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