The verification that Jose Rizal’s Chinese ascendants hailed from? ? Shangguo Village in southern Fujian state sparked the recent “Rizal fever” in the Chinese- Filipino community. [ Translator’s note: Shangguo is the Pinyin rendition of the Mandarin pronunciation of? ? . while Siong-ke is a rendition of the pronunciation in Minnan or Hokkien—the address of southern Fujian and Taiwan. and of bulk of the Chinese in the Philippines. Shangguo was one time a small town of? ? ? or Luoshan Town. Due to alterations in the administrative divisions of Fujian. Shangguo has become a community under the Xintang Subdistrict of Jinjiang City ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ) .
“Chinese-Filipino” refers to ethnic Chinese or people of Chinese lineage in the Philippines. ] The joint research done by Mr. Melanio Cua Fernando. board member and editorialist of the Chinese Commercial News [ translator’s note: Chinese Commercial News or? ? ? ? . a Chinese day-to-day circular newspaper published in Manila ] . members of the Ke ( Cua ) and Cai ( Chua ) clans in Shangguo. and a figure of other luminaries. has shown that the name of Ke Yinan ( Domingo Lamco ) . Rizal’s great-great-grandfather. is found in the “Genealogy of the Ke Clan of Shangguo” ( ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ) . therefore turn outing that Rizal was of Chinese ancestry1.
This has created rather a splash within the Chinese-Filipino community. which attaches much importance to ancestry and bloodline. This author. nevertheless. has non found any hint of Rizal’s designation with China in his voluminous Hagiographas. In fact the contrary is true: Rizal’s Hagiographas abound with rejection and unfavorable judgment of the Chinese. In malice of this. the Rizal household. led by Rizal’s grandniece Asuncion Lopez-Rizal Bantug. has visited their hereditary hometown of Shangguo2.
This “pilgrimage” of kinds. which would non hold been to Rizal’s liking. has however brought some solace to Chinese-Filipinos. While we rejoice over this freshly affirmed affinity with the national hero. we seem to hold handily overlooked a new tendency in mainstream Rizal surveies. Chinese-Filipino history experts with a appreciation of English and Tagalog would cognize that the focal point of mainstream “Rizalism” has shifted from the old “deification” to the current intervention of Rizal as a human being.
On the contrary. Chinese-Filipino history gurus who favor assimilation [ translator’s note: i. e. . assimilation of local Chinese into Philippine society ] have gone out of measure with mainstream society. Not merely have they continued to “whitewash” Rizal. they have even hid him beneath a bespoke “Chinese greatcoat. ” transforming him from the rabid anti-Chinese that he was into a “true friend of the Chinese people who had the greatest grasp for Chinese civilization. ” As this author had mentioned elsewhere3. Rizal had been made to wear the “Chinese overcoat” to “foster Philippine-Chinese dealingss.
” ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [ Rizal and China ; original in Chinese. rubric rendered in English by transcriber ] . the 13th book in the Center for Overseas Chinese Studies Series of Peking University. was published for the express intent of transporting out this “political mission. ” The purpose may be baronial. but publications bearing political docket are seldom just and merely. The job is compounded by the portraiture of Rizal as the representative of Philippine-Chinese friendship—a portraiture which rests on rickety foundations.
The dead surely can non voice out their expostulations over ill-fitting “overcoats” forcibly given them. but we the life can judge if certain 3 thoughts attributed to them genuinely reflect their beliefs. Better yet. we could even cut down these bulky greatcoats to size and enable the historical figures beneath to emerge afresh. Such is this writer’s intent for composing this essay. and this author finds moral support in the ideal of “intellectual honestness. ” which appears to be missing among our politically motivated governments on history.
The book Rizal and China. which carries the label of Peking University. has three editors. The first is Mr. Zhou Nanjing. an expert in the history of China and of Southeast Asia. the history of abroad Chinese. and the history of Chinese and Southeast Asiatic dealingss. He is presently a professor of the Institute for Afro-asian Surveies of Peking University and manager of the university’s Center for Overseas Chinese Studies. The 2nd is Mr. Ling Zhang. Since the start of economic reforms in China in 1978. Mr. Ling has devoted himself to the survey of literature. peculiarly Filipino and Singaporean literature.
His chief involvement is the survey of Rizal. the Philippines’ national hero and literary mastermind. Since his retirement. he has served as deputy manager of the Overseas Exchange Center of the Association of Returned Overseas Chinese of the Academy of Social Sciences. The 3rd editor is Mr. Go Bon Juan. a former Chinese- Filipino banker and reporter. Mr. Go was one of the laminitiss of the organisation Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran and is considered an authorization on local Chinese personal businesss.
[ Translator’s note: Kaisa Para Sa Kaunlaran. Inc. is a Filipino non-government organisation established in 1987 with the purpose of advancing understanding between cultural Chinese and non-Chinese and advancing integrating of cultural Chinese into mainstream Philippine society. See the web site of the organisation. World Wide Web. kaisa. ph. ] He now pens the day-to-day column column? ? ? ? ? ? ? [ The Philippines in its length and comprehensiveness ; rubric of column rendered in English by transcriber ] of the local newspaper World News. [ Translator’s note: World News or? ? ? ? ? ? is a Chinese day-to-day circular newspaper published in Manila. ]This author will now continue to discourse Rizal’s contempt for the Chinese and expose certain mystery in the book Rizal and China. As Mr. Go Bon Juan is a? ? qingliu or “clear stream” and is non a stickler for formalities. afterlife he will non any longer be addressed as “Mr. ” and will merely be referred to as Go Bon Juan. [ Translator’s note: ? ? is one of the pennames of Go Bon Juan. The characters “ ? ? ” qingliu mean “clear watercourse. ” and. by extension. “uncontaminated person”—one who is concerned with political affairs but remains distant from those in power. ] Rizal’s Refusal to Admit His Chinese Ancestry.
In his work? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [ Reflections on the find of Rizal’s hereditary hometown ; rubric rendered in English by transcriber ] 4. Travel Bon Juan. editor of Kaisa’s hebdomadal Chinese linguistic communication addendum? ? ? ? ( “Yong Hap” or “Integration” ) published by the World News. evidently could non conceal his elation over the fact that Austin Craig. an early American biographer of Rizal. had stated in his Lineage Life and Labors of Jose Rizal. Philippine Patriot: A Study of the Growth of Free Ideas in the Trans-Pacific American Territory ( published 1913 ) that Rizal’s great-great-grandfather 4.
Lamco was from Shangguo Village of Luoshan Town in Jinjiang. Fujian Province. Research workers in contemporary Jinjiang City have confirmed. based on genealogical records. that Lamco had been born in 1662. and had been baptized as a Catholic in the Philippines in 1697 at the age of 35. In the latter portion of his work. Travel writes that this is “an of import piece of historical stuff and pleasant narrative ( ? ? ) from the point of view of the history of Philippine-Chinese dealingss and the history of the Chinese in the Philippines.
” This author agrees that this is so an of import fact of Chinese-Filipino history. but disagrees that this constitutes a pleasant narrative. For the important point is this: That Rizal was a Chinese ladino was non a secret even during his life-time. and was known even by the Spanish colonial governments ; but had Rizal of all time acknowledged or taken pride in his supposed Chinese lineage? Let us clear up this issue by confer withing a figure of important lifes of Rizal. In 1968 the Oxford University Press published Rizal: Filipino Nationalist and Martyr. perchance the most widely read life of Rizal.
The writer. Austin Coates. an American. was acquainted with the household of Rizal’s sister Narcisa ; as such. the inside informations he reported in his book have a greater grade of credibility5. On page 311 of his book. Coates recounts the protest made by Rizal before his execution—a protest which evidently will non be to the liking of Chinese-Filipinos: “When the papers was shown him. he drew attending to the fact that he was falsely described as a Chinese ladino ( one of the purposes of Spanish governmental promotion on the topic was to feign that he was non even a existent Filipino ) . stating that he was an indio puro.
” [ Translator’s note: “Indio puro” means “pure indio. ” The papers that was shown to Rizal was the presentment of his decease sentence. which he was required to sign. ] During the 1889 Paris World Expo. the public presentation of the American Indians drew cheers of “Indians brave! Indians brave! ” from the Gallic crowds. and stirred the sense of national pride in Rizal. The following twenty-four hours Rizal met with his Filipino friends in Paris and proposed the creative activity of an organisation to be called Los Indios Bravos.
“Indios” was used by the Spaniards as a derogative term for the native dwellers of the Philippines. Rizal decided to change over this derogative term into a badge of award. He proclaimed: “Let us wear the name indio as our badge of racial pride! Let us do the Spaniards revise their construct of the indio—we shall go Indios Bravos! ” 6 There is yet another Rizal life. entitled The First Filipino. which won the first award in the 1961 Rizal life composing competition sponsored by the Jose Rizal National Centennial Commission.
The writer was Filipino attorney and diplomat Leon Ma. Guerrero. This book records an even more vituperative rebuttal from Rizal on his being labeled as a individual of Chinese descent7: “I do non hold. This is unfair! Here it says that I am a half-breed. and it isn’t true! I am a pure Filipino! ” 5 Rizal had ever taken pride in being a Malay indigen. and had ne’er identified with the Chinese. On page 16 of Indio Bravo. a life of Rizal written by his grandniece Asuncion Lopez-Rizal Bantug which is full with household anecdotes. one reads a positive description of the family’s Chinese roots—a description that would hold met with Rizal’s disapproval:
“Jose’s parents traced their lineage back to work forces who had a manus in determining the state. His paternal relations were proud of their Chinese blood from Domingo Lam-Co. a erudite adult male who enjoyed prestigiousness in the Chinese community… . ” Sing all these. it seems impossible that Rizal had non known of his Chinese lineage.
Should he so be categorized as? ? ? ? shudin-wangzu? [ Translator’s note: The Chinese look? ? ? ? shudin-wangzu agencies “to bury one’s beginning or ascendants. ” ] This author thinks that he did non “forget” his ascendants. but instead “refused to acknowledge” his ascendants. From the point of view of the Chinese construct of filial piousness. the latter is a wickedness worse than the former. The feudal-minded Chinese of Rizal’s twenty-four hours would hold considered it so. As such. Rizal would non hold appreciated all the recent attempts spent on unearthing his Chinese roots. This is surely non any pleasant narrative as Chinese-Filipinos believe ; this is nil more than foolish talk. This brings us to the first enigma of Rizal and China.
Rizal’s fierce denial of his Chinese lineage is good documented in assorted Filipino lifes. but why is it ne’er mentioned in Rizal and China? Rizal’s denial of the fact of his Chinese lineage is an of import constituent of his overall “relationship” with China. Although this. in a sense. constitutes a “negative relationship. ” it has greater value for academic analysis. In order to foreground the significance of the rubric “Rizal and China. ” the book should candidly enter all the facts refering to Rizal’s relationship—both positive and negative—with China. The Hero’s Portrayal of the Chinese.
Rizal’s novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo [ translator’s note: normally abbreviated Noli and Fili ] exposed the awkwardness and corruptness of the Spanish swayers. denounced the pitiless subjugation of the people. and ridiculed the lip service and overbearing attitude of the Catholic mendicants. Although Rizal was personally against violent revolution. his novels fanned the fires of the people’s rage and sparked the eventual armed lifting. Unfortunately. his novels are besides full with abuses and contempt for the Chinese immigrants in the Philippines.
Quiroga. the topic of Chapter 16 of the Fili. “The Tribulations of a Chinaman. ” was none other than Carlos Palanca Tan Quien Sien ( ? ? ? ) . who was so the leader of the Chinese community. Artificial in mode. hypocritical. cunning. a apple polisher of authorities functionaries. prosecuting in concern guesss. purpose on nil but profit—such was Rizal’s portraiture of Quiroga. It should be noted that Rizal’s derision of this adult male who became the first Chinese consul to the Philippines8 was non wholly without footing. because history clearly records Palanca’s engagement in disreputable concerns like opium importing and the monopoly on 6 cockfighting spheres ( Tagalog sabungan ) 9.
In contrast to Lin Zexu. the Chinese functionary who confiscated and destroyed the opium stocks of foreign bargainers in Humen. Guangdong Province. Carlos Palanca was an unethical merchandiser and pseudo-philanthropist. a shame to the Chinese. and the innovator of the? ? gaibang ( cover-up pack ) 10 in the local Chinese community! [ Translator’s note: The writer coined the term? ? gaibang as a drama on words. It is homophonous with? ? . diversely translated as Beggar Clan or Beggar Sect. a popular fixture of Chinese soldierly humanistic disciplines novels and films. However. ?
( “beggar” ) is replaced with? . which means “to cover up or hide. ” ] If Rizal had limited his onslaughts to heartless Chinese merchandisers. we could even praise him for being impartial. since he exposed the immoralities even of those of his ain sort. Unfortunately. Rizal generalized his observations to Chinese of all categories. As Mr. Rizal Yuyitung [ translator’s note: former publishing house of the Chinese Commercial News ] wrote in his debut to the first published Chinese interlingual rendition of the Fili: “…towards the Chinese immigrants. [ Rizal ] applied calumny and ridicule to the extreme grade.
We can understand his disfavor for the “overseas Chinese community leader” Quiroga. but when he pokes merriment at nickel-and-dime sellers and Chinese eating houses. we surely have to take exclusion. We can non believe that he was non able to happen a individual good Chinese immigrant or individual of Chinese descent to function as a symbol of Chinese part to Philippine agribusiness. humanistic disciplines and trades. and commercialism. As a individual of Chinese descent life in the presentday Philippines. one should particularly be alerted by the fact that the writer [ Rizal ] had ne’er even one time mentioned the enterprising spirit. diligence. and endurance of the Chinese. Have we ne’er succeeded with our diplomatic negotiations?
Have we non yet nullified the strategies of the Spanish swayers aimed at agitating discord between Chinese and Filipinos? ” Let us see how Rizal describes the state of affairs of the Chinese merchandisers in the lower deck of the steamer Tabo in the 2nd chapter of the Fili: “In one corner. crowded together similar cadavers. asleep or seeking to kip. were some Chinese merchandisers. seasick. Carlos Palanca—great altruist. or monopolist of opium and cockfighting den concerns?
An scrutiny of the historical records will uncover the truth. Photograph from Edgar Wickberg. The Chinese in Philippine Life 1850-1898 ( New Haven & A ; London: Yale University Press. 1965 ; republished erectile dysfunction. . Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. 2000 ) . p. six. 7 pale. salivating through their half-open lips. and immersed in the dense perspiration get awaying from all their pores. ” There is worse yet to come. In the beginning of Chapter 14. Rizal describes some students who. while playing sipa. by chance hit a Chinese seller who was selling “a odds and ends of groceries and indigestible pastries.
” [ Translator’s note: Sipa is a traditional native Philippine game in which participants kick either a metal stud washer plumed with thin coloured paper. or a ball made of Calamus rotang or wicker. See Artemio R. Guillermo and May Kyi Win. Historical Dictionary of the Philippines. 2nd erectile dysfunction. . Historical Dictionaries of Asia. Oceania. and the Middle East. no. 54 ( Lanham. Maryland: Scarecrow Press. Inc. . 2005 ) . p. 376. However. harmonizing to one annotator of the Fili. sipa was played with a ball made of little strips of bejuco or guaco. a Central and South American vine-like works.
See Jose Rizal. El Filibusterismo. Edicion Centenaria del Martirio del Dr. Jose Rizal ( Manila: Instituto Historico Nacional. 1996 ) . Apendices. p. 22. ] The kids so “pulled on his pigtail…snatched a pastry…and inflicted infinite devilries on him. ” Rizal did non show disapproval of the actions of the kids. nor did he compose any words of solace for the seller. In fact. he even described the incapacitated calls and looks of the seller in a tone feature of one who gloats over others’ bad lucks. Rizal’s flawed moral criterions and racially-biased sense of justness are rather apparent.
Furthermore. in the concluding portion of Chapter 22. the suggestion that “a feasts like that of inmates. ” “a banquet” with “all in mourning and presenting funeral speeches” be held at “a pansiteria where the waiters are shirtless Chinamen. ” is an indicant of disdain for the image of the Chinese immigrant. but Rizal passed off this “insult” as a humourous comment. [ Translator’s note: Pansiteria. spelled “panciteria” by the Diccionario de la Lengua Espanola ( 22nd erectile dysfunction. . Madrid: Real Academia Espanola. 2001 ) . is a eating house where pansit ( pancit ) or rice noodles are served. ]
Aside from this. there is Rizal’s mockery of the Chinese position of holding “one leg flexed and raised and the other suspension and vacillation. ”11 All these clearly indicate that “not merely was Rizal ashamed of placing with the Chinese. he even considered their behaviour to be so foreign. so unusual and eldritch and so utterly disgusting. that he was eager to disassociate himself from them. ”12 Objective Reasons for Rizal’s Anti-Chinese Sentiments Taking into history the rule of cause and consequence. this author had given an nonsubjective analysis of Rizal’s anti-Chinese sentiments13:
“Rizal was born on June 19 in the twelvemonth 1861—19 old ages after China’s licking in the Opium War and the sign language of the Treaty of Nanking ( Nanjing ) . During this clip. the Manchu dynasty in China faced a myriad of troubles: internally. the daze of the Taiping Rebellion. and externally. the blockade of the Great Powers. Chinese were the ill work forces of Asia. globally ill-famed as opium tobacco users. In Chapter 16 of El Filibusterismo. Rizal. using the device of dual entendre. described the odor inside the house of the affluent Chinese immigrant Quiroga as 8 ‘a mixture of joss stick. opium. and preserved fruits.
’ It can be concluded from the above that opium was widely used at that clip by the Chinese immigrants. and it is non difficult to conceive of that the footings ‘Chinese’ and ‘opium’ were inseparable then… . Should we anticipate Rizal to demo regard for a state of opium nuts? Should we coerce him to hold a kinder sentiment of these ill work forces of Asia. bereft of civilization and coming from a backward state? “Perhaps the cause of Rizal’s animus towards the Chinese is the fact that aside from opium nuts. the Chinese community so was comprised largely of humble labourers ; even the most celebrated members were no more than profitseeking bargainers like Quiroga.
If the Chinese community had persons the likes of Sun Yat-sen who had been able to interact with Rizal—educated and dignified intellectuals in Western garb and non featuring pigtails. possibly Rizal would hold had a better feeling of the Chinese and would hold been kinder with his portraitures! ” In add-on. it should be noted that a great moving ridge of parochial patriotism was brushing through the state at that clip ; therefore. it would non hold been surprising that the people harbored anti-Chinese sentiments. The Chinese were populating in changeless fright for their lives and belongingss.
Andres Bonifacio. leader of the armed revolution. had related in a missive how his military personnel one time “raided some 20 Chinese shops and emptied them of their nutrient supplies. ”14 [ Translator’s note: Andres Bonifacio ( 1863-97 ) was the laminitis of the Katipunan. the secret society which instigated the Philippine rebellion against the Spanish colonial authorities in 1896. See The New Encyclop? Defense Intelligence Agency Britannica. 15th erectile dysfunction. . Microp? Defense Intelligence Agency. s. v. “Bonifacio. Andres. ” ] There was a direct connexion between the people’s anti-Chinese sentiments and the function of the Chinese.
The Canadian bookman Edgar Wickberg. an authorization on the history of the abroad Chinese. revealed that15: “Anti-Chinese incidents accompanied the Revolution from its first day… . The Manila Chinese were instantly concerned about the destiny of some Chinese labourers working for the Spanish ground forcess. whose services had been arranged for by the Gremio de Chinos in Manila. More loosely. indio ill will toward Chinese labourers working for the Spanish seemed to prefigure indio ill will toward all Chinese. There were narratives that the revolutionists intended to kill all Spaniards and all Chinese.
” [ Translator’s note: The Gremio de Chinos de Binondo was “a sort of combined municipal regulating corporation and spiritual sodality” founded in 1687 by the Chinese Catholics and ( Chinese ) mestizos Opium nuts in a Binondo opium lair during Rizal’s clip. Chinese opium nuts contribute to negative image of the Chinese. Photograph from Lorelei D. C. de Viana. Three Centuries of Binondo Architecture 1594-1898: A Socio- Historical Perspective ( Manila: University of Santo Tomas Publishing House. 2001 ) . p. 145. 9 in Binondo. In 1741. the ladino broke off and formed their ain Gremio de Mestizos de Binondo.
Subsequently. around the twelvemonth 1800. a new Gremio de Chinos was established and finally came to stand for all the Chinese of the Manila country. Catholic and non- Catholic. See Edgar Wickberg. The Chinese in Philippine Life 1850-1898 ( New Haven & A ; London: Yale University Press. 1965 ; republished erectile dysfunction. . Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. 2000 ) . pp. 19. 180. 190. The Spanish term ladino originally meant a individual whose parents were of different races. particularly one with a White parent and an ( American ) Indian parent ( Diccionario de la Lengua Espanola. 22nd erectile dysfunction. ( Madrid: Real Academia Espanola. 2001 ) ) .
Since the term indio was besides applied by the Spaniards to indigens in the Philippines. kids of assorted Spanish-indio or Chinese-indio brotherhoods were besides called ladino. Sing the term ladino as used in the Filipino scene. Wickberg offers a clear account in page 7 footer 9 of The Chinese in Philippine Life: “In the Philippines there were both Chinese ladino and Spanish ladino. But since the figure of Spaniards in the islands was non big. Spanish ladino were ne’er every bit legion as Chinese ladino.
Nor were they as of import. The unmodified term ladino. as used herein. refers to the Chinese ladino. ” ] Thus Rizal’s anti-Chinese place was non an stray instance. His hostility towards the Chinese was mostly a merchandise of the cultural and political state of affairs of his clip. By so most of the Chinese ladino had already “forgotten” their Chinese lineage and had become identical from the “natives. ” Furthermore. there were important political. cultural. and economic contradictions between these ladinos and the alleged pure-blooded Chinese.
Some two hebdomads after composing the above. this author had the good luck of coming across a book by Dr. Caroline S. Hau16. a Philippine-born Chinese-Filipino bookman presently connected with the Center for Southeast Asiatic Studies at Kyoto University. Dr. Hau and this author were in understanding on this point17: “Rizal himself was of Chinese lineage ; it was non until his father’s clip that the Mercados changed their legal position from “mestizo” to “natural” ( native ) . Rizal’s ain residuary sense of his “mestizoness” may explicate his ambivalency toward the Chinese. an ambivalency evident in the chapter on EL chino Quiroga in El filibusterismo.
The Quiroga chapter besides sheds some visible radiation on the mechanisms by which the ladino was highlighted and effaced in nationalist discourse. while the “Chinese” became the marker for the foreigner who stands outside the nationalist imaginativeness. ” If we brush aside considerations of blood ties [ translator’s note: i. e. . blood ties between ladino and Chinese ] . do we happen any footing for the “close Chinese-Filipino fraternal relationship” purportedly bing during Rizal’s clip. which some Chinese- Filipino historiographers are wont to stress? 10 The Silence on Rizal’s Anti-Chinese Position Rizal was genuinely anti-Chinese in both word and title.
In a missive to his mother18. he had written: “I had a case with the Chinese and I vowed non to but any more from them. so that sometimes I find myself really hard up. Now we have about neither dishes nor tumblers. ” That was in 1895. while he was in expatriate in Dapitan in Mindanao. in the southern Philippines. Rizal was filled with righteous outrage at the “exploitation” of the indigens by the Chinese bargainers. and appealed to the local occupants to boycott the Chinese stores. He besides opened a little sari-sari shop to vie against the Chinese. [ Translator’s note: The sari-sari shop was a general ware shop.
These were foremost established in the Philippines by the Chinese. See Edgar Wickberg. The Chinese in Philippine Life 1850-1898 ( New Haven & A ; London: Yale University Press. 1965 ; republished erectile dysfunction. . Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. 2000 ) . p. 73. ] Even Ambeth Ocampo. who is still a regular editorialist of the Filipino Daily Inquirer [ translator’s note: a Filipino English linguistic communication circular newspaper ] . does non deny that Rizal was anti-Chinese. Ocampo noted that: “Despite his Chinese lineage. the Continental Rizal harbored anti-Chinese feelings because of a Chinese sari-sari shop proprietor in Dapitan.
” 19 Nick Joaquin. the late Philippine cultural icon. even praised Rizal’s actions20: “And because Chinese moneymans had a chokehold on native agribusiness. Rizal set up the Cooperative Association of Dapitan Farmers. a innovator in economic patriotism. Those who now dismiss Rizal as a bourgeois title-holder of businessperson involvements should here observe how he ignored even his cultural roots to defend Filipinism. the little bargainers. the provincials. ” To province it merely. Rizal’s anti-Chinese feelings were clearly expressed in his Hagiographas and in his correspondence with friends.
Not halting at mere words. he put his written thoughts into action. prosecuting in anti-Chinese activities—a fact good known by Philippine historiographers. In his book Rizal and China. Professor Zhou Nanjing. an authorization on Philippine history. called for “a complete historical rating of Rizal. ”21 and proposed such inquiries as “Was Rizal a businessperson revolutionist? ” and “Did Rizal betray the revolution ; can he be considered a national hero? ” However. his book makes no reference of Rizal’s interactions with the Chinese immigrants. It would look that the inquiry “Was Rizal anti-Chinese?
” should hold been the first mystifier addressed by a book purporting to depict the relationship between Rizal and China. Professor Zhou’s silence on this of import and sensitive issue constitutes another enigma of the book Rizal and China! And admiration of admirations! We find that Prof. Zhou’s silence on Rizal’s anti- Chinese stance has a extra. In the article? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [ Tears and ramp amidst the laughter ; rubric rendered in English by transcriber ] 22. Prof. Ling Zhang. another editor of Rizal and China. lauded Rizal’s art of sarcasm. Harmonizing to Prof.
Ling. Rizal 11 “was ace in the usage of the subtle but expressive descriptive techniques of ridicule and wit to accomplish his purposes of sarcasm and assessment. ” Prof. Ling besides emphasized that such a manner of authorship was “like legion soft whips floging the organic structures of the Spaniards” and noted that Rizal “criticized corrupt functionaries so subtly. pull offing to chalk out in a few lines the revolting visage of Kapitan Tiago. ” Prof. Ling was besides full of congratulationss for Rizal’s chapter in his Noli describing “Padre Salvi glancing at the bathing ladies. ” stating that Rizal had “exposed the sinister psyche and true nature of a lunatic in priestly attires like Padre Salvi.
” He besides cited Rizal’s teasing description of other characters. like “the assorted dissemblers. false Samaritans. and foreign flunkies of high society. ” “the ugly Dona Victorina. who married a Spanish quack physician. ” etc. Surprisingly. Prof. Ling seems to hold forgotten the negative portraiture of the affluent Chinese bargainer Quiroga in Chapter 16 of Rizal’s Fili. “The Tribulations of a Chinaman. ” Despite being a Chinese himself. Prof. Ling has chivalrously endured Rizal’s scathing comments against this Chinese immigrant “who was draw a bead oning to the creative activity of a consulate for his nation” and has non made any remarks.
On the one manus. Prof. Ling praises the humor directed against Spaniards and their flunkies as the “art of satire” ; on the other manus he is soundless about the abuses and slanders directed against lowly Chinese immigrants. We can non assist but inquire: What is the ground for this dual criterion? What secret motivation does Prof. Ling have up his arm? To cite Dr. Hau23 once more: “Rizal remains our best usher to the issue of the Philippine Chinese.
His El filibusterismo. which contains a chapter devoted to “el chino” Quiroga… . offers a paradigmatic word picture of the Chinese that skilfully weaves together the major thematic motives of the dianoetic building of the Chinese in the Philippines. ” Obviously. merely the traffics of the indigens with Quiroga. the former leader of the Chinese community. could hold represented the sort of Philippine-Chinese relationship that Rizal had in head. Why was such a cardinal figure non mentioned in Rizal and China?
The salivating Chinamen in the lower deck of the Tabo. the howling Chinese seller being abused by schoolchildren. the Chinese bargainer who was sued by Rizal for “exploiting Filipinos”…are these non plenty to reflect the emotional contradictions between Rizal and the Chinese? Rizal Unacquainted with Guan Yu? The late historiographer Gregorio F. Zaide was an straight-out Rizalist. Using modern-day Chinese political slang. he would surely measure up as a “ ? ? ? ? ? ” “Rizal fanshipai” ( “Rizal is ever right fanatic” or “Rizal worshipper” ) . [ Translator’s note: The original phrase in Chinese was an allusion to the policy of Hua Guofeng. replacement of Mao Zedong as Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. “ ? ? ?
” fanshipai literally means “‘whatever’ cabal. ” Hua’s policy. enunciated in 1977 and abbreviated as “ ? ? ? ? ” or “two whatevers. ” meant: “We steadfastly uphold whatever policy determinations Chairman Mao made. and we unswervingly adhere to whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave. ” Hua was subsequently eased out of power by the cabal of 12 Deng Xiaoping. See Fredric M. Kaplan and Julian M. Sobin. Encyclopedia of China Today. 3rd erectile dysfunction. ( New York and Hong Kong: Eurasia Press. Inc. . 1982 ) . p. 420. ] Reading Zaide’s works as a pupil. this author had regarded the 36 rubrics of “expertise” Zaide conferred upon Rizal as a “preposterous gag. ”24.
Rizal as described by Zaide was a practical “superman” ! However. one “positive” point about Zaide was that he forgave Rizal’s anti-Chinese record and “almost” ne’er mentioned it. This was likely done to gloss over the negative side of Rizal’s racism and continue his “saintly” image. It would be more appropriate to name Zaide’s history of Rizal’s life a “hagiography” instead than a life. This author subsequently discovered. thanks to Rizal and China. that Zaide had really conferred another rubric on Rizal. that of “Sinologist. ” Within the local Chinese community. the philosophy of “Rizal the Sinologist” found favour with Go Bon Juan.
Aside from reissuing an essay by Zaide with the rubric “Rizal as Sinologist. ” Go has besides personally affirmed that Rizal was a Sinologist in the article? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [ Rizal’s research on Mayi ; rubric rendered in English by transcriber ] 25. which he published under the penname Li Fei. Taking into consideration Zaide’s inclination towards exaggerated composing. this writer’s personal intuitions of Go’s rational honesty26. and Prof. Zhou Nanjing’s unfavorable judgment of Go being “disorganized. ne’er finishing a systematic treatise” and neglecting “to include footers and indicate mentions. ”27 this author hereby declare.
