Sangkusing

THE CHINESE BEARING GIFTS  by Horacio de la Costa S.J.

Somewhat revised from an address to students and their parents at Xavier School, San Juan in 1971.

May I make some preliminary statements about Philippine culture?  The first remark would express an  obvious but important fact, namely: Philippine culture is in the process of development, just as is every aspect of our country. It is not, in other words, a culture which has reached full development, like that of China or Japan, but one that is in the course of development.

There are two ways of conceiving this development, and the course it should take. One way is to claim that it ought to be a process by which we gradually get rid of what we consider alien to our culture, as though we were peeling off the successive skin of an onion, in the end we would be left only with what is truly indigenous and Filipino.

That is one way of conceiving it, and you have probably had experience with or have read and listened to people who conceived of the development of our culture this way. “Let us get rid of what we imitate from other culture,” they say and “hold fast only to what us truly native to our culture.”

The other way of conceiving our cultural development is accept the fact that over the course of time we have borrowed many things from other nations and other cultures.

We intend to keep these elements, but we assimilate them with elements that are truly native, so that we combine both borrowed and indigenous elements together into a synthesis which is identifiably our own, recognizably Filipino. Admittedly it has be enriched from outside, but we have made it our own.

I must say that my own personal view is that the second way is the right direction for the development of Philippine culture to take. I do not believe in an elimination process by which we will arrive at something that will be completely native. I believe rather in acknowledging that ours is somehow a hybrid culture, if you will, or at least a culture on to which over the course of time elements from other nations and cultures have been integrated. 

Our process of development is precisely to integrate these elements into something which is our own, a recognizably Filipino culture. That is the first preliminary statement I would like to make.

The second is that the process of our cultural development is of this kind because the Philippines has an open society. It is not like some cultures; it does not develop within itself, as China perhaps grew for many years within a closed region, a landlocked empire.

Philippine society is an open society, both geographically and historically. It is open on the map; you can see the crossroads where both sea and air lanes pass through the Philippines – north, south, east and west, in every direction. Geographically it is open to every land across the Pacific, across the China Sea. Historically, it is an open society. It has been influenced by many cultures, Chinese, Indonesian, Indian, Spanish, and American.

The third statement I would like to make by way of introduction is that Philippine society should remain open. It should remain open to all cultural elements which can enrich it, on condition that we do not simply imitate blindly what other people have done, but assimilate these elements by a process of selective cultural assimilation.

I think this is the stage that we have reached. We have to make options, and I think the option we have to make is to remain an open society, to be selective in choosing those elements that should enrich our culture.

On the general theme of Chinese values in Philippine cultural development, I believe that first we should ask ourselves:

“What values can Chinese culture contribute to the development of Philippine culture?” Secondly, in view of this:

“We ought to be the place of the resident Chinese community in the Philippines within the larger national community? This is to say, what relationship between these two communities should be encouraged and cultivated?”

Our first question is: “What values can Chinese culture contribute to the development of Philippine culture?” It seems to me that a prior question should be raised: “What values has Chinese culture actually contributed to Philippines culture as far as we can know them from history?” I think that the contribution of Chinese culture to ours have been very great, and have covered a very wide range of variety.

There have been, for instance, technological contributions. From the very beginning of Philippine history, as found in reliable documents of Philippine or, incidentally, of Chinese origin, we are given a picture of Chinese traders periodically and regularly visiting the islands, bringing the kind of things we could not produce ourselves.

These included metal tools (fish hooks, needles, and other artifacts made of metal), pottery, of course, and textiles. It is practically certain that masonry or building in stone (the use of lime, for instance, as a binder for stone buildings) was introduced by Chinese artisans shortly after the Spanish conquest.

Before the Spanish times, the most probable theory affirms, the process of extracting sugar from sugar cane was introduced to the Philippines by Chinese, and later on, the refining of sugar by the Chinese process of claying.

Again it was the Chinese who, after the Spaniards were here,  introduced fruit-growing and truck gardening which is systemic cultivation of vegetables as a market crop. A question that still is to be resolved is whether or not the Filipinos, before the coming of the Spaniards, knew about the use of the plow drawn by domesticated carabao as a work animal. It seems likely that the practice  was introduced by the Chinese.

We know that the Filipinos domesticated the carabao before the coming of the Spaniards, but the only historical record found so far reveals the carabao in use not as a draught animal but as a status symbol. A local chieftain owned a domesticated carabao and rode it. Whether or not he used it for plowing, we are not at present sure. These, then, are some of the technological contributions of the Chinese to Philippines culture.

We are aware of the economic contributiions.  We know that the Philippines would not have survived as a colony of Spain unless the trans-Pacific galleon trade had been founded and established. This was essentially an exchange of Mexican silver for Chinese silk and textiles, with Manila as the port of trans-shipment. China, at that time, was a country low in silver production and Mexico and the West were regions with great demand for Chinese textiles. A natural occasion for commercial exchange arose, and in it Manila was a quite convenient trading post or market place.

The profit from the trade enabled Spain to keep its colonizing force in the Philippines.  Besides, domestic trade within the Philippines was in Chinese hands since the 18^th century, and the import-export trade was developed by them through the 19^thcentury.

The Chinese business community was quite active in the beginnings of industrialization in this country in the 20^th century. These are some of the economic contributions of China and the Chinese in the Philippine economic development.

It is more difficult to form an estimate regarding influence on our social attitudes and values. One hopes that sociologists will be able to give us more reliable information on this. I would like to find out to what extent, for instance, the economic virtues with which the Chinese trading groups were exceptionally endowed – virtures of frugality, thrift, and enterprise – have been passed on from them to Philippine society.

There is another line of interesting speculation, and I have always been partial to it, though I have not been able to formulate and demonstrate it precisely. I can only give you a kind of picture of it.

Even before the European came to Southeast Asia, in this region where people of the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand lived, the general attitude toward life was one of submission to the arbitrary forces of nature.  The sun shone or did not, there was a complete dependence on what looked like the capricious forces of the universe which had to be placated through the offering of sacrifices to the gods.

All over Southeast Asia this was the general attitude toward the universe. But then coming down through their region were these traders from South China who also worshipped the gods, but who did something about the universe. They knew about wind and water; they knew when to go on their voyages; they knew what to bring.

In other words, they brought a beginning of rationalization, a rationalizing of life.  There were some who came and who knew the price of things, when to buy them, what was scarce, what they could find in one place and sell somewhere else – canny traders!

As you know,they were sometimes given opprobrious epithets. But what are they?  They were the beginning of what we today call rational development – of the attitude that you can do something about nature. You can bring it under control, you can organize and manage it. I think that this kind of social attitude is something that was introduced long, long ago by these adventurous traders from South China.

Thirdly, we must not forget the influence of the Chinese mestizo. The Chinese who came here to trade, to stay  for a long time was not allowed to bring their own women. Therefore, they intermarried with the population, and became converted to Christianity.

The children of such marriages came to be what were called, in the Philippines, Chinese mestizos. Both in Manila and in the provinces, a Chinese mestizo class grew up and started the beginnings of the Philippine middle class.

The Spanish writers of the 19^th century often identified these two: the growing Filipino middle class who were the ilustrados and the Chinese mestizo. Jose Rizal was a Chinese mestizo, so was General Emilio Aguinaldo, and so, probably, are most of us.

What is the effect of this? What is the effect of the Chinese mestizo on the emergence of the Philippine middle class? All we have today are impressions. We need the sociologist to make this more than just an impression, to focus more sharply, and give us a more settled picture.

The artistic contribution of the Chinese to the Philippines is considerable, as you know. All these ceramics which we keep digging out of graves were made in China. They early introduced into the Philippines the notion that a useful vessel or article need not be an ugly one. People learned that it could be made a beautiful thing, besides being useful.

A peculiar thing, and as yet not fully explained is the fact that in grave sites along Laguna del Bay area water droppers of various shapes are found, instruments which in China were used for the mixing of inks and paints. They are found in the forms of a child, say, or a boy on a buffalo, all very artistic shapes. Obvously the Filipinos of those days were not calligraphers. They did not have any real use for such water-droppers to serve the original purpose for which they were made; but they bought them simply because they looked good and were beautiful. This kind of introduction to the finer things of life was part of the Chinese trade.

We must remember also that many of the early colonial churches and the early sacred images in those churches were made by both Filipino and Chinese architects and artisans working together. You will find a fine example of the result of this collaboration in the Manila church of San Agustin.

In one of the high reliefs there that has been restored, you will see in the background a scene of some saints being buried or some martyrs being killed, anyway the figures are European. But in the background the clouds, definitely, are Chinese. This is a very interesting example of combination, of the process of assimilation in art of the Philippines. Some of the statues of Our Lady or of the various saints, which were carved here, have Chinese faces but European dress.

We should inquire as to what Chinese culture can contribute to the development of Philippine culture. I think that a principal contribution which Chinese culture can give is, first of all, the characteristically Chinese humansim, which I regard as one of the geat qualities of Chinese culture in its highest forms. In the Philippines we have a unique opportunity. Our tradition for 400 years has been Western. The humanism of Greece and Rome, and then Christianity have been passed through us, and the political forms of England and America.  But we have a unique opportunity to combine these with Chinese humanism, with the Chinese classical tradition of which we know very little.  Still, what we know makes us want to know more about it.

These are things which would have an almost immediate application to one problem of development today. For instance, we are used to the Western tradition of legality, of legalism and law; that things have to be done from the top down by authority. We probably can use something of the Confucian idea of governing by example. The government is like the wind and the people like the grass. Or that it is useless to issue orders unless there is a consensus among the people to obey. However, to get a consensus to obey, we must have trust in the ruler, a feeling that he is doing his job well. By his example, then, even without orders, he can govern an empire.

There are, moreover, many other fine things, not only in the classical philosophers but also in the folk-story traditions of China. I think of the wonderful story of an official who was invited to the home of a rich man who offered him a considerable, large bribe. But the official said, “No, no, I cannot accept that.”

The rich man went on to say, “Why not? No one will ever know.” The official replied, “Yes, it will be known.” He pointed to the ground and to the sky, and said: “The earth will know, and the heavens will know.” then pointing to himself, he added, “And worse of all, I will know.”

Another enrichment we can hope for by a continuing study of Chinese culure lies in the idea of self-help, a value we should surely find most useful. For we have been so long in position of dependence. We need to have before us examples of how people decided to help themselves, men of rugged independence and corporate discipline, building this way an integrated national community.  This kind of example, I must say, is offered both by Communist China on the mainland and by Nationalist China in Taiwan. I think this is an example that we can well imitate.

If we are going to learn more from Chinese culture, we ought also to consider the relationships between the Chinese community in the Philippines and the larger national community. What ought to be the place of the resident Chinese community in the Philippines within the larger national community?

The problem is especially acute in Southeast Asia because of the Chinese diaspora, the Chinese communities dispersed throughout each of the Southeast Asian nations. We must look at the terms of this problem and face them squarely.

Our dual-society problem consists in this: we have an indigenous national community of Filipino Malays and an immigrant Chinese community living side by side.

Physically in the same place, they are culturally separate, without political or social consensus, bound together only by economic matters at the market place.

In the market place, moreover, where they do meet often, they are frequently in competition and conflict with each other. A situation crops up which of its very nature generates mutual suspicion, misunderstanding, and even hatred.

In the Philippines this problem of dual society is compounded because comparative underdevelopment, poverty, fragmentation, and lack of self-confidence in the indigenous Filipino community on the one hand seem to confront the corporate discipline, economic aggressiveness, sometimes the conspicuous affluence, and the ambiguous political and social character of the resident alien community. This makes the problem more difficult, indeed tremendously complicated, so that it is not susceptible to easy and quick solutions. Imagination, generosity, and infinite patience are required on both sides.

How do we solve this problem? We can say very generally that must make an effort at greater mutual understanding. This, too, I think we should say: we should begin here with the realization that this is not exclusively, as people often represent it, a moral problem. People so frequently say: “The Filipinos are dishonest, and the Chinese are crooks.” They put it as an exclusively moral problem, when actually it is not; it does not result entirely from moral faults or evil intent on one side or on the other hand, or both. Nothing is to be gained by calling one another names. That merely makes the problem unsolvable.

It will become solvable only if we realize that this is an economic, political, social, and cultural problem, as well as a moral one. This realization will come only when we begin to close the communication gap. To put it another way, we must begin to widen the range of communication between the two societies so that, it is not merely a communication on the economic level, but at every other level of communication – social, cultural, and everything else. The best way to communicate is to work together on common projects, which are socially constructive. I would suggest that first, we get to know each other as the song says, “Getting to know you” – and get to know each other in all various ways.    

Secondly, I think we should do something about removing ambiguity, about getting clarity established with regard to one another’s positions. For an outstanding concern of those who belong to the national community in every Southeast Asian nation is this: What is the basic political and social commitment of those who belong to the immigrant community, the Chinese in our midst? Is it to Communist China or is it to Nationalist China, or is it to the Philippines, or is it simply to themselves?

In other words, what people here in the Philippines are asking is: are the members of the Chinese community citizens or aliens? Doubtless, the answer will be different with different members of the immigrant community, and it is a pity that in the public press they are indiscriminately labeled as aliens, and very often opprobriously as overstaying aliens.

This is unfortunate. We must have some reliable and reasonable way of granting full citizenship to those who are fully committed to the national community, some way of integrating them to our national consensus and of distinguishing them from those who persist in remaining aliens. This is their right also.

An outstanding concern of those who belong to the immigrant Chinese community is the feeling that being integrated with the Filipino community will mean that they are to be absorbed, that they will be dispossessed, that they will have to lose their traditional Chinese culture and values which they hold dear. And this is a valid concern. There must be on our part, on the part of us Filipinos, the national community, a recognition that you do not have to be made un-Chinese, ceasing to be Chinese in culture, by becoming a Filipino citizen.

There must be a recognition of the fact that a traditional Chinese culture does not pose a threat, but on the contrary offers an enrichment, to the national culture, as has been the experience in other parts of the world.