “Chinese” can only take on different meanings. mestizos” in the Philippines. Using oral interviews, she studies how these people understand their own identities and use cultural and ethnic markets to negotiate them. 278 It is also worthy to note that Manila Chinatown’s most weii-knowa street, Gagpm, is named after a Chinese mestizo, Roman T. Ongpin, whose father was Simon Ongpin, a sangky* and Smfbmsa Tanbensiang, a Chinese mestiza. For more information regarding Roman I , Ongpin, see N H I1990; Ongpin 1984. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 Chapter 5 The Limjaps: The Ethnogenesis of a Chmese-Mestizo-Fifipino Family Introduction As we have seen in the previous chapters, the identities of many Chinese and mestizos of the second half of the nineteenth and the first decade of the twentieth centuries tended to be more fluid and ambiguous than, past scholarship has described them. In this chapter, I hope to amplify this thesis by writing about the life stories of the Limjaps. Moreover, in focusing on one particular family, I hope to encourage more people in the Philippines today to undertake research in reconstituting their family histories. Such research would not only personally enrich their lives, hut also contribute to our deeper understanding of Philippine history and society in general. During preliminary field research for my dissertation in the archives of the Genealogical Society of Utah (GSU). and the Records Management and Archives Office (RMAO) in Manila, I noticed two names that appeared quite frequently in the documents: Joaquin and M ariano Limjap. Looking through secondary source materials, I again discovered their names. Intrigued, I started to gather all the documents that I could find on these two individuals. When I was back in Manila in 2000,1 got a phone call from Raul Boncan y Limjap, who mentioned that he was a direct descendant of Joaquin and M ariano Limjap. He had heard I was doing Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210 research on the Limjaps, and told me that he was doing likewise,279 The re st as they say, is history. Boncan y Limjap and I have been exchanging notes, anti this chapter contains the fruits of this exchange. Joaquin Limjap Joaquin Limjap280 or Lim Cong Jap was bom in 1832, in a house belonging to the Sanjiao fang or branch of the Lim clan, Dongshan village, Longxi county, Fujian province, China (AAM IM 1875-1876, 18.E. 15).28^ The exact date o f Joaquin’s birth is unknown, but he was the twenty-first-generation descendant of the 2/9 How Boncan y Limjap got my phone number was quite serendipitous, I had gone to the Lopez Museum in Manila to use their rich holdings of 19® and early 20* century books, and had left my phone number with the library. The librarian, Mercedita Servida, who knew that Raul Bosean y Limjap was doing the same research, then passed it on to him, Boncan y Limjap was also able to get through Ms cousin Nano Limjap a copy of the paper I presented at a conference in Manila in the summer of 2000. Nano is the son of the Jose “Pepe" Limjap, the second eldest child of Mariano and Maria Limjap. 280 “Limjap” •§ the Hokkiea equivalent of Lin He in Mandarin. Two other names be used were Lins Coneay (GSUBienes de los Difuntos 1858-1894, Bundle/Legajo 13) and Lim Cbmqai (RMAO FD 1867,421, tomo 1. 20 March). 281 xhiS particular information regarding Sanilac Jang comes from the 27 August 2001 letter of Lao Daoxian, Secretary-General of the Overseas ChineseAssociation of Xiamen, and of Luo lian, to Raul Boncan y Limjap. In his baptismal document, the ramanization of the Chinese characters for Longxi xian (county) is written as “Liong Ke,” the Hokkien equivalent. Today, the district of Longxi is now & municipality called Longbai, and is located along the Longxi River, circa 20 kilometers south-west of Zhangzhou, an important city east/south-east of Xiamen. Dongshan village is located circa 25 kilometers west of Longhai municipality, ca. 45 kilometers from Zhangzhou. Ia terms of jurisdiction, Dosgshen falls under the township of Jiaomei. I would like to thank Eugenic* M eaegoa for assisting me ia identifying this locality. It must be noted that one of ihe administrative units in China during rite Qing dynasty was the “district" or xian, which is now translated as “county.” But after 1949, China’s government created another unit called the municipality or ski. as well as the unit zhen or town. They also changed the names of some places; thus, what used to be Longxi xian or district became Longhai ski or municipality. For more information, see Li 1995. See also the photo of Litnjap’s tombstone in Boncan y Limjap 1997, 6. The photo shows that Ms birthplace was Dongshan. However, is Ms testament dated 23 April 1881, Joaquin states that he was born la the town of Tangm (Tongas), province of Longxi (Leonque), China (RMAO FD 1881,443, tomo 1, no. 202). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211 first ancestor Lin Bihuang. Joaquin was the son of Lim Lluc-chon and ofUy-Chi.282 As a child, people called Joaquin “Big Head Jap,” on account of the size of Ms head (Luo and Luo to Boncan y Limjap, 27 August 2001). Little else is known about Ms early life, except that he once worked for several years for a British merchant in Xiamen (He to Boncan y Limjap, 1 January 2001), who later brought Mm to Manila, where Joaquin continued to work for him (Interview, Raul Boncan y Limjap, 24 April 2000). Thus, we do not know exactly when he arrived in the Philippines, and at what age. But like many of his contemporaries, he probably arrived when he was in his late teens. In 1S55, he married Policarpia Noiasco (b. 20 February 1831-d. 9 January 1875), a mestiza of Binondo, and had three sons with her; namely. Mariano, Jacinto, and Apolonio.283 Of these three children, only Mariano and Jacinto survived to adulthood {RMAO FD 1881,443, tomo 1, no. 202).284 After the death of Policarpia, Joaquin, at the age of 44, married Vicenta Hong Ong in Catholic rites on 12 August 1876 (AAM IM 1875-1876, 18.E.15),28s They had no cMidren (RMAO FD 1881,443, tomo L no. 202). Vicenta died on 4 March 28z Nothing else is known about Joaquin's parents, except that, by the year 1881, m d as indicated in Joaquin's testament, they were already deceased (RMAO FD 1881,443, tomo 1 , b o . 202). 283 According to her baptismal certificate, Cipriano Alvares, as Augustimaa friar baptized Policarpia on 23 February 1831, at Tondo. Her father was Ciriaeo Noiasco and her mother Easiaqaia Snares, both of the harangay of a certain “D. Alverto.” Her godparent was Areadio Santiago. At the time of her application to many Joaquin, her parents were already deceased, and her eldest brother Mariano Noiasco gave the consent. Joaquin asked the following to stand as witnesses o f his status and eligibility to contract marriage: Fernando Calderon Lim-Toirjin. Jose Lim Bugued, aad Manuel Lim Cuanco. On the other hand, Policarpia asked the following: Petra Lajun, an india; and Juana Beltran, a mestiza (AAM IM 1855,17.D. 11, folder 5), 284 Apolonio died when he was six months old. 28^ According to the documents subm itted to the Archdiocese of M anila in applying for this marriage, Vicenta was bom in Xiamen. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212 1886, and less than a year later, on 8 January 1887, Joaquin, at the age of 55, married Agustina de los Santos (RMAO EBC 1887, 863, tomo 1, no. 72). This union, likewise, did not produce any children.286 While in Manila, Joaquin lived in Binondo. When he drew up his testament in 1881, his residence was located at a small street between Rosario and Anloague. But as we will see below, he often traveled to China for both personal and business reasons. Thus, he kept residences in three locations: Manila, his hometown, and Gulangyu.287 He also had businesses in several places, including Manila, Macao, and Hong Kong. Apart from the three children he had with Policarpia, Joaquin had the following children from China (RMAO EBC 1893, 869, tomo 2, no. 213; Luo to Boncan. 27 August 2001): * Lin Shanghu or Valentin Lim-Siong O - adopted son, second in the genealogical line 288 * Lin Shangwen or Jose Lim-Siong Bun - adopted son, third in line * Lin Shangya - fifth in line * Lin Shanggang or Francisco Lim Siong Cang - sixth in line ^ This is in accordance with the knowledge of the Jcaquia's descendants h i China that he had three wives (Luo and Luo to Boncan y Limjap, 27 August 2001). On the other hand, the descendants whom I got to know in the Philippines did sot know that lie had remanded after Policarpia's death. z8' A small island across from Xiamen, Fujian Province. Gulangyu was where many of the consulates and residences of foreigners were located at the tam of the twentieth centay. 28b The names given here are spelled in pinyin, followed by the Hokfcien version. In the genealogical records of the Limjap family, Mariano stood first in line and Jacinto fourth. Apolonio is not listed, although he must have been either eighth or ninth. It must be noted that “shang” in piny in Chinese or "siong" in Hokkiee was the generational same of these “Chinese” seas. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 • Lin Shangqi or Antonio Lim Siong Chit - seventh in line * Lin Shangkui or Lim Siong Que - adopted after Joaquin’s death, tenth in line It can not be ascertained if Lin Shangya, Lin Shanggang. and Lin Shangqi were also adopted. Neither do I know if Joaquin had a Chinese wife with whom he adopted Lin Shanghu, Lin Shangwen, and Lin Shangkui. According to my research, Joaquin in his testament declared Lin Shanghu and Lin Shangwen to be adopted sons, but in the Chinese genealogical chart, only Lin Shangkui was mentioned as being adopted.289 The fact that Lin Shanghu, Lin Shangwen, Lin Shanggang, and Lin Shangqi had Spanish names meant that they also traveled to the Philippines aad were baptized. In fact, Lin Shangwen was married to a native woman in the Philippines, and possibly had a child with her by the name of Lin Genshen290 In the Chinese genealogical record, Lin Shangkui, the tenth son, was also listed as having married a woman with a name transliterated as Juliana. Thus, he too must have traveled to the Philippines where he married this woman Juliana 291 However, he and the other siblings listed above at some point in their lives must have all returned to China, z89 In the Chinese genealogical chart j asi beneath the branch bearing Liu Shanghai's descendants, it “ . . . is alleged that the wife of Lim Cong Jap adopted Lin Shantou after his death.” However, I cannot ascertain which wife is being referred to here (Luo to Boncan 27 August 2001). ■ 'X 5 0 “ It cannot be ascertained whether Lin Genshen was the son of Lin Shangwen by the wife in the Philippines because Shangwen also had a second wife by the name o f Qiit Cat {which means “celery”). And in the genealogical chart, it is unclear which wife Genshen was a direct descendant of. 291 It might also be possible that Juliana was brought to China from the Philippines. But until further information can be gathered, the presumption is that Lim Siong Q m also traveled to the Philippines and met Juliana there. As for the other siblings, Lin Shanghu "s wife was someone sumamed Xu or Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 since their descendants now live in China, As we have seen in Chapter 4, Antonio Lim Siong-Chit, Francisco Lim Slong Gang, and Lim Siong Que were ail in China in 1900 when Mariano and Jacinto donated the sum of 3,000 pesos to them (RMAO GH 1900, 829, tomo 7, no. 1117). However, it is also possible that some of them died in the Philippines, and that it was their descendants who later returned to China. In the last years of Ms life, Joaquin decided to retire in China. He died on the island of Gulangyu on 31 January 1888, at the age of 56.292 He was buried in Gulangyu,293 although later his bones were brought to Manila and re-interred at the Limjap Chapel located in the North Cemetery (Boncan y Limjap 1997. 15-16).294 That he was buried in Manila was Ms wish as stipulated in Ms will.293 It was reported that when he died he left “some one hundred thousand pesos worth of properties and assets” (Manuel 1955, 248; NHI 1996, 153),29b Co in Hokkien; the names of the wives of Lin Stiangya and L® Shangqi are unknown, while that of Lin Shanggang was Huang SJnrixian. 292 Another document states that he died on 1 February, in the city of Xiamen (RMAO EBC 1893. 869, tomo 2, no. 213). 293 There is picture of a tombstone appearing in Bemoan y Limjap (! 997.6). However, the tomb does not exist today (Boncan y Limjap 2000,3). According to Luo’s letter, it was upon the “request of {Joaquin’s} descendants/grandsons in the Philippines [that] his ashes [be] transferred to the Philippines” (letter to Raul Boaean y Limjap, 27 August 2001). It must be noted feat the reburial of tones in ajar is a standard Minnan -Taiwan practice. 293 In the second clause of his second testament, he stipulated that his body be “buried in the La Loma cemetery and in the mausoleum (ponteon) built on his property” (RMAO BBC 1887,863, tomo 1, no. 72). Mariano Limjap had the present Limjap Chapel constructed la 1913 (Boaean y lim jap 1997,16). It is not d ea r whether Joaquin's bones were first placed in fee La Loose Cemetery and later on transferred to the North Cemetery. The vast extent of his property holdings can be seen in the number of properties he left for Mariano. These included the following: buildings in Binoado with addresses on no. 12 Honniga Street, no. 22 Anioague Street, no. 27 Fajardo Street, no.7 Hormiga Street, so. 1 Olivares Street, no. 23 San Jacinto Street, no. 44 San Jacinto Street; a lot numbered I in Barrio A gaik, Toado; a lot in Antipole; and a lot in Uio-uli Barrio, San Miguel (RMAO BBC 1893,869, tomo 2, no. 213). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 The various businesses established by Joaquin both in the Philippines and elsewhere indeed made him a very rich man. Wickberg calls him a “prosperous sugar, tobacco, and hemp merchant” {[1965] 2000, 216). According to Boncan y Limjap, Joaquin began his business giving crop loans on agricultural products that were much in demand for export. After Joaquin died, a very rich businessman of Cavite and a business associate, Antonio Osorio, bought out Joaquin’s business interests (1997,16). The following, based on notarial records left by Joaquin and by his business associates, is a partial list of Joaquin’s businesses: (In Manila and other parts of the Philippines) • Two silk stores located in Binondo with Manuel Pascuai Dy Beayeng as co-owner (RMAO FD 1872, 427, tomo 2: no, 5 12)297 • Another silk store located in Molo, Iloilo, bought from Timoteo Nolasco ofTondo (RMAO FD 1878,436, tomo 2, no. 850) • A bakery called '‘Panaderia Nacional” co-owned with his son Mariano, Yldefonso Tambimting and Leandro Pereira (RMAO FD 1879,438, tomo 2, no. 567) • A company dealing in assorted merchandise called “Jo-Seng,” co-owned with Antonio Feliciano Dy-Llianco (RMAO FD 1879, 438, tomo 2, no. 770)298 • A sari-sari store (store o f assorted goods) located under the house of Antonio Alberto Chia Chiombeng on Rosario Street Binondo, and co owned with Victoriano Reyes Lim-Quianco a k.a. Lim Tolian299 ' The first store of silk was located on no. 4 on the first street of Santo Ciisto, and the other store on no. 3 on the same street Both were placed under the charge of Lim Censnan (later known as Juan Zarate Lim Consuan; RMAO FD 1872, 427, tomo 2. no. 512). Dy Benyeng’s name sometimes appears as Lv Bianeng. But for consistency, I will be using By Beayeng. DOS On 3 November 1879, Joaquin and Antonio agreed to liquidate this company since Llianco was retaining to China (RMAO FD 1879,438, tomo 2, no. 770) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 • Shares from Banco Espafio! Filipino, in other companies, and other credits and collectibles amounting to 100,000 pesos300 (In Hong Kong) • A trading company named “Cong Jangtoy” established on 8 April 1865, together with Lim Guinchi and Lim Gulanlian (RMAO FD 1867, 421, tomo 1, 18 March. S733-735) * A botica (drugstore) called “Gulchiang" co-owned with Mariano Roxas Lim Enehang and Vicente Lorenzo Chimtiangco (RMAO FD 1872,427. tomo 2, no. 512) * An unnamed company co-owned with Chan Caoco, Lim Suillan and Manuel Pascuai Dy Benveng (RMAO FD 1878,436, tomo 2, no. 932)3 < J i (In Macao) # A trading house called “Tianjo” co-owned with Mariano Roxas Lim Enehang and Vicente Lorenzo Chunfiangco (RMAO FD 1875, 431, tomo 2, no. 331) (Location Unknown) • A company called “Tiangjapconqui” co-owned with Mariano Roxas Lira Enehang and Vicente Lorenzo Chuntiangco; probably in Hong Kong or Xiamen (RMAO FD 1875,431, tomo 2, no. 331) Thus, as we can see, Joaquin's business empire was located in different countries, reflecting the border-crossing ways of rich merchants and traders of his time. Because he could not be in all places at the same time, he had to grant powers- of-attomey to the following people: 299 This store was started on 5 June 1873 (RMAO IT) 1 879, 439. tomo I, no. 131). o O O xjjese shares were later sold to Vicente Lorenzo Chuntiangco {RMAO FD 1881,443 tomo I. no. 202). 301 Dy Benyeng became a partner when, on 31 December 1878, Joaquin and Caan Casco sold him the shares of Domingo Ayala Yu Yengco, who at the tune was in. China, for the mm of 8,002 pesos and 4 reales (RMAO FD 1878.436, tomo 2, so. 932). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 * Lim Guiaquiong to sell the goods and collect the debts of “Cong Jangtoy” in Hong Kong (RMAO FD 1867, 421, tomo 1, 18 March, S733~735)3°2 * Mariano Limjap, Ms own son, to represent Mm in all Ms businesses in the Philippines after he returned to China in 1881 (RMAO VP, Mariano Limjap 1820-1895, f. 25) * Adriano Marcelo to represent him in his business interests in Iloilo (RMAO VP, Mariano Limjap 1820-1895, f, 60) * Chi a Guetong and Gui-Chiang-Song, both based in Hong Kong, and to whom Joaquin granted authority to seek out and instigate litigation proceedings against two individuals. Yap Btmfo and Yap Butman, who fled from Manila while owing him money (RMAO FD 1878, 436, tomo 2, no. 680) Moreover, the following Chinese merchants granted Joaquin the power to represent them, either in Manila or in China: * Jia Majue of Binondo, leaving for China, gave Joaquin the authority to collect from Cha Cangco the debt of 800 pesos (RMAO FD 1866, 420, tomo 1, S341B-342) * Lim Moyang of Binondo, leaving for China, gave Joaquin the power to collect the debt of 3.500 pesos owed to him by Francisco Yriarte Ong Machi (RMAO FD 1872s 427, tomo 2, no. 655). * Manuel Pascuai Dy Benyeng, leaving for China, gave Joaquin the authority to manage a house in a property located on Jaboneros Street, San Nicolas, as well as to look after the two silk stores that they co owned (RMAO FD 1872,427, tomo 2, no, 512)303 * Juan Zarate Lim Consuan, leaving for China, granted the power-of- attorney, in the first instance, to Joaquin: in the second to Manuel Dy Benyeng; and in the third to Mariano Limjap, to represent him in his 30i Tjjjg power was granted after one of the co-owners, Lira Guianlian, who was the person in charge of running the company in Hong Kong, became “habitually sick'’ (aehaqmz habituate), Lim Guianlian then assigned Lim Guiaquiong to take over the management of the company, with the consent of the other two co-owners (RMAO FD 1867,421, tomo 1,18 March, S733-735). One of the interesting powers granted to Joaquin was to sign paym ents in behalf of the businesses, as well as use the Chinese seal of the said stones when seeded. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 businesses in Manila and in the provinces (RMAO FD 1878,436, tomo 2, no. 887)304 * Vicente Lorenzo Chung Tiangco and Po Guiao gave Joaquin power to collect the debts owed to them by Ong Pangco and Vicente Marcaida Ong Sungco a.k.a. Ong Tico (RMAO FD 1879, 438, tomo 2, no. 486)3to * Chua Guimsy and Vicente Lorenzo Chun Contiang, both of Binondo, granted power-of-attomey to Joaquin, who at the time was in China, to collect the debt of 1,202 pesos and 1 real, front Chan Simco, who was in China himself, and who incurred this debt from procuring goods from the chucheria (knickknack) store owned by Vicente Lorenzo Chun Contiang (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 1, no. 196)306 Finally, as he was a person of wealth and influence, Joaquin had many people come to him to borrow money. The following people owed Joaquin at his death these specific amounts of money: * Paula Millan -1,000 pesos3® * Dy Guecju of Binondo and Dy Ganchiao of Balayan, Batangas - 1,000 pesos308 304 Juan Zarate Lim Consuan was Joaquin’s cousin (RMAO PD 1881,443, tomo 1, no. 202). 303 The amounts involved were 1,420 pesos and 4 reales owed to Vicente Lorenzo Chung Tiaagco, and 758 pesos, 7 reales, sod 11 cuartos owed to Po Guiao. Joaquin negotiated for She payment of this debt with. 50 percent of each debt to be paid outright, and the other half to be paid in eight months and in four installments. Thus, 710 pesos and 2 reales went to Vicente Lorenzo Chung linage© and 379 pesos and 11 cuartos went to Po Guiao. For the remaining debt, Paulino Reyna Uy-Pangeo and Antonio Caong acted as guarantors (R M A O FD 1879,438, tomo 2, no. 486). The store was located at no. 16 Rosario Street, Binondo. Joaquin was also empowered to issue the receipt in case of payment, and to resort to the proper authorities I s case of non-payment. Furthermore, he was authorized to exercise all that is necessary' within law to collect fee debt {RMAO FD 1882,445, tomo 1, no. 1%). j0/ The money was used for the expenses in completing the five buildings in two lots situated in Sm Nicolas, Binondo. The loan was to be paid with a iO-pereeat annual interest al the end o f 6 months, counting from the dav she received if A s guarantee, she mortgaged these five buildings fRMAQ FD 1867, 421, tomo 2,8465-466). 308 Dy Guecju was the father of Dy Ganchiao. They' received the loan on 3 December 1866. and the terns included paying the within a year, with a 10-percent interest. A ll the goods they' had is their business both in Manila and in Batangas were placed as guarantee (RMAO FD 1867,421 tomo 2 S505B-506B). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 • Jos6 and Maximo Nibungco - 383 pesos (RMAO FD 1871,426, tomo 2, no. 365) • The widow Oregona Nolasco - 400 pesos {RMAO FD 1871, 426, tomo 2, no. 466)309 • Mariano Pigni of Binondo - 324 pesos and 6 reales3 ^ * Uy Dingco - 12,369 pesos and 18 cuartos (RMAO FD 1877,435, tomo 2, no. 691) * Juan Ong Ton] in and Ong Ensin - 5,000 pesos-1 3 • Ong Songleng and Go Yaoti - 5,000 pesos312 * Domingo Aldecoa Uy Siaopang, Chua-Huco, Tan-Guinsi, Tiaag-Niseag, and Chi-Juatgo - 400 pesos, with 12 percent interest (RMAO FD 1878, 436, tomo 2, no. 875) * Vicente Barreda Dy-Gangco of Batangas - 1,000 pesos with an annual interest of 12 percent313 • Victoriano Reyes Lim Tolian - 10,073 pesos314 * Vicente Lorenzo Chun Contiang -10,721 pesos and 9 cents315 309 xiiis could be fee mother of Joaquin's wife Poliearpia, J 1 1 1 In order to pay off this debt, Mariano, a Chinese, transferred Ms credit of 202 pesos, 4 reales, and 15 cuartos—a credit representing fee debt owed him by a certain Lao Chase©—to Joaquin. Bat the remaining debt o f 121 pesos, 4 reales would be paid by him on a certain date (RMAO FD 3872,427, tomo 2, no. 804). J1 1 Of file 5,000, 2,000 pesos were subjected to an annual interest rate of 12 percent from the date of loan, while the other 3,000 pesos was without premium (RMAO FD 1878,436, tomo 2, no. 721). 312 Both Ong Songleng and Go Yaoti were from Binondo. Half of the 5,000 pesos were to be paid at 12 percent interest, and fee loan was to be used in their company. The other half was without premium and payable in China (RMAO FD 1878,436, tomo 2, no. 850). ■ j l - ? The loan was used to buy sugar, and the payment would include the amount produced in fee sale of fee sugar. "Hie debtors assigned Fernando Yriarte Dy-Sico and Dy-Tuaco, both living in BiBonsfo, as guarantors (RMAO FD 1878, 436, tomo 2, no. 884). 314 Lim Tolian received the loan m two ways: one for the quantity of 2,943 pesos and 13 cuartos to be paid back without interest, and the other for fee sum of 7,130 pesos 5 reales and 16 cuartos, to be paid wife an annual 12 percent interest. As guarantee, he used his sari-sari store itim da de clmcheria; variety store), with fee address of no. 31. Rosario Street, and situated on fee property of Vicente Cuyugan. His debt also had to be restructured, to which Joaquin agreed (RMAO FD 1878, 436, tomo 2, no. 923). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 0 • Bonifacio Poguio Paodico and Vlcenta de Castro - 100 pesos, with an interest of 13 percent316 * Esteva Tan. Chinco y Tan Cham - 577 pesos and 40 cents, to be paid 25 pesos monthly at 12 percent annual interest317 The point of presenting these data is not only to show how rich Joaquin was. but also to show how, in order for Mm to achieve such success, he relied on or dealt with people from his own ethnic group as well as from other groups. For business partners, it seems that Joaquin chose mostly Chinese people, with the exception of Yldefonso Tambunting, who was a mestizo. In fact, he might have also relied on a network of relatives or people from his hometown to start, up or help manage his businesses. Aside from his own sons, Joaquin had several relatives in the Philippines. One of them was Fernando Calderon Lim Tory in, who belonged to the same generation as Joaquin.318 Their relationship was close, for in his testament 316 This amount was actually incurred after Joaquin took over the debt of Vicente Lorenzo Chun Contiang who owed the Sefiores Holliday Wyce and Compafita the money. In so doing, Chun Contiang, through his nephew Antonio Barrera Chum Chiangseng. passed on the collectible debts of 11.200 pesos to Joaquin. This amount w as owed by a number of Chinese, who owed it to the company "Con Sy Jap Qui” that Contiang owned (RMAO FD 1879,438, tomo 2, no. 731 ). 316 This amount was to be paid within a year, and as guarantee the couple mortgaged a wooden house with a nipa roof, as well as a lot in Bacaor. After a year, the loan was paid back and Mariano Limjap. empowered by Joaquin to represent him, revoked the IOU (RMAO FD 1881,443, tomo 2, so. 567). ’ Esteva Tan Chinco and Tan Cham, both of Binondo, used their lumber and implements store, with the address of no. 30 San Jacinto Street. Binondo. as guarani® {RMAO FD 1883,447. tomo 2, no, 677). 318 Fernando Lim Tonjin (spelled Tojin in other documents) was bom in L osgxi (Liongque), and lived in Binondo and was registered under the number 6980 of the 4" class (a tax classification). He received instruction in tie Catholic doctrine, in the Spanish language, as certified by the parish priest of Binondo Antonio Carrillo, O.P. on 13 April 1850. Upon this certification, and the compliance of all others requirements mandated by the circular 10 December 1848, Fernando was granted baptism on April 17. He was baptized on April 21, with Fernando Calderon as hispatkino (godfather). Thus, he changed his name to Fernando Jose Calderon Lim Tonjin. He was 17 years old at feat time (AAM SCSB 1833-1850,34.D .I0, folder 2). In 1852 at the age of 20, lie married Tomasina de Saa Gabriel ofBocaue, Bulacan. Tomasina was 18 at that time, a mestiza, and a resident o f Toado, The witnesses Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221 Fernando named Joaquin executor (RMAO BD, 1858-1894, Bundle 13). Another was his cousin Juan Zarate Lim-Consuan, to whom he bequeathed 2,000 pesos for the services and care that Juan had given to him. We also know that he had a brother named Lim-Conquiam, and cousins named Lim Congtiong, Lim-Ang-0 Lim- Congjiang, Lim-Congliap, Lim-Conchio, the last three being the sons of Ms uncle Lim-Sinchong359 But he could not have achieved Ms success without the help of non-Chinese individuals. For instance, Ms wife Policarpia Nolasco, who was reported to be from a rich family, must have provided Mm with some form of financial assistance.320 Another indication of his reliance on other non-Chinese individuals was the fact that he had requested Joaquin Barrera and his wife Joaquina Caldes, both non-Chinese, to be his godparents in baptism. And as a token of his they produced were: Manuel So-Yaseo, sangley, from Cbiacaa, and living in Binondo, married, and 35 years old; and Ysabelo de Vera, indio, a resident of Binondo, and married. Their request was granted on the 17 January 1852 (A A M IM 1852,17.C.9, folder 6). The\' had the following children: Juliana (b. 16 February 1856), and Maria (h, 29 July 1857). Juliana mamed Juan Pardo Tang-Silo. At the time of their marriage application on 28 of June 1872, Juan was 30 years old, a tendero (storekeeper), a Christian Chinese, born in Longxi, and a resident o f Binondo (AAM IM 1872, 18.D.10). Maria married Josd Elizaga Chua-Queto, who at the time of the marriage application was 29 years old, a tendero, a Christian Chinese, born in Longxi, and a resident of Pandacan. Maria’s brother-in-law, Juan Pardo Tang Silo, acted as one of the witnesses, and identified himself as vhtdo (widowed). This meant that Juliana had died within six years o f their marriage {'AAM IM 1878, 19.A.3, folder 10). his first testament, Joaquin stipulated that the following relatives receive the following amount of money: his brother Lim-Conquiam, 1.000 pesos; Lim Congtiong, 400 pesos; and to Lim-Ang-O, Lim-Congjiang, Lim-Congliap, Lim-Conchio, sons of his uncle Lim-Sinchong, 200 pesos each (RMAO FD 1881,443, tomo 1, no. 202). In a revised testament, lie also left behind 1 5 , pesos for his adoptive sons Lin Shanghai (Valentin Lim-Sione O), and Lin Shangwen {Jose Lim-Sione Bun; (RMAO EBC 1893,869, tomo 2, no. 213). The extent of her wealth can. be seen, for example, in the amount of money she left behind for Mariano, who inherited 91,095,70 pesos, as well as another 64,341.20 pesos as mejora (the amount o f money larger than the share a legatee by law had a right to) {The Independent, 4 March 1926; of. Boncan y Limjap 1997,15), Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222 gratitude for all the favors that he had received from Joaquina, Joaquin bequeathed her LO G O pesos (RMAO FD 1881,443, tomo 1, no. 202).32i Community participation in China and the Philippines Having been bom in China, Joaquin remained deeply connected to his mother country. As mentioned above, he often visited China, and chose to retire there until his death. In 1887, during what could have been the last time he departed for China from the Philippines, he gave his third wife, Agustina de los Santos, the choice of either accompanying Mm back to China and staying there until his death, after which she could decide to return to Manila, or not accompanying him to China at all. This arrangement was spelled out in his second testament. It is stipulated in the 17* clause that he leaves to his wife Agustina de ios Santos a house numbered 7, and situated in Plaza de Santa Cruz, plus the quantity o f 2,000 pesos. She would be inheriting these if she accompanied Joaquin on the trip that he was taking to China and continued by his side. But in the event she refused to accompany him to China, or if she decided to return to Manila, she would then only inherit the money, and the house would become part of Joaquin’s general goods to be distributed to his other heirs (RMAO EBC 1887, 863, tomo 1, no. 72). Apparently, she did accompany him back to China, for in a document drawn up four years later by Mariano and Jacinto Limjap stipulating how Joaquin’s inheritance was being partitioned among his heirs, I believe that one of the children of Joaquin Barrera and Joaquina CaMes was Enrique Barrera y Caldez, who became one of the notary publics to whom Joaquin Limjap would also go for legal matters. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223 it is indicated that the house belonged to her (RMAO EBC 1893, 869, tomo 2, no, 213). During one of his trips back to Ms village, he began construction of a large mansion. The mansion today sits on a lot of more than a thousand square meters, and has 99 rooms. It is customarily called in Dongshan the “Great Mansion of 99 rooms,” and is now 110 years old.322 Joaquin did not live to see the completion of the mansion in 1891, having passed away two years before. With the prosperity he gained in the Philippines, he also sent contributions three times to the ancestral hall of the Lin family in Dongshan. The total of Ms donation amounted to 7,568 English pounds (or 30 ounces o f gold), which was used to repair the hall. This deed is memorialized in a still extant stone inscription in the Lin ancestral hall, and the private family shrine is popularly known as “Black Sword Gun” {Boncan j Limjap. e-mail communication,, 10 February 2002; Luo to Boncan, 27 August 2001), He also contributed some money to the Zui Xian Yan (Drunken Immortal Grotto) temple in Xiamen. An inscription carved on a stone tablet in the temple states that Joaquin, along with several others from Hong Kong, contributed “two dollars” to this temple in the fourth year of the Guangxu period (i.e., in 1878).323 But ju st as he was active in philanthropic activities in China and in Ms hometown, he was equally active in Manila. He helped found the Chinese Charitable is said to have built another house in the village (Luo and Luo to Boncan v Limtap, e-aiaii communication, 28 June 2001). 32j Thus, it can be inferred that at the time he was in Hoag- Kong (He to Boaean v Limjap 1 January 2001). ~ ' Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224 Association in 1877 and became one of its directors (Boncan y Limjap,, e-mail communication. 7 December 2000). In fact, in the Chinese Cemetery north of Manila today, a street is named after him, in honor of his role as one of the founders of the Association {Boncan y Limjap 2000, 5).324 When an attempt was made to establish a Chinese consulate in Manila, he was one of the four Chinese merchant leaders who went to Hong Kong in 1886 to submit the petition (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 215- 216) 325 Thus, he was a well-recognized leader of the Chinese community in the Philippines.326 From these activities, we can also see his concern for and attachment to the Philippines. Spanish citizenship a id his Catholicism Furthermore, Joaquin expressed his loyalty to Spain in two ways. H ie first was by obtaining Spanish citizenship. As pointed out in Chapter 1, the Spanish government in 1840 had made it possible for the Chinese to become subjects. I do not have the exact date when Joaquin Limjap applied for naturalization, but in a A mural can be found today in the Chinese cemetery in Manila listing the founders of the Chinese Charitable Association (Boncan y Limjap 2000, a,p.) The other three were Yap Liong-quin (who may be Fraaciso Menzano Yap-Tico or Antonio Yap Caong), Carlos Palanca Tan Quien-sien or Tan Chuev-liong, and Co Chi-iui (who may be Federico Co Sequieng or Juan Leearos Co-Lico). They were petitioning Cfaan Yui-huan, who was the Chinese ambassador to Spain, and who was passing by Hong Kong on Ms way to his post. The request was granted but nothing came out of it as Spain was embroiled ia its own problems fWickberg [1965] 2000, 215-216). 1,26 Like other influential Chinese,. Joaquin was also asked to become the padriao of other Chinese. For example, he stood as godfather o f Dy-Ganeo, who was baptized on 8 September I860, at the Binondo Church. And as was the practice, Oy-Casco adopted a Christianized name, and used the same Hispanic surname Barrera, as Joaquin did. Thus, he became Vicente Barrera Dy-Ganeo (AAM IM 1875. 18.E.14, folder 8). Another person who asked Joaquin to be Ms godfather was Buenaventura Chun Tianiay, who was baptized on 15 September 1878 {AAM IM 1885, I9.E.13, folder 2). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 5 document dated 23 April 1881, he was already identified as a Spanish subject (RMAO VP, Mariano Limjap, f. 25). The second way by which he expressed his loyalty to Spain was to be baptized a Catholic.327 He even became a tertiary of the Dominican Third Order 328 Thus, in Ms testament he stipulated that after his death, his body was to be shrouded with the habit of Santo Domingo and that it be buried in La Loma Cemetery, where Catholic Chinese were buried. Even though he went to China during his last years, he still wanted to be buried in the Philippines. Thus, we can. see that his loyalties were both to Ms Chinese and Spanish/Catholic heritages. Later life/death As mentioned above, Joaquin died on 31 January 1888, The 12* month and 20th day of the lunar calendar is his sacrificial day, when his ritually legitimate descendants in China come together to w orship. Today, am ong Joaquin’s descendants in Dongshan there are altogether six households from four branches of the family, i.e., those that descended from Lin Shanghu, Lin Shangwen. Lin Shanggang, and Lin Shanghai, Of the six households, there are currently three living 3 i/ Mariano Santiago, the parish priest o f Santa Cruz, baptized Joaquin on 15 D ecem ber 1852. Joaquin was 20 years old at the time. H is birthplace w as listed as Quanzhou (Chsa Chiu), and godparents ware Fulgencio Barrera, a Spaniard from Europe who was also a Marine Captain, and Ms wife Joaquina Caldes de Barrera. Interestingly, he named himself after Ms godmother, instead of Ms godfather. Jose de San Agasha, a Dominican priest in charge o f administering to the spiritual needs o f the Chinese belonging to the San Gabriel parish, certified Joaquin’s Catholic indoctrltjation on 8 October 1855, Joaquin was examined in “Ms own language” (AAM IM 1855,17.D. 11, folder 5). S ecular m em bers o f th e Third O rder of St. Dominic “ live their liv es like o th ers o f th e ir profession, but...privately take up practices of austerity, recite some liturgical Office, aa<3 wear some symbol o f the Dominican h a b it” (http:/.%ww,irewadvem.org,f cathen/1463?b.htm}. They c a n be married, single, cleric or lay. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 in the “99-room mansion” (Luo to Boncan, 27 August 2001 ).329 On the other hand, Joaquin’s descendants in the Philippines from his two sons Mariano and Jacinto have prospered and multiplied, and it is Mariano to which this chapter now turns it attention 330 Mariano Limjap Personal background As mentioned in Chapter 4, Mariano Limjap was bora in Manila on 29 October 1856, He was the first son of Joaquin Limjap and Folicarpia Nolasco, and is also placed first in the genealogical line following his father’s generation. Nothing else is known about his childhood, except that he was bom (and probably grew up) in Binondo. He was first married to Juana Siaosingco (b. 1858 - d. 23 February 1885), The date of their marriage can not be ascertained, but it must have been around 1880, when Mariano was 24 years old. A year later, they had their first child Maria Narciso, who only lived for a few months. The next two children also died at a young age, and only two survived to adulthood. These two were Mariano 329 The genealogy, bring patriiineaily based, does not record female children, and thus it can not be ascertained whether Joaquin had any daughters. ■>301 have chosen to focus only on M ariano and not an Jacinto for mainly two reasons: 1) Mariano w as m o re w ell-know n and active politically during his tim e; and 2) I found more docum ents pertaining to Mariano. However, one can also find at the RM AO notarial records drawn up by Jacinto. For other details about Jacinto’s life, see Boncan y Limjap 1997, 25-28; 2000, 1-2, section on Jacinto Limjap), Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22? “Marianito” Limjap, Jr. (b. 11 October 1884 - d. 31 March 1948), and Gregorio “Goying” Limjap (b. 28 November 1885 - d. 5 April 1953).33* On 2 May 1886, a little over a year after the death of Juana, Mariano married Maria Escolar y Cochay (b. 25 March 1865 - d . 7 April 1941). Together, they had seven children who survived to adulthood: Leonarda, Jose, Esperanza, Pacencia, Francisco, Felisa, and Pedro. Three also died young.332 As o f 1890, M ariano registered his residence at no. 9 Hormiga Street in Binondo. But he later moved to Quiapo, and then finally to San Miguel, where the lot of his mansion on no. 831 Calle Echague measured more than 3,400 sq. meters, and looked out onto the Pasig River.333 This was the house where he and his family would host lavish parties for friends, business associates, and foreign dignitaries.334 The first three children who died when young were M aria Narciso (b. 27 October 1881 - d. 28 June 1882; thus at approx. 8 months old); Joaquin Maria Bemahe (b, 11 Jane 1883 ~ d . 23 May 1885, approx. 2 years old); and Eusebio A ndres (b. 15 D ecem ber 1884 - d. 20 M arch 1885; approx. 8 months old) (The Independent 4 M arch 1926). However, some discrepancies in the dates should be noted, for how could Goying be bom in November 1885, when Juana was supposed to have died in February 1885? Also how could Marianito be bom O ctober 1884, and Eusebio D ecem ber 1884? When I asked Raul Boncan y Limjap about i t he could not explain, the disparity either. ~32 These three children who died were: Josefa Hemenegilda (b. 13 April 1888 - d, 22 December 1888; 8 months); Manuel Apolonio Domingo (b. 23 July 1889 3 November 1889; 4 months old); Maria Isabel (b. 19 November 1891 - d. 5 November 1893; 2 vears old) (The Independent, 4 M arch 1926). - ,33 A s late as May 1902, Mariano listed his residence in Quiapo (RMAO CR 1902,856, tomo 2, no. 375). But by August o f the same year, he was already residing in Sac Miguel. 3>t The house fronted the Calle Echague and extended ail the way to the Pasig River. It later boasted a huge courtyard (that also became a venue for holding parties or banquets), a swimming pets!, a small bowling alley, and a basketball court. Inside, lavish pieces of furniture from Europe and China filled the rooms. D uring the Japanese occupation, the house w as ased as a Naval office sad a shipyard established at the back o f the property. However, the Japanese later destroyed the house before the Liberation (Boncan y Limjap 1997. 3*2-33, 55-6). For a more detailed description o f the house, see Boncan y Limjap 1997. For a photograph of the house, see Boaean y lim jap 2000. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228 He died on 4 March 1926,335 His body is buried in the North Cemetery. His brother Jacinto, his daughter Feiisa (30 January 1902 - d. 23 August 1980), her husband Marcelo T. Boncan (b. 21 December 1889 - d. 10 September 1948), and other relatives are also buried there,33b Business dealings As we look into his business dealings, we can see that Mariano interacted with people of different ethnic groups, forming intimate associations with them that may have been characteristic of mestizos like him. Also, we can see his border- crossing ways as a precursor of today’s Chinese and Filipino transnationalism. Mariano inherited huge sums of money from both his mother and father, and was an astute businessman himself. While Ms father was alive, he was a partner in Ms businesses, and designated as Ms father’s representative whenever the latter was away. For instance, when he was only 22 years old, he established, on behalf of his father, the “Panaderia NacionaT bakeshop with Ytdefonso Tambuntmg and Leandro Pereira. In the contract he signed together with these business associates, Mariano and Yldefonso would each invest the amount of 500 pesos. On the other hand, Leandro would be in charge of managing the direction of the elaboration of all kinds of bread that were necessary for the establishment, as well as the management o f the This date is based on the Manila Times article of 5 March 1926, which states that he died at 11:45 p.m. o f 4 M arch. H ow ever, The Tribum reported on the sam e day that he died at 12:30 in the morning of 5 March. On Ms tombstone, it is stated that he died on 4 March 1926. 33^ Others who are buried there include M ariano5 father Joaquin, his w ife M aria: Apolonio; Simona Ablaza, wife of Jose “Pepe” Limjap, second eldest child o f Mariano and Maria; Francisco Limjap Sr. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 9 workers. For his part, Mariano agreed to work in front of the Panaderia as the dispatcher of goods. Apart from being in charge of receiving cargoes coming from the provinces and from particular individuals, he also was to manage the accounts of the establishment while Yldefonso would be in charge of handling and closing the cash register, of the items bought and sold, and of the expenses that would he incurred, including salaries (RMAO FD 1878, 436, tomo 2, no. 900). On another occasion, he canceled the contract arising from a loan made by Bonifacio Poguio Paodico and Vicenta de Castro to his father, after the couple had paid the loan and the corresponding interest.337 The year was 1882, when his father was recorded as being in China. In that year, Mariano also negotiated and signed the contract of retroventa (i.e., an agreement that would allow the original seller of the lot to buy it back after some time), under which Catalino Jocson. who had sold a lot to Joaquin in July 1879, bought it back three years later.338 Thus, as with many other young men. whether those coming from China, or mestizo children like him, Mariano started out as an apprentice, or assistant to his father. It was probably only after his father died in 1888 when Mariano finally became his own man, and the recognized patriarch of the Limjaps. Together with Ms (b. 19 November 1858- d . 2 October 1905), seventh child; and Socorro II. Limjap (b, 29 August 1907 - d. 26 February 1976), wife of Francisco. ■ ’3’ Or, 7 June 1879. the couple borrowed 100 pesos from Joaquin, with a 13 percent anneal interest They promised to pay the amount with interest after the end of one year. In turn, they guaranteed their “house of wood and with a nipa roof, as well as a lot in Bacoor.” After the couple had paid off the loan and the interest. Mariano then drew up a contract on 21 November 1881 canceling the loan made (RMAO FD 1881,443. tomo 2, no. 567). The lot was sold to Joaquin for 224 pesos, and was situated is the barrio of San Roque, Quiapo. Catalino bought it back for the same pice (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 1, b o . 92). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230 brother Jacinto, Mariano established in March 1888 the company called “Limjap y Compafria,” which was a commission house that had a branch in Iloilo, and represented the Po On and Chai On Marine Insurance companies of Hong Kong 339 To establish this company, Mariano contributed 126,000 pesos {The Independent 19 March 1926). The brothers also acted as agents for the Penang Kfeean Guan Insurance Company, Ltd. (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 87). Up to 1903 at least, this latter business was “still being conducted from Mariano’s office at 12 Hormiga Street, Binondo” (Boncan y Limjap 1997, 19). Mariano and Jacinto must have also taken in partners, for in 1893. they re-established the company with Candido Lim y Santiago. The terms for the new company included the choice to terminate the partnership and liquidate the assets of the company after three years, which they did in 1896. Mariano and Jacinto, however, decided to continue on with the business, putting in their respective capital. In the new contract they drew up, Mariano would contribute 260,000 pesos, and Jacinto 104,000 340 The company would be engaged in the following businesses: the buying and selling of letters [of credit?] and their discount; buying and selling of Philippine products; exportation of said products; 3j9 According to his testament, Mariano, designated executor of .his father’s will and in charge of ali Ms father s businesses, assets, and all other goods, established ibis company with Jacinto as a way to continue his father’s business {The Independent 19 March 1926). When Ms father died in 1888. bis father’s business was absorbed by Yek Tok Lir» & Co., which must have been owned by Antonio Osorio. j40 company would be managed by Mariano, and w ould again be operational for 3 rears. Should Jacinto decide to sell his shares in the company, Mariano would have the option to buy them. The initial capitalization of 364,000 pesos would have a yield of 10 percent annual interest. Among other stipulations in the contract included the permission for each of the partners to take .500 pesos monthly from the company, but any amount taken beyond that would be subjected to a 36 percent annual interest The balancing of accounts would have to fee done on the 1st o f February o f each year, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231 importation of articles and goods from Europe and China; buying and selling of silver and gold coins, of loans pertaining to buildings, of discounts of payments, and of commissions and consignments. The company was located on no, 9 Hermlga Street, Binondo, which meant that it was right below Mariano’s residence,341 Later in the year, Mariano entered into a joint partnership with Alvaro Rodar, Santiago Calixto, and Jacinto to establish a company that would “engage in the importation of goods from Europe, particularly of quincallerkt (hardware goods) and other articles,” The partnership formed was to be called “Rodas y Compaiia ” with a starting capital of 30,000 pesos (RMAO GH 1897, 826, tomo 3, no. 389) 342 In 1897, he, along with the Chinese merchants Uy Siuliong, Cu Un-Jieng, Uy Teng-Piao, and the mestizo Edilberto Calixto y Achuy, established the Siu Liong & Company, with Uy Siuliong and Cu Un-Jieng as managers {RMAO GH 1900, 829, tomo I, no. 113).343 This company gave crop loans, “underwrote trips of merchant ships to and from China, and the books subsequently would have to be approved by both partners. For other stipulations of the contract, see RMAOEBC 1896, 872, tomo 5, so. 517. 341 As was the practice of many Chinese and CMnese-mestizo households, the store or office was often built below one's residence. This practice was still common among the Chinese ap until recently, diminishing as fam ilies started to move oat to suburbs, and build separate homes. Among Filipinos, this practice can still be seen in. the ubiquitous mri-smi stores in many towns and cities, j k e capitalization of the company was apportioned accordingly: 1,000 pesos to be provided by Alvaro Rodas; 10,000 by Santiago Calixto; 12,000 by Jacinto; and 7,000 by Mariano. A store would also be established, and would be called “Bazar Yberico.” The management of the company would be placed under Rodas and Calixto. 343 In the contract they signed in establishing this company, Uy Siuliong categorized him self as a jom alero (laborer); Cu Un-Jieng as an "industrial' (industrialist or owner of a business); Uy Teng- Piao also a * 'jo rn a lerd Mariano Limjap y N olasco a “e-omerclante'~ (businessman); and Edilberto Calixto y Achuy a dependiente de coim rcio (shop assistant or salesman). I suspect, however, that for Siuliong. Teng-Piao, and Edilberto, they earned more than want their sodo-econonuc labels seemed to reflect. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232 and handled remittances from Chinese working in the Philippines to their families in China” (Boncan y Limjap 2000.8), Due to his vast businesses in the Philippines and abroad, Mariano had to grant powers-of-attomey to the following people: • To his brother Jacinto in December 1887 to represent him while he (Mariano) was outside the country (RMAO BBC 1897. 873, tomo 8, no, 585) • To the mestizo Candido Lim y Santiago, Spanish Ramon Mortera, and (Chinese?) Roman Amping in April 1889 (RMAO EBC 1897, 873. tomo 8, no. 585) • To the t£ Chinos” Cheat Ho and Valentin Lim Liang Ho, both living in Hong Kong, in November 1890 to collect the outstanding credits of Ms businesses in Hong Kong, and to issue receipts, letters of payment and other documents while making these collections. Cheat and Valentin were also given the power to represent Mariano in all legal and judicial matters pertaining to his businesses {RMAO CR 1890, 843, tomo 3, no. 387) * Again, to Candido Lim y Santiago in July 1896 to represent him and Jacinto in their company “Limjap y Compania” (RMAO EBC 1897, 873, tomo 8, no 585) * To the mestizo Edilberto Calixto y Achuy in August 1897 to represent Mariano and Jacinto (RMAO EBC 1897, 873. tomo 8, no. 587) * To the Spanish law yers lo se Crispulo Reyes, Dom ingo Pacheco, Geronimo Jose, and Vicente Santos in October 1897, to represent his company in all lawsuits and other judicial matters (RMAO GH 1897, 826, tomo 3, no. 345) Thus, in his business dealings we can see that Mariano had wide contact with people of different ethnic groups. Likewise, people belonging to other ethnic groups gave their confidence to him, as in the case in 1892, when “china crmiiand' (C hristian C hinese) B uenaventura Chung Tianlay, single, 32 years old, a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233 businessman, and a resident o f Binondo, gave M ariano Limjap “the power to administer and run his quincalleria (hardware) store” located on Rosario Street. Binondo. Mariano was also granted the power to represent Buenaventura in all judicial and legal matters pertaining to the said store (RMAO CR 1892. 846. tomo 2. no. 270). In lending money or assistance to other people, moreover, Mariano did not discriminate against any ethnic group. In December 1882, he lent an indio woman named Juliana Masangcay 136 pesos and 4 centavos, and in July 1883 lent her another 171 pesos and 15 centavos (RMAO FD 1882, 445, tomo 2, no. 609; RMAO FD 1883, 447, tomo 2, no. 404). In July 1897, he acted as guarantor to mestizo Edilberto Calixto y Achuy, who borrowed 10.687 pesos and 50 centavos from Eseolastico Fernandez y Simon. As mentioned in the previous chapter, he also was instrumental in helping the Chinese Cu Un-Jieng start up his business. Cultural practices Thus, in the years prior to the revolt against Spain Mariano was a weli-known figure among people of different ethnic groups. As we have seen in the previous chapter, his being a first-generation m estizo exposed him to several cultural heritages. He clearly understood and spoke Hokkien, having traveled to Hong Kong and Xiamen, and grown up in Binondo, where many Chinese resided 344 No doubt 344 In fact, on one of his trips to China, he brought home a little girl who was gives the name Simeona (she later became known as Ate Monang) (Boncan y Limjap 2000, 19). Mariano's eldest daughter. Leonards, became the girl's godmother at her baptism, sad she was given the Limjap name, “provided a tutor, and truly was part of the Limjap family” (Boaean y Limjap 2900,5). It is not clear Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234 while residing with his father, M ariano was also exposed to, and m ight have practiced, Chinese customs, although I have yet to find any documentary evidence of the latter. He helped his brothers from China in their businesses, and interacted with them on a regular basis. Furthermore, many of Ms business associates were Chinese, who could have considered him as one o f their own. As we saw in Chapter 4, Mariano felt at ease with the Chinese community. On the other hand, Mariano also manifested in many ways his affinity to the Hispanie-Catholic culture. For instance, he and especially his wife were devotees of the Nuestra Senora de la Paz y Buen Viaje (Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage) in Antipolo. According to Boncan y Limjap, the “Christianized Chinese in the Philippines had a long tradition of devotion to (this Virgin) (and the) Chinese mestizos continued this devotion” (2000, 11, section on M ariano Limjap; cf. Wickberg [1965] 2000, 193). This tradition within the Limjap family might have begun with Joaquin, then continued on to Mariano, and passed on to the succeeding generations.345 And as seen in the previous chapter, he also identified himself as “mestizo espcmoV' He not only spoke Hoklden, but Spanish as well, and may have spoken the kind o f pidgin “Chinotagalospanische” that a number o f his contemporaries used (Skinner 1996,60n. 26). why she was adopted, and whether she was a distant relative. For so re information on Simeons, see Boncan y Limjap 1997, 59; 2000,19. • > ' + J Boncan y Limjap writes “(it was possible that) by 1915, the pilgrimage to Antipolo was already well established in the Limjap family” (2000, 11). I b elieve, however, that it coaid have been established even earlier. As early as daring Joaquin’s time, the Limjaps already owned a lot in Antipolo, which Joaquin passed on to Mariano (RMAO EBC 1893,869, tomo 2, so. 213). In October 1902, Mariano bought an additional lot from Felipe R ipley Masangcay. The lot measured 2 II.8 sq. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235 Political involvement But adherence and professed loyalty to the Spanish crown. Catholic Church, and Spanish culture did not prevent Mariano and other similar mestizos from taking part in the demands for reform from Spain. He was one of the co-founders and financiers of La Liga Filipina.346 Later on, he supported the insurrection against Spain. He and Jacinto were said to have donated one m illion pesos for the Katipunan on 15 September 1896.34/ He was arrested on 16 September 1896 upon suspicion of complicity in the Revolution of August 1896,348 but was released on 29 March 1897.349 As pointed out in Chapter 4, when the revolutionary government headed by Emilio Aguinaldo was formed, Mariano was made one of the financial advisers.330 meters, and was situated on Real Street. It was sold to Mariano for 50 Mexican pesos (RMAO CR 1902, 856, tomo 4, no. 686). j4^ La Liga Filipina was founded in 1892. Among its most famous co-foanders was lose Rizal. Its members frequently met at the house of a Chinese mestizo named Doroteo Gngjunco in Binondo. See Cortes 2000,132-134. 34' This amount could not have been from their personal accounts, as both Mariano and Jacinto personally probably did not have that much money. Thus, this amount may have either been exaggerated, or could have been the sum total of the aiHotait they raised. 348 According to one o f the documents at the RMAO, on 8 March 1895 Mariano Limjap requested that the Civil Governor Jose Bolivar renew the gun license of people who belonged to the Is* class of the tax classification system. This would thus alow Mrs to carry and use his own aims. This request was granted on the 26* Whether these were used to aid the revolutioaaiy movement is unclear. See RMAO VP Maxiano limjap, f. 159. 349 But Ms innocence was not really proclaimed until late, on 15 Jane 189?, when a judge ruled that, after a certain Deodato Arellano and Briecio Paatas retracted their testimonies against Marians and s. certain Pedro Casimiro, both men were to be released from jail. The judge also ruled that the testimony of a certain Aguedo del Rosario did not contain enough force to justify a sentence for these two men (RMAO GH 1897, 826, tomo 3, no. 36!). It is not clear whether Mariano’s release from jail was caused by the general amnesty declared by Governor General Prime de Rivera in 1897. 350 This entailed, among others, having the authority to sign "paper currency in denominations o f one,'two. fire, twenty, fifty, and one hundred pesos” (Boncan y limjap 1997, 40). One of the other roles he also assumed was Inspector General of the Railroad, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236 He also was elected a member of the Malolos Congress, representing Manila, along with three others.351 He also helped found on 6 November 1898 the “social and political” Club Filipino Independiente 352 According to Boncan y Limjap, M ariano’s properties might have been confiscated when he -was arrested, since the Spanish policy was to freeze the assets and confiscate the properties of those suspected of being Katipuneros (1997.36). In fact, Ocampo writes that in order to get his property' back, Mariano purportedly paid 25,000 pesos to the Spanish government (P D 115 September 2000). Among the properties confiscated might have been the ones he inherited from his father, which included the following, with the corresponding value in parenthesis (RMAO EBC 1893, 869, tomo 2, no. 213): * a building on no. 12, Hormiga Street, Binondo (3,600 pesos) * a building on no. 22, Anloague Street, Binondo (6,600 pesos) * half of the building on no. 27, Fajardo Street, Binondo (6,000) * a building on no. 7, Hormiga Street, Binondo (10,324 pesos and 25 centavos) * a building on no. 1, Olivares Street, Binondo (29,036 pesos and 52 centavos) • >51 The three others were Teodoro Gonzales Leafto. Felix Ferrer y Pascuai and Arsenic Cruz Herrera (N H I1972,215). I would like to thank Rad Boncan y Limjap for providing me Shis infomtatkm. 352 Other founders included Telesforo Chuidian (President), Jose Albert, Bonifacio Arevalo, Antonio Luna, Jose Luna, Juaa Luna, and M aximino Patemo. Mariano was Vice President a t the Club (source; Letter to A guinaldo in Boncan y Limjap 1997, 21). Its name was changed to Club International right after the Americans colonized the Philippines, but in 1905 (1906?), its n% m e. was returned to the original. It was the first organization to send pemiemados (Filipino students seat to the U.S. on pension given by the U.S. government). It also became a social club for the rich ami famous in Manila in the following decades (Boaean y Limjap 2 000,4), Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237 * a building on no. 23, San Jacinto Street, Binondo (7,008 pesos) * no. 44 building and 4 apartments situated on San Jacinto Street, Binondo (6,800.82 centavos) * A lot no. 1, situated in Aguila Barrio, Tondo (300 pesos) * A lot in Antipolo (40 pesos) * A lot in the barrio ofUlo-uli in San Miguel (1,460 pesos) Life during the American colonial period As we have seen in Chapter 4, Mariano also participated in the light against the American occupation of the Philippines. In 1899, he served in lie Revolutionary Congress in Tarlac as sole representative o f Manila. When the American forces caught up with the officials of the Republic in Pangasinan, Limjap was brought to Manila, where he was imprisoned and later released (Manuel 1955, 249; Boncan y Limjap 1997, 38-40) after taking Ms oath o f allegiance to the U.S. (NHI 1996, 153).353 In the years immediately after Ms capture and release from his American captors, he acquired the following properties: * Real estate consisting o f a house and lot. on Novaliches Street, San Miguel, with a surface area o f 261 sq. meters, for the price o f 1,500 Mexican pesos (RMAO C R 1902, 856 tomo 2, no. 379) * Real estate consisting of a house and lot on no. 60 Novaliches Street, San Miguel, with a surface area of 168 sq. meters and 36 sq. centimeters, for the price of 5.000 Mexican pesos (RMAO CR 1902, 856. tomo 2, no. 380) 35j Boncan y Limjap writes that “ 'some sources” state that he was captured ia Tarlac. However, he does not identify these sources (1997,42). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238 • Real estate consisting of a house and lot, situated on no. 10, Novaliches Street, San Miguel, w ith a surface area of 181 sq. meters 30 sq. decimeters, for the price of 4,000 Mexican pesos (RMAO CR 1902, 856 tomo 2, no. 381) • Real estate consisting of a lot designated for an edifice, wi thout any number, on General Solano Street, San Miguel, with a surface area of 566 sq. meters 20 sq. decimeters, for the price of 4,500 Mexican pesos (RMAO CR 1902, 856 tomo 2, no. 382) • Real estate consisting of a lot situated on Novaliches Street, San Miguel, with a surface area of 220 sq. meters 40 sq. decimeters, for the price of 6,000 Mexican pesos (RMAO CR 1902, 856, tomo 2, no. 383) • Real estate consisting of a house and lot, previously on no. 25, and then 55, Novaliches Street, San Miguel, with a surface area of 246 sq. meters 24 sq. decimeters, for the price of 6,000 Mexican pesos (RMAO CR 1902, 856 tomo 2, no. 384) Thus, these data are consistent with our knowledge that during the American colonial period, Mariano’s business interests turned to real estate. But what is interesting in the properties he purchased as listed above is that all these properties were acquired by his wife Maria from her father in 1897, and were sold to Edilberto Calixto y Achuy on the same day that Edilberto sold them to Mariano, i.e, on 27 May 1902 (RMAO CR 1902, 856, tomo 2, nos. 373-378). What would cause Maria to sell these properties to Edilberto, who would then resell them to Mariano, thus putting everything in Mariano’s name? Why did Maria not just sell the property directly to Mariano? There must have been some legal impediment to doing so, but we can conclude two things from this. One is that while it may be highly probable that Mariano’s properties were sequestered during his arrest in 1896, the property that he co-owned with Maria was probably spared. Secondly, the Spaniards Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239 probably did not confiscate Maria’s properties, and thus the family’s wealth might not have been severely diminished during Mariano’s incarceration. From this second conclusion, we may also infer that Maria, like her mother-in-law Policarpia, was an asset to her husband’s business interests, Mariano also bought the following properties in 1902: * A lot situated on Real Street, Antipolo with a surface area o f 211 sq, meters 8 sq. centimeters, destined for a house, without number and, found beside a lot owned by him, from Felipe Riple y Masangcay and Rafael Felismena y Lauis, for the price of 50 Mexican pesos (RMAO €R 1902, 856, tome 4, no. 686) • A lot situated near the Padre Faura Observatory, with a surface area of 1,004 sq. m eters, destined for a house, from Tomas A rgtielles y Fernandez, for the price of 4,160 Mexican pesos (RMAO CR 1902, 856 tomo 3, no. 595) While buying properties In places such as Antipolo, Pasig, Marikiim, Baguio, and Sibul, he continued establishing other businesses and buying shares in various companies such as the Compania de Seguros de Pilipinas, Tavabas Sawmill & Co., and La Perla, Inc. It also appears that he and Jacinto finally decided to liquidate the Limjap y Compania and pursue their separate business interests (Boncan y Limjap 2000, 4). Together with 20 other businessmen, Mariano helped, found the Camara Comercio de Filipinas on 19 M y 1903, The name was anglicized in 1919 and it became the Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines (Boncan y Limjap 2000, 4-5), He also was one of the incorporators o f the “El Hogar Filipino,” which was a “mutual building and loan association, similar to later U.S. savings and loan institutions’' (Boncan y Limjap 2000. 9). Its founding was an important development Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 4 0 since “it was the first organization in the Philippines that permitted even those with modest incomes to be eligible for construction loans” (Boncan y Limjap 2000, 9),354 Boncan y Limjap also states that apart from being involved in La Perla Tobacco, Mariano also was President of La Perla Inc.. which was a company that manufactured biscuits and other desserts. This company was located in Plaza Sta. Cruz, near the Philippine Tannery Office. In 1921, the Manager and Director was Alfonso M. Tiaoqui, Assistant Manager and Director M. (sic) Tiaoqui, and Coiporate Secretary and Director Maximino Patemo 355 The company had a popular retail outlet at 1112 Aceyteros, San Nicolas. It seemed that in 1911, a certain Muttroy owned the company (Boncan y Limjap 2000,13). Positions Mariano held included: member o f the Board of Directors of the Bank of Philippine Islands (BPI, formerly Banco Espaflol Filipino, founded 1851), from 1908 to 1913; Director of the first BPI Board under its re-chartering in 1907; and member of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Tannery Office in 1921. He was also an investor o f Pilipinas Com pania de Seguros, now part o f Ayala Corporation’s FGU Group, and of China Banking Corporation (Boncan y Limjap 1997, 20). Other businesses he had included owning rice plantations and rice mills in Nueva Ecija (which he left behind to Ms sons); a coal company, and a salt-making operation (Boncan y Limjap 2000, 13). Among the other incorporators were: Trinidad Ayala, vda. de Zobel; Pedro P. Rosas, Enrique Zobel, Jose de Cramhitoreoa, Francisco Oitigas, and Eduardo Soriano. 333 In 1921, this company’s president was Jose Tiaoqui. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241 Civic-philanthropic activities Mariano attended the organizational meeting in December 1900 and became a co-founder of the Federal Party (Boncan y Limjap 2000, 4).-^ However, Boncan y Limjap does not have further confirmation of his participation or involvement in the Party. He became a well-known leader and philanthropist, being one of the principal patrons who worked for the erection of the Rizal monument at the Luneta. Their work included taking charge of collecting funds by popular subscription and working toward the erection of the monument, which was unveiled on 30 December 1913, Other members of the Commission included: Maximino Patemo, Ramon Genato, Juan Tuason, Paciano Rizal, Teodoro Yangco, Ariston Bautista, Tomas Del Rosario, and Pascual Oblete (Boncan y Limjap 1997,29-30; MHI 1996,153). He also gave out scholarships to “poor but deserving students at the University of the Philippines and other schools” (N H I1996, 152), many of whom had gone on to become “the best professionals in the city and provinces” {The Tribune, 5 March 1926). He also helped found the Liceo de Manila, a school that was the first in Manila with an “all Filipino faculty” (Boncan y Limjap 2000,4). Finally, Mariano was a member of several clubs and donated money to these clubs as well as to charitable institutions, including the Bachelors’ club and the Philippine Columbian Association { The Tribune 5 March 1926), the Manila Jockey This information is based on Paredes 1997. 620-640. Florentine Torres and Felipe Biieiicaraiiio established the Federal Party in 1900. Part of its main, objectives was to work for making fee Plulijjpines as one of the states of die United States, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242 Club, Baguio Country Club, Cosmos Ciub, and Sociedad Tiro al Blanco (Boncan y Limjap 2000,13-14). His death When Mariano died on 5 March 1926, the banner headline of The Tribune ran; “Limjap, Known for Altruism Passes Away: Noted Filipino Philanthropist Succumbs to Heart Failure.”357 He left most of his wealth to his wife Maria and to his children by her. In his testament, it is also interesting to note that he explicitly stated that, whether he died in the Philippines or abroad, he must be buried in the North Cemetery, (The Independent 4 March 1926). In 1913, he bought a big plot of land in this cemetery and constructed the Limjap chapel. His grandson Raul Boncan y Limjap surmised that the Limjaps must have started to spend All Saints' Day in this cemetery after the purchase, but that they must have spent it before in the La Loma cemetery, and prior to that, in the Binondo cemetery. And who was buried in La Loma before? I believe Joaquin's bones were re-interred in this cemetery after they were brought back from China. Mariano's decision to be buried in the North Cemetery was probably a practical one, for the plot of land was not only bigger, but could have also been cheaper. However, it may also be surmised that this was a conscious decision on Mariano’s part to move away from La Loma, which was a cemetery for the Catholic Chinese. % r i 11 would like to thank Raul Boncan y Limjap for providing me a photocopy of tills news article. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243 At the end of his life, M ariano probably identified himself as mainly a “Filipino.” If one were to look at his socio-political activities during Ms latter years, it seems that his efforts were directed more toward helping out in establishing the Philippine nation. His contact with the Chinese community might have also become less frequent, although he still traveled to Hong Kong, and probably to Xiamen. But after the 1910s and up until his death in 1924, the increasing nationalism both in China and in the Philippines must have made him more conscious about identifying him self as a Filipino. W hile his business associations with certain Chinese merchants like Cu Un-Jieng might have continued, it appears that Mariano, as well as other mestizos like him, had diminished their interaction with the Chinese as ethnic boundaries between them and the “Filipinos” became more defined and hardened. As we will see later in the chapter, one indication of how Mariano became “less” Chinese is the way he and his wife reared their children. But before I focus on this topic, I would like to discuss some aspects o f the life of Maria Escoiar Co- Chayco y Carreon, the second wife of Mariano Limjap, in order to bring out some of the themes that I have discussed in Chapter 4 with regard to mestizos. M arta Escoiar Co-Chayeo Very little is known about M aria's early life, hut the few- glimpses that we have of her later life show that she, like her husband M ariano, had strong connections with the Chinese community. She was an only child bom in 1865 to the Christian Chinese Pedro Escoiar Co Chayco (b. 1826 -d. 19 May 1896) and to the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 4 4 mestiza IIdefense Carreon (b. 1842 - d. 3 August 3 1906) {Boncan y Limjap 1997, 22), Maria was wealthy. After her father died, she was the sole heir, as stated in a nuncupative testament her father drew up in 1888. Consequently, she inherited a prosperous casco boat business from her father. The boat ferried goods brought from Manila port to other areas via the Pasig River and the numerous esteros in the area. She also inherited several properties: at least three tableria (lumber) businesses owned or co-owned by her father (RMAO GH 1897, 826, tomo 3, nos. 358,369, and 400)358; ancj several sari-sari stores (RMAO GH 1897. 826, tomo 3, no. 37§).359 But three months after her father's death, a dispute ensued between Maria and the other heirs. She, together with her husband Mariano and her mother Ildefonsa, and accompanied by her lawyer Manuel Arauilo y Gonzales, had to appear in court to settle a dispute with Pablo Escoiar Co-Tico, Co-Changco, Co Jose, Co Quian Chuian, and Co-Jong, a minor who was Pablo's son. These men argued that the testament should have mentioned Co-Jong as Pablo’s son. Consequently, Co-Jong 3-^ Boncan y Limjap also mentions that Pedro %as in the lumber business'1 ' and that Mariano bought the lumber for the house in Calle Echague from him (2000, 3). However, Maria sold her shares in these lumber businesses to the following people and for the following sum: to leiesfo io H. Soco, the tableria that her father owned and located ia the property o f Juan Co-Lico Guidote situated o s San Miguel Street, San Miguel, for the sum of 2,800 pesos (RMAO GH 189?, 826, tomo 3, so. 358); to Co Ymco, who was a partner o f her father’s tableria named “Gay Tojo” (which was established before the notary public Numeriano Adriano on 31 March 1894 by her father, Go Chuyco, and Co Ymco) her four shares in the said business for the price of 2,000 pesos (no. 369); and to Pedro Zarate Gui Tuantie, who, as the executor of Luis Y ives Co-Piengco, co-owner of the company of lumber (modems) he founded with Maria’s father, liquidated the said company, and thus gave Maria the sum of 2,451 pesos and 70 cents (no. 400). The three “tiendas de sari-sart (variety goods store) were located in the following places: in the house of Juan Co-Lico Guidote, situated on ao. 22 Novaliehes Street, San Miguel; tn the house of Bartolome Ayala, situated on no. 5 Novaliehes Street, San Miguel, and the house o f Psscaal de ia Cruz, situated on no. 21. Novaliches Street. San Miguel. Her father owned all of the stores, and on 29 October 1897, she sold them to Jose Co-Chongco for the price of 1,000 pesos (RMAO GH 1897,826, tomo 3, no. 378). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245 should be considered as an heir to Pedro's estate. At the time of the dispute, Co- Jong's mother was in China. Thus, we can presume from this case that Maria’s father had a second family in China. Whether the outcome resulted in the actual recognition of Co-Jong as legal heir is not clear, but this case clearly shows that Maria was very much in touch with her Chinese relatives. A few weeks later, Maria had to appear before a notary public to settle another dispute coming from her own mother and her Chinese relatives. This time, the dispute revolved around the share that these people were supposed to inherit from the deceased. It turned out that the balance of Pedro’s assets was hardly enough to cover the half of the fifth of the assets that should go to Maria’s mother and to the other legatees; namely, Pablo Escoiar Co-Tico, Jose Co Chongco, Co Tuchang Juansuan, and Co Tangco a.k.a. Co-Chiaobeng.360 Her father had outstanding claims, which included various credits of 52,824 pesos, 47 cents, while Ms liabilities amounted to 46,299 pesos. 85 cents. Maria, assisted by her husband Mariano, offered to renounce her claim to the inheritance in order to avoid any other litigation coming not only from her mother but also from her Chinese relatives. From these cases we can see that Maria had close contact with her Chinese relatives. But whether she exhibited the same affinity to her Chinese heritage as her husband did is not clear. We know that she often played the gracious host to her husband’s Chinese associates, and traveled with Mm to Hong Kong and Xiamen. Co Tangco CMaobeng did not exhibit a cedtda personal (Identity document) before the notary public but in its place presented a document expedited by the gobernadorcillo of the Gremio de Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246 But I do not have any documentary evidence to say whether she spoke Hokkien or not. What we do know is that whenever there was a party held at their San Miguel mansion, a person known only as “Chua” (presumably a Chinese based on the name) was always called upon to offer catering services. We also know that their mansion contained not only European but also Chinese furnishings, as well as “man-size porcelain Chinese vases” (Boncan y Limjap 1997, 32). Thus, she might not have completely rejected her Chinese heritage or severed her ties to it. She also definitely was very Catholic. Recollections from her descendants state that she was a religious woman, attending religious processions, going on pilgrimages to Antipolo, and requiring the family to pray the Rosary every night. She died on 4 April 1941, while vacationing at Baguio, most probably from complications from diabetes. Mariano’s and Maria’s Descendants By the time Mariano and M aria's children became adults, ethnic relations between the “Chinese” and the “Filipinos” had become different from those o f their parents and grandparents. By 1910, these two groups o f people had begun to be gradually segregated and the boundaries between them hardened. A number of factors contributed to this phenomenon, not the least of which was the rise of nationalisms in both the Philippines and in China. The “Filipinization” of the next generation ofLimjaps can be attributed to the previous generation’s attempt to guarantee their children’s place In the construction Saagleyes on 29 September 1897, which stated that he w as one of the Chinese who arrived to these Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 4 7 of a Philippine nation, Mariano and Maria sent their children to exclusive and private Catholic schools in Manila, and some were even sent to Europe and United States to study.361 I do not know whether they taught their children to speak Hokkien, but it was very possible that they did not, except maybe for the eldest daughter Leonarda (see Chapter 4). Instead, they spoke Spanish and English (personal communication to the author from Boncan y Limjap). In time, the Limjap descendants would lose their connection to their Chinese heritage. Part of the next generation's “Filipinization” can also be seen in their choice of marriage partners. Below is a list of Mariano’s and Maria’s children and whom they married: « Mariano “Marianito” Limjap y Siaosingco (b. 11 October 1884 - d. 31 March 1948) - Cristeta Sulit * Gregorio “Goying” Limjap y Siaosingco (b, 28 November 1884 - d. 5 April 1953) - Carmen Romero Liwag (married on 17 January 1915) * Leonarda Rufina Limjap (b, 6 November 1890 - d. 27 November 1967) - Aristeo Rizal Ubaido (b. 3 September 1883 ~d. 11 January 1954) * Jose “Pepe” Gonzalo Joaquin (b. 10 January 1892 - d. 24 May 1945) - Simona Ablaza (b. 28 October 1900 - d. 25 March 1941) * Maria Esperanza (b, 18 December 1896 - d. 4 April 1978) - Sergio Osmena (b. 18 December 1896 - d, 19 October 1961) * Joaquina Pacencia Escoiar (b. 1 May 1896 - d. 6 July 1993) - Rafael Santos, Sr. (b. ? ~ d. 21 December 1933) * Francisco Isabelo (b. 19November 1898 -d . 2 October 1905)- Socorro Martinez Henson (b, 29August 1907 - d. 26 February 1976) Islands the previous day (28 September! on board the ship “Esmeralda.” jo i por i n s t a n t Marianito, Gregorio, Jose, sad Francisco were sent to London (Boncan v lim jao 1997, 17). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248 * Felisa Encamacion (b. 30 January 1900 - d. 23 August 1980) - Marceio Tomas Boncan (b. 21 December 1889 - d, 10 July 1948) • Pedro.Aresnio (b. 1904 - d, 1945) - Neny Apacible (b. 1905 ~ d. 1983) Judging from the names of their spouses, it seems that, with the exception of Felisa Encamacion and Maria Esperanza, none o f the Limjap siblings married a Chinese or Chinese mestizo.362 Their children, in turn, did not intermarry with Chinese men or women. Among Raul Boncan y Limjap5 s generation, for example, no one m arried a Chinese. Furthermore, none o f the descendants today speak Hokkien. Yet, it can not be said that they completely lost touch with their “Chinese- ness,” Raui Boncan y Limjap5 s own son recalls, for example, that he used to accompany Ms grandmother (i.e. Felisa Encamacion Limjap) to Chinatown, where she owned several buildings on Gandara, Raon-Sales, and General Solano Streets. Most of her tenants were Chinese. He also recalls the names o f two tenants, who used to give him dikiam an d champoy 363 H is siblings also w ent along to Chinatown, and one o f Ms sisters also recalls enjoying the trips, since she was “learn(ing) about a world different” from her own (Boncan v Limjap 2000. 25, 362 Marceio Tomas Boncan, F elisa’s husband, was the grandson o f Ygnacio Jao Boncan whom I introduced in Chapter 2. He was the son o f Marceio Jao-Bcnc&n and Cipriana Yu-tesgeo (AAM IM 1927, 20.E. 14, folder 2). Incidentally, his grandfather Ygnacio was a contemporary o f Joaquin Barrera Limjap. Thus, it can be seen that the Limjaps and the Boncans had long I cen family friends. For more information on Marceio Tomas Boncan, see Bemoan y Limjap QfAsi. > section on Felisa Encamacion Limjap). Sergio Osmefia (b. 9 September 1878 - d. 19 October 1961), the husband of Esperanza, was tire fourth President of the Philippines. He came from a well-known and wealthy Chinese-mestizo family from Cebu. His mother was Juana Osmefia y Sitico. 363 "Champoy* is a Tagalog word derived from Hokkien word tor any dried preserved fruit w hile “dikiam” is a dried salted plum. 1 would like to thank Jane Po for this information Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249 section on Felisa Encamacion Limjap). Eventually, she would marry a Chinese. Also, two o f Mariano’s and Maria’s great-great grandsons today are studying in a Chinese school in Manila and learning Mandarin. Furthermore, as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Raul Boncan y Limjap, along with other family members, has been back to China to visit his great grandfather’s hometown, where lie met Ms distant relatives. Thus, after decades o f “forgetting” their Chinese heritage, the descendants of Joaquin Barrera Limjap seem to be rediscovering and embracing their Chinese roots. The story of the Limjap family shows how- families that were once self identified as Chinese-mestizos became “Filipino.” That the descendants of Joaquin Limjap, especially those that belonged to the generation after Mariano and Maria, had lost their sense of being “Chinese” can be seen in several ways. One way is to look at the language they spoke, and another is to investigate the customs and rituals they practiced. Lastly, we saw how they identified themselves and were identified by others. In all these ways, the results point to them being “Filipino” Yet, it may not be completely true that in their growing up years, they completely lost touch with their “Chinese-ness.” At the back of their mind, they knew that part of their ancestry was Chinese. And as socio-political and historical conditions begin to thaw the ice that divides the “Chinese” and the “Filipino,5 ’ more and more “Filipinos” like the L im japs w ould be encouraged to search fo r th e ir C hinese ro o ts again, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Conclusion 250 The main purpose of this study is to argue that twentieth-century Filipino and Chinese nationalism and certain Cold-War period theoretical approaches to the study of ethnicity have given us a reified form of Chinese-ness. The strategy I have utilized to achieve this was to first lay out the findings of past scholarship, especially that of Edgar Wickberg, His pioneering work on the Chinese in the Philippines in the Spanish colonial period has served as a basic framework for succeeding scholars to build up their understanding and analysis of ethnic relations in the Philippines, Basically, his analysis of Chinese identities in the late nineteenth century was that the Chinese in the Philippines were poised to define themselves separately from the mestizo and indio population as the twentieth century began. This was due to several factors. One was that they were already part o f a homogeneous ethnic enclave; another was Spain’s declining power in the Philippines, which left the Chinese to defend themselves. Other factors included the increasing closeness of the Chinese community to China due to the influx o f new arrivals from China; and the anti- Chinese sentiment that caused the Chinese to come closer together as a community ([1965] 2000,203-204).364 ^ I must point out, however, thatiin his later works Wickberg does recognize that “many tilings about Philippine society offered individual cultural opportunities" for the Chinese to participate in local custom and society. He also notes that non-Chinese intermingled with the Chinese (Wickberg 1997, 176-177), Moreover, Ms later works refleet a different approach to ethnicity, ia which ethnicity is regarded as being in a constant state o f fiim, as being constructed and reconstructed. Finally, he veers away from discussing ethnicity is terms o f assimilation and integration, which be claim s does not “do justice to the complexity o f the phenomenon’' (Wickberg 1998,114), However, his later Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251 On the other hand, W ickberg d escrib es the m estizos as the m ost “(H)ispanicized and Catholicized"5 Spanish subjects who rejected their “Chinese- ness.” He cites economic competition as one factor contributing to their antagonistic attitude toward their Chinese forbears. But the main reason for their attitude was based on cultural differences, in that they closely identified with the i£ (H)ispanic- Catholic” and not with the Chinese (and non-Catholic) culture. They were a “special kind o f Filipino” who banded together with the similarly Hispantcized and Catholicized upper-clas indios to demand that they be recognized as “Filipinos.” Thus, when the American colonial rulers took over the Philippines and nationalized identities into “Filipino” and “non-Filipino/alien,” they preferred to be classified under the former category. After laying out W ickberg’s arguments, I then proceeded to present the findings of my own archival work, covering essentially the same period that he investigated, but extending it to the early years of the American colonial period. I have focused on the familial, religious (Chapter 2, 4, 5), and business practices (Chapter 3, 4, 5) of a selected group of Chinese and mestizo individuals, and showed that 1) the Chinese were not part of an ethnic enclave, but rather had wide interaction with other ethnic groups, and 2) the mestizos did not reject their “Chinese-ness” and in fact recognized, practiced, and even embraced it. Thus, I argue that the identities of these Chinese and mestizos during this historical period are better understood as lying within a shifting and problematic continuum. works have not studied in-depth as to how this construction—and, I may add, negotiation—might Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252 One reason why Wickberg and other scholars have used biaarist terms in their analysis of ethnic identities of the Chinese and mestizos is that they have been influenced by 1950s and 1960s anthropological approaches to the study of identities. Another reason is that they shared the same concern of newly independent Southeast Asian governments on how to assimilate or integrate the Chinese in their countries (see Ong and Nonmi 1997, 6-7). However, their approach not only essentiaiizes identities but also conforms to the meta-narratives of nation-states that seek to spread their hegemonic control over a wide group of people, oftentimes resulting in ethnic tension and discrimination. Thus, as I pointed out in the Introduction, the wider implication o f this study is to criticize Chinese and Filipino nationalism in the twentieth century?. By “Chinese nationalism ” I refer to the ideology spread by m odem nationalists from China during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that focused on “saving China” from being destroyed or overtaken by Western powers, and encouraged patriotism among the Chinese, A large part of these nationalists5 efforts was directed at the ‘ ''overseas Chinese” (huaqiao) living in Southeast Asia. Chinese schools were set up in the major urban centers in Southeast Asia. In the Philippines, during the first half of the twentieth century there were more than fifty Chinese schools established all over the country (as opposed to only one in 1899). The curricula and textbooks in these schools followed closely that o f those prescribed by the Education Ministry in China. After the Communist takeover in have occurred ia real life. This study is aa initial sad modest attempt to fill this gap. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253 China in 1949, most of these schools, numbering 168 in the 1960s with some 50,000 students, continued to follow directives from the education ministry o f the Nationalist government that had relocated to Taiwan (A, Tan 1972,154-175; Purcell 1965, 563). Chinese newspapers also began to appear more regularly after 1908, and to have a longer publication life than in the late nineteenth century (A. Tan 1972, 135-137). Lastly, organizations such as the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce (founded in 1904), and various family, clan, dialect and district associations were formed in greater numbers. All these developments helped propagate Chinese nationalism among the Chinese in the Philippines, especially after 1910 and all throughout the 1920s to the 1940s. At the same time, Filipino nationalists at the beginning of the twentieth century increasingly discriminated against the Chinese. The establishment o f the public school system that produced a greater number of Filipinos literate in English, coupled with the nationalists’ use of the print media showing unsavory pictures of the Chinese, helped fan the flames of anti-Chinese sentiments. Political cartoons depicted the Chinese as either users of opium, cunning merchants defeating their Filipino competitors, or undesirable aliens.565 Throughout the twentieth century, the Chinese in the Philippines continued to experience more discrimination by way of laws that were specifically anti-Chinese. For instance, in the 1920s, they were prohibited from acquiring Philippine citizenship in spite of the fact that other “foreigners5 ' in the Philippines who were not yet citizens were allowed to be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254 naturalised (Han 2000, 167). In 1954, the Retail Nationalisation Act was introduced explicitly as a way to prevent the Chinese from continuing their predominance in the retail trade (cf. Hau 2OO0).366 Furthermore, many Chinese, unable to attain Filipino citizenship, were barred from certain professions like “medicine, architecture, engineering, nursing, accountancy .. . (which) require Filipino citizenship as a pre requisite for licensure’7 (Ang See 1990c, 113). Thus, both Chinese and Filipino nationalism in the Philippines contributed to the growing separation between the two ethnic groups. But Filipino nationalism can not be separated from the influence of American racist policies. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the American colonial rulers applied the Chinese exclusionary laws to the Philippines just as they did in the United States. As the “older brothers” of their “little brown brothers,” Americans introduced the Filipinos to their own brand of anti-Chinese and racist views. I also hypothesize that the reification of these two identities only occurred after 1910, i.e., after the founding of the Chinese Republic In 1912 and a few years after the establishment of a Philippine Assembly in 1907. In other words, what I am suggesting is that approximately from 1898 to 1910, even though the mestizos as a legal class had been eradicated in the 1880s. culturally they were still in the process of being “Fiiipinized,” Similarly, the “Smification" of the Chinese, i.e, the creation of a culturally homogeneous “Chinese” community, occurred only after 1912. Thus, 365 por exampies cf these cartoons, see McCoy and Roces 1985,130,234,235,240,242. j66 por more informatioTi regarding the Retail Trade Nationalisation A ct, see Ang See 1997, 69-96. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255 I am pushing W ickberg’s timetable in the construction o f a distinct “Chinese- Filipino” binary from the turn of the century to a later time when the nationalist sentiments and consciousness among the peoples of China and the Philippines reached a high point (Wickberg [1965] 2000, 164). Unfortunately, this kind of rhetoric essentiaiizing Chinese identities continues today in what Aihwa Ong and Donald Nomni describes as . . . journalistic and popular texts that tend toward exegesis o f the Chinese diaspora and economic success . . . , and . . . equally self- important tracts on the Chinese cultural periphery as a revolutionary force in Asian modernity.. . . [These writings] veer uneasily between cultural chauvinism and Enlightenment ideals, and . . . presuppose by their ritual invocation of and obsessive return to family values, guanxi particularism, and communal humanism, that there are intrinsic and timeless features of Chinese culture, which persist even in the midst of non-Chinese society” (1997, 8) Such discourses can also be found among Chinese organizations (especially outside China) that seek to define and promote a reified form of Chinese-ness that every “Chinese,” regardless of domicile, can and should identify with.367 In th e Philippines, these groups run the gamut from pro-Nationalist China schools to family/clan and business associations. However, there are organizations that seek to challenge these hegemonic discourses. One such organization is Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran (see Chapter 4), which is composed o f “young” Chinese Filipinos dedicated to the task o f bridging the gap between Chinese and Filipinos in the Philippines. It is interesting to note that most of the members of this organization belong to a certain age cohort (50 and below) and thus generally have a different Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256 sense of their “Chinese-ness” from that of the “older” generation. Most Kaisa members view themselves first and foremost as “Filipino;" and only secondarily as “Chinese.” To reflect their “dual” identity, they coined the term “Tstnoy” w h ich , as I have explained in Chapter 4, is a combination of the words “Tsind' (Chinese) and “P in o/' (the colloquial Filipino term for a native of the Philippines). By coming up with a catchy term that sounds like and rhymes with the popular and nationalistic “Pinoy,” the members of Kaisa are able to inject into the minds of the wider Filipino population the existence of a group that is part of Philippine society. Moreover, they have managed to distance themselves from the older, more China-oriented Chinese population in the Philippines. Thus, we also need to study how groups such as Kaisa construct their own versions o f “Chinese-ness” as a way to counter-act the hegemonizing discourses on Identities of more dominant groups or nation-states. Another study worth undertaking is to see how changing local and global conditions affect the self-identifications of the diasporic Chinese. Wickberg ([1965] 2000) argues, for example, that the large influx of Chinese In the Philippines after 1850 caused the Chinese who had been there for a longer time to form new versions of Chinese-ness through the establishment of community organizations (cf. Wilson 1 9 9 g) 368 x h e reaction o f “old tim ers” in other countries to th e com ing o f newcomers at the turn of the twentieth century has also been studied. For instance, the arrival of the “totoks” in Indonesia circa 1900 ‘ caused an institutionalization and jo / For a sampling of these organizations, see sww.ffiHtycWaese.com. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257 an emphasis upon non-China forms of chineseness (and) pushed the localized ‘peranakans’ more in the direction o f localization and localized versions o f chineseness” (Wickberg E-mail communication to author, 27 February 2003).369 It would then be interesting to study how the Chinese in many countries outside China a century later are responding to this new influx o f Chinese coming from the mainland, and forming their own versions of “Chinese-ness.” 368 Wickberg also argues that this influx pushed the mestizos to new lines o f commercial activity, and may have made some of them promoters o f anti-Chinese agitation as well (196% 119651 2000). 369 por a g fc M fy 0f the Chinese community in Vancouver, and how it reacted to the rise o f Chinese migration in the city in the 1950s. see- Ng 1999. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258 bie hao chang lai/siong lay Chua Pueco Chua Su da ming Da Zhonghua Dongli Dongshan Fei Hua Lishi Bowu Guan Fujian ge Guangdong guanglu daifu guanxi hao He Bing Zhong hoan-a hoan-a gong Hong Ong (Vicenta) Glossary of Chinese Terms SOU mm TCiS m m Mill mm M M ymj&z WM It \ m w m f mm 31M, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Huang Shuixian Jia Majue m m m Jiaomei Jinjiang W x L kou n lan-lang mx Li-Kit Lim Cong Jap Limjap Lin Bihuang # it j i Lin Genshen mm Lin Shanghu/ Lim Siong 0 (Valentin) m m m Lin Shangkui Lin Shangqi / Lim Siong Chit (Antonio) m m -t Lin Shangwen/ Lim Siong Bun (Jose) Lin Shangya Long Hai HIS Longxi xian Minnan mm Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260 mu Nanan Ong Tuon Quanzhou qiaoxiang Sanjiao fang or branch sengdi Shang/siam Shanghai shang lu Shishi Taiwan Tambunting Tan Quieti-sien Tazi/duadi Tianjin Tang Silo (Juan Pardo) Tangua/Tongan tsut-si-a tsut-si-a siau Xiamen m 3EM Jt#i m m m ±M 5i? m m x m m m w m m m am Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xiaom ing /Jvg xinyong Xu/Co Iff Zhangzfeou # # i Zhen fit Zui Xian Yan SrHi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. List of References 262 Archival Sources From the Record Management and Archives Office (RMAO) Bautismos Binondo 1814-1895, Bundle III Bienes de Difimtos (BD) 1858-1894, Bundle 13 Calixto Reyes (CR) 1887 Volume 834, tomo 1,2 1890 Volume 843, tomo 3 1892 Volume 846, tomo 1 ,2 ,3, 4 1897, Volume 851, tomo 1, 2. 3,4 1902 Volume 856, tomo 1, 2, 3, 4 Declaraciones de Herederos Enrique Barrera y Caldes (EBC) 1887 Volume 863, tomo 1 1890 Volume 866, tomo 2, 5 1893 Volume 869, tomo 2 1895 Volume 871, tomo 12 1896 Volume 872, tomo 2, 5, 8 1897 Volume 873, tomo 8 1899 Volume 875, tomo 10 1901 Volume 877, tomo 1 1902 Volume 878, tomo 3 Estadistica de Manila 1896-1898 Felix Dujua (FD) 1866 Volume 420, tomo 1 1867 Volume 421, tomo 1, 2 1871 V olume 426, tomo 2 1872 Volume 427, tomo 1, 2, 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1875 Volume 431, tomo 2 1877 Volume 435, tomo 1,2 1878 Volume 436, tomo 2 1879 Volume 438, tomo 2 Volume 439, tomo 1,2 1880 Volume 441, tomo 2 1881 Volume 443, tomo 1, 2 1882 Volume 445, tomo 1, 2 1883 VGlume 447, tomo 2 Genaro Heredia (GH) 1897 Volume 826, tomo 3 1900 Volume 829, tomo 1, 7 1901 Volume 830, tomo 3, 5,6 1902 Volume 831, tomo 2, 3 Numeriano Adriano (NA) 1895 Volume 561, tomo 1,2,4 Naturalization de Estrangeros (ME), 1893-1898 Naturalizacon de Espanoles (NESP) 1886-1889 1890-1892 Van os Persona] es (VP) Carlos Paianea 1853-1898 Mariano Limjap 1820-1895, Legajo (File) 40 II defense Tambunting Vecmdarios (V) Binondo 1871-1898. Sta, Cruz Tondo Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264 From the Archives o f the Archdiocese o f Manila (AAM) Infonnacioties Matrimomales (IM) 1848 1851 17.C,7 17.C.9 1851-1853, 1878 1880 1882 1852 1855 1872 1875 1875-1876 1901 1927 1880-1881 1885 1890-1891 17.C.9 17.C.9 17.D.1I 18.D.10 18.E.14 1S.E.15 19.A.3 19.B.6 19,€.7 19.E.13 20.A.2 20.D.11 20.E.14 Parroquias 1797-1989 6.D.10 Planes de Aimas 1880-1911 35. A.3 to 35.C.9 Recti ficaciones de Partidas de Bautismos (RB) 1899-1912 30.C.7 Solicitudes de Chinos Sobre Bautismos (SCSB) 1833-1850 34.D.10 From the Spanish Archives o f the University o f Santo Tomas (AUST) Garcia, OP, Antonio. 1952. "Historical Sketch of the Manila Chinese Parish.” In Parochial Folio, 19 October 19. Manila: AUST. Microfilm, Rollo 46, #19. Resolucion de los Casos Morales Propmsios el Aha 1881-1887, Manila: AUST Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265 Rollo 46, Section Binondo, “ Los Chinos Catolicos de Manila” (report given by Antonio Garcia) tomo 2 From the Archive o f the Sto. Domingo Parish, Manila Parian, tomo 2, Libre de Bautizos. siglo XVII, 1626-1700 Parian, tomo 2, Libro de Bautizos, siglo XVIII, 1710-1734 From the Genealogical Society o f Utah (GSU) Bxenes de Difuntos, Bundie/Legajo 13 1858-1894, Reel 1505476 Newspapers and Magazines Cablenews American, 6 November 1907 The Independent, 4 March 1926; 19 March 1926 The Manila Times, 6 November 1907; 14 November 1907 Philippine Daily Inquirer 6 July 2002,15 September 2000 The Tribune, 5 March 1926 World News, 29 January 1995; 22 December 2000 Letters and E-mail Communication Boncan y Limjap, Raul, 2000. Conversation with author. Manila, Philippines, 24 April. Chuabio, Lolita. 2001. E-mail communication to author, 8 February. He Bingzhong. 2001. Letter to Raul Boncan y Limjap, 1 January. Luo Daoxian and Jian Luo. 2001. Letter to Raul Boncan y Limjap, 27 August. Lutaneo, Rony. 2001. E-mail communication to author, 13 February. Wickberg, Edgar. 2001. E-mail communication to author, 23 March. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266 __________ . 2003, E-mail communication to author. 9 January; 27 February. Published Materials “The Acts of the Synod of Calasiao, 1773/’ 1970. Philippiniana Sacra 5 (13): 74- 107. Agoncilio, Teodoro A. 1990. History o f the Filipino People. 8* ed. Quezon City: Garotech Publishing. Alejandrmo, Clark L. 2002. A History o f the 1902 Chinese Exclusion Act: American Colonial Transmission and Deterioration o f Filipitm-Chmese Relations, M.A. Thesis, Ateneo de Manila University. Published 2003. Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran, Inc. (page references are to dissertation). Alip, Eufronio Melo, 1974. The Chinese in Manila. Manila: National Historical Commission. Alonso, Ana Maria. 1994. “The Politics of Space, Time and Substance; State Formation, Nationalism, and Ethnicity.” Annual Review o f Anthropology 23:379-405. Amyot, Jacques. 1973. The M anila Chinese: Familism in the Philippine Environment. Manila: Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University. Andrade, Jr., Pio. 2000. “Chinese Chabacano.” Tulay August 8. Ang See, Teresita. 1990a. “Religious Syncretism Among the Chinese in the Philippines.” In The Chinese in the Philippines: Problems and Perspectives, ed. T. Ang See, 54-67. Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran, Inc. ___________ . 1990b, “Changing Views and Perceptions o f the Chinese in the Philippines: Some Observations.” In The Chinese in the Philippines: Problems and Perspectives, ed. T. Ang See, 94-106. Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kauniaran, Inc. . 1990c. “The Chinese in the Philippines—Assets or Liabilities.” In 'T h e Chinese in the Philippines: Problems and Perspectives, ed. T. Ang See, 107- 119. Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kauniaran, Inc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26? __________ . 1997a. “The Chinese in the Philippine Political Process: From Retail Trade Nationalization to Retail Trade Liberalization.” In Jhe Chinese in the Philippines: Problems and Perspectives. Vol. 2, 69-92. Manila: Kaisa Para sa JCaiffilatm, Inc. , ed. 1997b. The Ethnic Chinese as Filipinos (PartII). Vol. 7, Chinese Studies Journal. Manila: Philippine Association for Chinese Studies. , ed. 1999. The Ethnic Chinese as Filipinos (Part III). Vol. 8, Chinese Studies Journal. Manila: Philippine Association for Chinese Studies. __________ . 2001, “China, the Ethnic Chinese and Intercultural Exchanges—the Case of the Philippines.” Paper presented at the 4th International Chinese Overseas Conference, 26-28 April, at Center for Academic Activities, Academia Sinica, Taipei Taiwan. Ang See, Teresita and Bon Juan. Go. 1996. The Ethnic Chinese in the Philippine Revolution. Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran, Inc. Atkinson, Jane and Shelly Errington. 1990, Power and Difference: Gender in Island Southeast Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Azcuna, Adolfo. 1969, “The Chinese and the Law.” in The Chinese in the Philippines, 1770-1898, Vol. 2, ed. Alfonso Felix Jr., 75-95, M anila: Solidaridad Publishing House. Bankoff, Greg. 1992. In Verba Sacerdoiis: The Judicial Powers o f the Catholic Church in Nineteenth-century Philippines. Darwin, Australia: Center for Southeast Asian Studies. Northern Territory' University, ___________. 1996. Crime, Society. and the State in the Nineteenth-Century Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Barth, Fredrik. 1969. “Introduction.” In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization o f Culture Difference, ed. F, Barth, 9-38. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Becker, Marjorie, 1995. Setting the Virgin on Fire: Lamm Cardenas, Michoaccm Peasants, and the Redemption o f the Mexican Revolution, Berkeley: University of California Press. Bemad, Miguel A. 1972. The Christianization o f the Philippines: Problems and Perspectives. Manila: The Filipiniana Book Guild. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268 Bernal, Rafael. 1966. “The Chinese Colony in Manila.” In The Chinese in the Philippines: 1570-1770, Vol. 1, ed. Alfonso Felix Jr., 40-66. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House. Bernhardt Kathryn, 1999. Women and Property in China, 960-1949, Stanford; Stanford University Press. Bernhardt, Kathryn and Philip Huang. 1994. Civil Law in Oing mid Republican China. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Blusse, Leonard. 1988. Strange Company: Chinese Settlers, Mestizo Women and the Dnth in Voc Batavia. Dordrechl-Hol land: Foris Publications. Bonacich, Edna. 1972, “A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labor Market.” American Sociological Review 37 (October): 547-559. Boncan y Limjap, Raul. 1997. Home o f Limjap, Vol. 1. N.p, . 2000. House o f Limjap, Vol. 2. N.p. Boxer, C.R., ed. 1953. South China in the Sixteenth Century. London: The Hakluyt Society. Briones, Concepcion G. 1983. Life in Old Parian. Cebu City: Cebuano Studies Center, University of San Carlos. Bureau of Insular Affairs. W ar Department, W ashington D C. 1903. Official Handbook - Description o f the Philippines, Part /, Manila: Bureau of Public Printing. Bureau of R ecords M anagem ent. D epartm ent o f General Services. 1968. Archiviam 1 (July). Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. 1912, http://\\yvyv.itewadvent.oig/catiien/’ Chatteij ee, Partha. 1993. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Chen Miao. 1994. Jinjiang Shiji (Jinjiang Gazetteer). Shanghai: Shanghai Saniian Bookstore. Chen, Ta. 1923. Chinese Migrations, with Special Reference to Labor Conditions. Washington: Government Printing Office. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269 Chu, Richard T. 2001a. “Guilt Trip to China/’ In Citliural Curiosity: Thirteen Stories about the Search for Chinese Roots, 128-144, ed. Josephine Khu. Berkeley: University of California Press. __________ . 2001b. “The "Chinese5 Entrepreneurs of Manila from 1875 to 1905: Powers-of-Attomey, Aliases and Other Border-Crossing Practices.” In The 4th International Chinese Overseas Conference, Vol. 3, 285-302. Taipei, Taiwan: ISSP Sun Yat-Sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy, Academia Sinica. . 2002. “Rethinking the Chinese Mestizo of the Philippines.” In Beyond China: Migrating Identities, eds. Shea, Yuanfang, and Penny Edwards, 44- 74. Canberra: Centre for the Study of the Chinese Southern Diaspora, The Australian National University. Clendinnen, Inga. 1987. Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cobo, Juan. 1966. 13 July 1589 Letter. R eprinted in The Chinese in the Philippines: 1570-1770, Vol. 1, ed. Alfonso Felix Jr., 133-142, Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House. Cohen, Ronald. 1978. “Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology.” In Annual Review o f Anthropology 7:379-403. Comenge y Dalniau, Rafael. 1S94. Cuestioms Filipinos. la. parte. Los Chinos. (Estudio Socialy Politico). Manila: Tipolitografia de Chofre y compa. Comyn, Tomas de. 1969. State of 'the Philippines in 1810. Translated from Spanish by William Walton. Manila: Filipiniana Book Guild. Cook James A. 1998. Bridges to Modernity: Xiamen, Overseas Chinese mid Southern Coastal Modernization, 1843-1937. Ph.D. diss.. University of California, San Diego. Cortes, Rosario, Ceiestina Puyai Boncan, and Ricardo Trota Jose. 2000. The Filipino Saga: History as Social Change. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers. Corpuz, Onofre D. 1957. The Bureaucracy in the Philippines. Quezon City: Institute of Public Administration, University of the Philippines. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270 . 1967. Education and Socioeconomic Change in the Philippines, 1870- 1960s. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. ___________ . 1997. An Economic History o f the Philippines. Quezon City; University of the Philippines Press. Crossley. Pamela Kyle. 1989. “The Qianlong Retrospect on the Chinese-Martial (.hanjun) Banners.” Late Imperial China 10.1 (June); 62-107. ___________. 1990a. “Thinking about Ethnicity in Early Modern China.” Late Imperial China 11.1 (June): 1-35. . 1990b. Orphan Warriors: Three Mrnchu Generations and the End o f the Qing World. Princeton; Princeton University Press. Cushman, Jennifer, and Gungwu Wang, 1988. Changing Identities o f the Southeast Asian Chinese Since World War II. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Diaz-Trechuelo, Lourdes. 1966. “The Role o f the Chinese in the Philippine Domestic Economy.” In The Chinese in the Philippines: 1570-1770, Vol. 1, ed. Alfonso Felix Jr., 175-210. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House. Division of Customs and Insular Affairs. War Department 1899. The Notarial Laws in Force in the Philippine Islands, and Appendices Relating Thereto. Washington: Government Printing Office. Doeppers, Daniel F. 1979. “Geographical Dimensions o f Philippine Social History.” In Perspectives on Philippine Historiography: A Symposium, ed. 1. A. Larkin, 15-26. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies. . 1986. “Destination, Selection and Turnover among Chinese Migrants to Philippine Cities in the Nineteenth Century.” Journal o f Historical Geography 12: 381-401. Doronila, Amando. 2000. “President to Blame for Chinese Bashing in Media.” Philippine Daily Inquirer 21 February. Duara. Prasenjit. 1995. Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives o f Modem China. Chicago; University of Chicago Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271 __________ . 1997, ""Nationalists Among Transnationals: Overseas Chinese and the Idea of China, 1900 -1911,” In Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics o f Modern Chinese Transnationalism, eds., Aihwa Ong and Donald Nonini, 39-60. New York and London: Routledge. Eley, G, and Sony, R., eds, 1996. Becoming National: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Esteva-Fabregat, Claudio. 1995. Mestizo]e in Ibero-America. Translated from Spanish by John Wheat, Tucson & London: The University of Arizona Press, Eviota, Elizabeth U. 1992, The Political Economy o f Gender: Women and the Sexual Division o f Labour in the Philippines. London: Zed Books, Felix, Alfonso, Jr. 1966. "How We Stand.” In The Chinese in the Philippines: 1570-1770. ed. Alfonso Felix Jr., Vol. 1, 1-14, M anila: Solidarldad Publishing House.ed. , 1969. The Chinese in the Philippines, Vol. 2, Manila: Solidarldad Publishing House. Feria, Felicisimo R. 1912, Manual de los Notarios Publicos. Manila: Tip. DeSto, Tomas. Fisher, F. C., te n s. 1947. Codigo Civil: The Civil Code o f Spain, with Philippine Notes and References. 5th ed, Rochester. N.Y.: Lawyers Co-operative Pub, Co. Flores, Luis. 1911, El Secretario de los Notarios Publicos. Manila: Imprenta, Libreria y Papeleria de I.R. Morales. Freedman. Maurice. 1958. Lineage Organization in Southeastern China. N ew York: The Athlone Press. __________ . 1966. Chinese Lineage and Society: Fukien and Kwanghmg. London School of Economics, Monographs on Social Anthropology, no, 33, London: Humanities Press, Garcia, Excelso. 1973, “Particular Discipline on Marriage in the Philippines during the Spanish Regime,” PMUppimam Sacra 3 (22): 7-85, Gladney, Dru. 1991, Muslim Chinese: Ethnic Nationalism, in the People ! s Republic, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272 Gleeck, Lewis E. Jr. 1996. Nine Years to Make a Difference: The Tragically Short Career o f James A. Leroy in the Philippines, Manila: Loyal Printing, Inc. Gold, Thomas B. 1993. “Go With Your Feelings, Hong Kong and Taiwan Popular Culture in Greater China.” The China Quarterly, (December): 907-925. Guerrero, Milagros. 1966. “The Chinese in the Philippines, 1570-1770.” In The Chinese in the Philippines: 1570-1770, Vol. 1, ed. Alfonso Felix Jr., 15-39. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House. Guia Oficial de Filipinos. 1891. Manila: Secretaria del Gobiemo General. Harding, Harry. 1993. “The Concept of ’Greater China’: Themes, Variations and Reservations.” The China Quarterly. (December): 660-686. Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds, 1983. The Invention o f Tradition. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, Rupert. 1996. Merchant Princes o f the East: Cultural Delusions, Economic Success and the Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia. Mew York: John Wiley & Sons. Honig. Emily. 1992. Creating Chinese Ethnicity: Subei People in Shanghai 1850- 1980. New Haven: Yale University Press. Horsley, Margaret W. 1950, Sangley: the Formation of Anti-Chinese Feeling in the Philippines: a Cultural Study o f the Stereotypes o f Prejudice. Ph.D. diss,, Columbia University. Hsu, M adeline Yuan-yin, 2000. Dreaming o f Gold, Dreaming o f Home: Transnationalism and Migration Between the United States and South China, 1882-1943. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Huang, Hsiao-ts’ang, 1936. Fei-lu-p'in Min-li-la Chunghua Shang-hui san-shih chou-nien chi-nien k ’ an (Thirtieth Anniversary Commemorative Publication). Manila: Chinese Chamber of Commerce. Huang, Philip. 1996. Civil Justice in China: Representation and Practice in the Qing. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ileto, Reynaldo. 1979. Pasyon and Revolution: Popular M ovements in the Philippines, 1840-1910. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273 __________. 1998. Filipinos and Their Revolution. Quezon City; Ateneo de Manila University Press. Insular Collector of Customs. 1912. Chinese m id Immigration Circulars. Manila: Bureau of Printing. Ira, Liming B. and Medina, Isagani R. 1977. Streets o f Manila. Quezon City: GCF Books. Jensen, Irene. 1975. The Chinese in the Philippines during the American Regime, 1898-1946. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates. Jordana y Morera, Ramon. 1888. La Itmigracion China m Filipinos, Madrid: Tip. de M.G. Hernandez. Jose, F. Sionil. 1999. “Chinese Mischief.5 5 The Philippine Star 21 February. Larkin. John A. 1993. The Pampangans: Colonial Society in a Philippine Province, Quezon City: New Day Publishers, Legarda, Benito J. 1999. After the Galleons: Foreign Trade, Economic Change and Entrepreneurship in the Niwieenth-Century Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Leonard, Karen. 1992. Making Ethnic Choices: California’ s Punjabi Mexican Americans. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Li Turning. 1995. Fujian ShengDituce. Fujian Sheng Ditu Chuban She Ctaban Faying. Lim, Jade, 1980. “Carlos Palanca Tan Quien-Sien, A Case Study o f a Chinese Cabecilla in the 19th Century Philippines.5 7 M.A. thesis. University of Santo Tomas. Lim, Rodrigo. 1930. Who’ s Who in the Philippines, Chinese edition. Manila: University of the Philippines Press. Limlingan. Victor S. 1986. The Overseas Chinese in MEAN: Business Strategies and Management Practices. Manila: Vita Development Corporation. Louie, Emma Woo. 1998. Chinese American Names: Tradition and Transition, Jefferson, North Carolina, and London: McFarland & Company. Inc, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274 Manuel, Arsenio E. 1948, Chinese Elements in the Tagalog Language. Manila: Filipiniana Publications. ________, 1955. Dictionary o f Philippine Biography, Vol. 1. Quezon City: Filipiniana Publications. McCarthy, Charles J. 1974. “The Chinese in the Philippines.” In Philippine- Chinese Profile: Essays and Studies, ed. Charles McCarthy, 1-32. Manila: Pagkakaisa sa Pag-unlad, Inc. McKenna, Thomas M. 1998. Muslim Rulers and Rebels: Everyday Politics and Armed Separatism in the Southern Philippines. Berkeley: University of California Press. McKeown, Adam. 1999. “Conceptualizing Chinese Diasporas, 1842 to 1949. Journal o f Asian Studies 58 (2): 306-337. Menegon, Eugenio. 1994. “A Note on the Archivo de la Provincia del Santo Rosario in Avila, Spain.” Sim-Western Cultural Relations Journal 16:73-75. Merino, Jesus. 1969. “General Considerations Regarding the Chinese Mestizo” In The Chinese in the Philippines, Vol. 2, ed. Alfonso Felix, Jr., 45-66. Manila; Solidarldad Publishing House. Meskili, Johanna Menzel. 1979. A Chinese Pioneer Family: The Lins o f Wu-feng, Taman 1729-1895. Princeton; Princeton University Press. Moreno y Diez. Rafael. 1874. Manual del Cabeza de Barangay. Manila: Imprenta «A m igos del P a is» , National Historical Institute. 1972, Laws o f the First Philippine Republic: (The Laws ofMalolos) J898-1899. Manila: National Historical Institute. . 1996. F ilipinos in History, 1990-1996. 5 vols. Manila: National Historical Institute. Ng Chin-Keong. 1983. Trade and Society: The Amoy Network. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Ng Wing Chung. 1999. The Chinese in Vancouver, 1945-80: the Pursuit o f Identity and Power. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Ocampo, Ambeth R. 2000. Riml without the Overcoat. Manila: Anvil Publishing. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275 Ocampo, Ambeth R, 2000. Rizal without the Overcoat, Manila: Anvil Publishing. Omohundro, John. 1981. Chinese Merchant Families in Iloilo: Commerce and Kin in a Central Philippine City. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press: The Ohio University Press. Ong, Aihwa. 1993. “On the Edge of Empties: Flexible Citizenship among Chinese in Diaspora." Positions 1(3): 745-777. ___________ . 1999. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics o f TramnaiionaUty. Durham and London: Duke Lmiversity Press. Ong, Aihwa. and Donald Nonini, eds. 1997. Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics o f Modern Chinese Transnationalism, London and New York: Routledge. Ongpin, Martha Isabel G. 1984. Alfonso T. Ongpin: Preserver and Promoter o f Philippine Cultural Heritage, B.A. Thesis, Ateneo de Manila University. Oxfeld, Ellen. 1993. Blood, Sweat, and Mahjong: Family and Enterprise in an Overseas Chinese Community, Ithaca; Cornell University Press. Paredes, Ruby. 1997. “For Want o f a City.'” The Philippine Revolution and Beyond, Vol. 2, ed. Elm er A. O rdonez. 620-640. M anila: Philippine Centennial Commission [and] National Commission for Culture and Arts. Pax Romana Secretariat Bulletin December 1966-1967. Pe. Susan L. 1983. “The Dominican Ministry Among the Chinese in the Parian, Baybay, and Binondo, 1587-1637.” M.A. thesis, Ateneo de M anila University. Philippine National Archives. 1973. Catdlogo Alfabetico de ApelUdos. Pinto, Sonia L. 1964. “The Parian, 1581-1762.” M.A. thesis. Ateneo de Manila University. Purcell, Victor. 1948. The Chinese in Malaya, London: Oxford University Press. ____ . 1965. The Chinese in Southeast Asia. K uala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276 Quiason, Serafin D. 1966. “The Sampan Trade, 1570-1770.” In The Chinese in the Philippines: 1570-1770, Vol. 1, ed. by Alfonso Felix Jr., 160-174. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House. R afael, V icente. 1993. Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society under Early Spanish Rule. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. Reid, Anthony. 1988. Southeast Asia in the Age o f Commerce 1450-1680, Volume One: the Ixmds below the Winds. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Reynolds, I. Hubert, and Harriet R. Reynolds. 1998. Chinese in llocos: 1950s- 1960s, 2 parts, ed, Teresita Ang See. Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaanlaran, Inc. Riccio, Victor! o OP. 1667. '"Hechos de la or den de Predicadores en el Imperio de la China, scriptos por el P. Fr. Victoria Riccio C In Archivo de la Provincia del Santo Rosario (APSR). China, Vol. 2, f t 235r-v. Rizal, Jose. 1996a. Noli Me Tangere. Translated from Spanish by Soledad Lacsoit- Locsin and edited by Raul L. Locsin. Makati City, Philippines: Bookmark. ___________ . 1996b. E l Filibusterismo. Translated from Spanish by Soledad Lacson-Locsin and edited by Raul L. Locsin. Makati City, Philippines: Bookmark. Retana, Wenceslao E. 1921. Diccionario de Fitipinismos. (Extracted from the Revue Hispanique, tome LI) Reynolds, I. Hubert, and Harriet R, 1998. Chinese in llocos: 195Os-I960s. Parts I andII. Edited by Teresita Ang See, Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran. Robles, Eliodoro. 1969. The Philippines in the Nineteenth Century. Quezon City : Malaya Books Inc, Roth, Dennis. 1977. The Friar Estates o f the Philippines. Albuquerque: Lteiversitv of New Mexico Press. San Antonio, Juan Francisco de. 1977. The Philippine Chronicles o f Fray San Antonio. Translated from the Spanish by D. Pedro Picorneii. Manila: Casalinda and Historical Conservation Society. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277 Santamaria, Alberto. 1966. “The Chinese Parian (El Parian de los Sang!eyes).” In The Chinese in the Philippines: 1570-1770, Vol. 1, ed. Alfonso Felix Jr., 67- 118, Manila: Solidarldad Publishing House. Salazar, Domingo. 1966. Letter to the King 24 June 1590. In The Chinese in the Philippines: 1570-1770, Vol. 1. ed. Alfonso Felix Jr., 119-132. Manila: Solidarldad Publishing House. Scott, William Henry, 1994. Bamngay: Sixteenth-century Philippine Culture and Society, Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Shambaugh, David. 1993. “Introduction: The Emergence of "Greater China.”* The China Quarterly. (December): 653-659. Skinner, G. William. 1957. Chinese Society in Thailand: Aft Analytical History. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. __________ . 1996. “Creolized Chinese Societies in Southeast Asia.” In Sojourners and Settlers: Histories o f Southeast Asia and the Chinese, ed. Anthony Reid, 51-93, ASAA Southeast Asia Publications Series. Sugaya, Nariko. 2000. “Chinese Immigrant Society in the Latter Half of the 18th Century Philippines: Strategy for Survival in Response to Spain's New Chinese Policy.” In InterculiumlRelations, Cultural Transformation, and Identity, ed. Teresita Ang See, 553-570. Manila: Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran, Inc. Suryadinata. Leo. 1978. Pribumi Indonesians, the Chinese Minority and China: A Study o f Perceptions and Policies, Singapore. Kuala Lumpur, and Hong Kong; Heinemann Educational Books (Asia) LTD. . 1981. Peranakan Chinese P olitics in Java 1917-1942. R evised edition. Singapore: Singapore University Press. __________ . 1985. China and the Asean States. Singapore: Singapore University Press. . 1989. The Ethnic Chinese in the Asean States: Bibliographical Essays. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. . 1993. Peranakan''s Searchfor National Identity. Singapore: Times Academic- Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278 __________ , ed. 1997. Ethnic Chinese as Southeast Asians. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Szantofl-BIane, Cristina. 1997. "The Thoroughly Modem "Asian5 : Capitol, Culture, and Nation in Thailand and the Philippines,” In Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics o f Modern Chinese franstmiomdism,» eds. Aihwa Ong. and Donald M. Nonini, 261-286. New York and London: Routledge. National Souvenir Publications. 1957. Tabkau-Encyclopedia ofDistinguished Personalities in the Philippines. Manila; National Souvenir Publications. Tan, Antonio. 1972. The Chinese in the Philippines, 1898-1935: A Study o f Their National Awakening. Quezon City: Garcia Publishing Co. __________ . 1985. “Chinese Mestizos and the Formation of Filipino Nationality” In Chinese in the Philippines, ed. Theresa Carino, 50-64. Manila: De La Salle University. Tan, Chee Beng. 1988. The Baba o f Melaka: Culture'and Identity o fa Chinese Peranakan Community in Malaysia, Selangor: Pelanduk Publications. Teh, Abigail R. 1990. “The Chinese Among Us— The Chinese in Us: A Case Study of Kaisa Para sa Kaunlaran, Inc.” A.B. Thesis, University of the Philippines. Tong, Chee Kiong, and Pit Kee Yong. 1998. " ‘Guanxi Bases, Xinyong and Chinese Business Networks.” British Journal o f Sociology- 49(1): 75-96. Torres, Jose Victor. 1992. “Binondo: A Historical View of an Old Arrabal .” In Solemn Inauguration o f the Minor Basilica o f San Lorenzo Ruiz de Manila. Souvenir Program. U.S. Bureau o f Insular Affairs. 1903. Official Handbook-Description o f the Philippines, Part I. Manila: Bureau of Public Printing. U.S. Department o f State. 1953. Directory o f Chinese Personal Names in the Philippines. W ashington D C.: E xternal Research S taff, O ffice o f Intelligence Research. U.S. Philippine Commission. 1899-1901. Report o f the Philippine Commission to the President, 4 Yols. Washington: Government Printing Office. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279 Uy, Antolin. 1984. The State of the Church in the Philippines. Steyler Veriag, St, Augustin. Vermeer, E.B. 1990. Development and Decline ofFukien Province in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Leiden: EJ. Brill. Wang, Gungwu. 1981. “The Limits of Nanyang Chinese Nationalism: 1912-1937” In Community and National: Essays on Southeast Asia and the Chinese. Selected by Anthony Reid, 142-158. Singapore: Heinemann Educational Books (Asia) Ltd. __________ . 1991. China and the Chinese Overseas. Singapore: Times Academic Press. ___________ .1993. “Greater China and the Chinese O verseas.” The China Quarterly (December): 926-948. Watson, Emily, and Patricia Buckley Ebrey. 1991. Marriage and Inequality in Chinese Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wickberg, Edgar Bernard. 1964. “The Chinese Mestizo in Philippine History.” Journal o f Southeast Asian History 5(1): 62-100. . 1997. “Anti-Simcism and Chinese Identity Options in the Philippines.” In Essential Outsiders: Chinese and Jews in the M odem Transformation o f Southeast Asia and Central Europet eds. Daniel Chirot, and Anthony Reid, 153-183. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. __________ . 1998. “Ethnicity” In The Encyclopedia o f the Chinese Overseas. ed. Lynn Pan, 114-127. Singapore: Chinese Heritage Center. __________ . 1999. “Localism and the Organization of Overseas Migration in the Nineteenth Century.” In Cosmopolitan Capitalists: Hong Kong and the Chinese Diaspora at the End o f the 20th century, ed. Gary G, Hamilton, 35- 55. Seattle: University of Washington Press. _________ . 2000. The Chinese in Philippine Life, 1850-1898. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. Reprint, Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press (page references are to reprint edition). Wilkes, Charles, et. al. 1974. In Travel Accounts o f the Islands (1832-1858). by Lafond de Lurcy... [et al.] Manila: Filipiniana Book Guild. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280 Willmott, Donald E. 1956. The National Status o f the Chinese in Indonesia, New York: Cornell University. Wills, John E. 1991. “China’s Farther Shores: Continuities a ad Changes in the Destination Ports of China’s Maritime Trade, 1680-1690.5 5 In Emporia, Commodities and Entrepreneurs in Asian Maritime Trade, c, 1400-1750, ed. Roderick Ptak, and Dietmar Rothermimd, 53-11. Franz Steiner Verfag Stuttgart. _________ . 1994. “From Manila to Fu’an; Asian Contexts of Dominican Mission Policy” In The Chinese Rites Controversy, Its History and Meaning, ed, D. E. Mungello. 111-127, Nettetal. Steyler Yerlag. Wilson, Andrew R. 1998. “Ambition and Identity; China and the Chinese in the Colonial Philippines” Ph.D. dtss., Harvard University'. __________ . 2003. “Chinese Merchant-Elites and the Making of Chinese Identity in Late Colonial Manila, 1880-1916,” Paper presented at the AAS Meeting, New York, March 27-30,2003. Wong, Kwok-chu. 1994. “The Chinese in the Philippine Economy, 1898-1941: A Study o f Their Business Achievements and Lim itations.” Ph.D. diss., Australian National University. Published 1999, Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press (page references are to dissertation). Wyngaert, Anastasius van den GFM. ed. 1936. Sinica Fmnciseatm [III]. Relationes et Epistolas Fratrum Minorum saeculi XVII et XVIII, Vol. 3. Quaracchi- Firenze: Collegium S. Bonaventurae. Xiao Lusong Huaqiao Zhongxi Xuexiao Wushi Zhounian Jinian Kan (Golden Jubilee Issue of the Anglo-Chinese School, 1899-1949). 1949. Manila. Yang, Jingtong, 1935. FeilubmHuaqiaoNimjkm. Manila: Huaqiao Nianjian She. Zarco, Ricardo M. 1966. “The Chinese Family Structure.” In The Chinese in the Philippines: 1570-1770 ed. Alfonso Felix Jr., Vol 1, 211-222. Manila: Solidarldad Publishing House. Zheng, Zhenman. 2001. Family Lineage Organization and Social Change in Ming and Qing Fujian. Translated by Michael Szonyi, with the assistance of Kenneth Dean and David Wakefield. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281 Zhou Nanjing. 1990. Shijie Huaqiao Huaren Cidian (Dictionary o f Overseas Chinese). Beijing: Beijing University Publishing Co. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Ethnic identity and nationalism in Taiwan
PDF
Constructing the Zhonghua minzu: The frontier and national questions in early 20th century China
PDF
Identity configurations: re-inventing Samoan youth identities in urban California
PDF
China's Korean minority: A study in the dissolution of ethnic identity
PDF
Interfaith family process and the negotiation of identity and difference
PDF
Assimilation and ethnicity: Adaptation patterns and ethnic identity of Armenian -Americans in central California
PDF
Austronesian voyaging from Taiwan: Cultivating Amis folk songs on the international stage
PDF
In search of immortality: Daoist inner alchemy in early twentieth-century China
PDF
Farewell to the empire? National identity, domestic structures, and foreign economic policies of the post -Soviet states
PDF
Ethnic identity in Parsee teenagers
PDF
A place-in-between: narratives of gender, violence and identity in a South African township
PDF
Chicana poetics: Performing desire, recasting archetypes
PDF
A social ethical analysis of the restoration motif of Churches of Christ
PDF
In church with my ancestors: The changing shape of religious memory in the Republic of Armenia and the North American diaspora
PDF
An integrative analysis of racism and quality of life: A comparison of multidimensional moderators in an ethnically diverse sample
PDF
Deviant cosmopolitanism: Transgressive globalization and traveling citizenship
PDF
Diagnosing communication connections: Reaching underserved communities through existing communication ecologies
PDF
Domestic violence in Korean immigrant families
PDF
Chinese immigrants united for self -empowerment: Case study of a weekend Chinese school
PDF
"People of the (cook)book": The enculturation of American Jewish women
Asset Metadata
Creator
Chu, Richard T.
(author)
Core Title
"Catholic," "Mestizo," "Sangley": Negotiating "Chinese" identities in Manila 1870--1905
School
Graduate School
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
History
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
anthropology, cultural,OAI-PMH Harvest,Religion, Philosophy of,sociology, ethnic and racial studies
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Wills, John (
committee chair
), Cooper, Eugene (
committee member
), Furth, Charlotte (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-479857
Unique identifier
UC11334990
Identifier
3133251.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-479857 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3133251.pdf
Dmrecord
479857
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Chu, Richard T.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
anthropology, cultural
Religion, Philosophy of
sociology, ethnic and racial studies