I refer to Mr. Ocampo’s article “Salazar’s 1590 report on the Manila Chinese”, PDI, which appeared on Feb 6th.
I concur in a sense to the positive contribution of the early Chinese to our people and history. Indeed, contact between two people and two civilizations does not only result to clashes and conflict, there also emerge a process of learning, adaptation and perhaps even assimilation between them.
What I vehemently disagree and madly furious about is the way this so-called “historian” presented his distorted view and highlighted all the alleged goodness done to us or in our early history by the Chinese.
Undeniably, he has shown his bias, incompleteness of vision and prejudice.
Objectively and indeed, honesty is such a big word for the true and legitimate historians. In fact, in their Discipline it is their primordial virtue.
Reading carefully, the said article of this pseudo-“historian”, one cannot help but wonder; is this freak writing about the history of his people or is he writing so-called “history” from the point of view of the Chinese albeit using a so-called primary source?
Corollary, if this freak is writing so-called “history” not from the perspective of his people but from the point of view of the Chinese, then this pretender, this narrator is not only a pseudo-“historian”, worst and shamelessly, he is nothing but a chronicler of Chinese viewpoint.
According to this rubbish article:
“Salazar described their work as marvelous, adding: “I think nothing more perfect could be produced than some of their marble statues of the child Jesus which I have seen… The churches are beginning to be furnished with the images which the Sangleys make… reproducing the images that come from España. I believe that soon we shall not even miss those made in Flanders.”
“A Chinese worked for a local bookbinder from Mexico, learned the craft, opened his own stall, and drove the Mexican out of business: “His work is so good that there is no need of Spanish tradesmen. At the time I am writing, I have in my hand a Latin version of Navarro bound by him; and in my judgment, it could not be better bound, even in Sevilla.”
“The Chinese manufactured chairs, bridles and stirrups and sold them so cheaply that merchants wanted to export them to Mexico. Almost everything, including split wood, could be sourced from the Chinese. They sold pork, venison and carabao meat; they cultivated fowl and sold eggs; they sold fish so cheaply because they caught so much that surplus was just left in the streets.”
Academic excellence and strict scholarship based on integrity demands that in tackling and/or writing about a theme and/or a subject-matter — the scholar must show and reveal to the general public and the world as a whole — the dual aspects (both the positive and the negative), all the sides (the good and the evil) and the varied elements (from beginning up to the present) of the subject-matter that he or she is writing about.
This is based on pure and strict academic duty and the equally demanding epistemic obligation of scholarship.
In his rubbish piece, did Mr. Ocampo — has also shown the bad side, the evil culture and the abnormal ways of life brought and taught by the Chinese to our people?
For his benefit and most importantly to save our people from his bias, myopia, idiocy and propaganda, let me quote liberally from Mr. Albert Chan’s “Chinese-Philippine Relations in the Late Sixteenth Century to 1603” Philippine Studies vol. 26, no. 1 and 2 (1978):
“…it is clear that there were a good many undesirables among the Chinese who came to Luzon. Many preferred to settle there because they could form a community and live comfortably according to their own traditions. Pagan morality, however, did not always agree with Christian teachings. Indeed, there were numerous practices that became causes for complaints and were considered scandalous and serious offences against religion. Bishop Salazar, who was a protector of the Chinese, could not tolerate this corruption of morality.
“His letter to Philip II pointed out that the Chinese were so numerous and so wicked that they were causing both physical and spiritual damage to the natives. They were very vicious and from their conversation nothing but harm could come. He complained that the government so far had done nothing to prevent the evil and insisted that a remedy should be applied.
“The bishop in his letters spoke in general terms. One wonders what he had in mind. A letter from the attorney general Gaspar Ayala to the king in 1588 showed how grave the offences were.
“Information had been laid that the vice of sodomy was being practised among the Chinese. An investigation was carried out. Fourteen to fifteen culprits were caught. The Chinese, however, defended themselves by saying that the practice was quite common among men in China. Despite their excuses two of them were condemned to die at the stake, the others were flogged and condemned to the galleys. Notices in Chinese were put up in the Chinese quarter warning them against this great offence under pain of capital punishment and confiscation of property. Friar Ignacio de Santibafiez, archbishop of Manila, says that the Chinese not only committed this vice among themselves but also enticed the natives, both men and women, to commit the vice with them.
“Still later, in 1605 a testimony against the non-Christian Sangleys of the parian described them as the most vicious (viciossisimos), most pernicious, and most harmful people. The testimony went on to state that since Manila and its surroundings were especially, warm and humid it was liable to sins of the flesh. Before the arrival of the Sangleys the natives had had no knowledge of sin against nature, even a name for this sin had never existed in their vocabulary. Since their coining this people had perverted the natives, who, being covetous and newly instructed in the Christian faith, could easily be led away from good morals and could even lose their Catholic faith. Their weak characters left them open to the influences of the Sangleys. They might fall into the superstitious practices of this people and eventually became idolaters like them.”
How come Mr. Ocampo disregarded, omitted and did not talk about these immoralities, these perversities, these bestialities? Or to use the words utilized by Mr. Chan to described those Chinese; these pernicious, vicious and harmful ways against the natives?
Further, in the said article Mr. Chan also called those Chinese as gluttonous, had a passion for gambling and monopolized the commerce both selling and buying to the detriment of the natives.
It is also extremely necessary to stress and to firmly note the historical and continuing abuses being committed by the Chinese to our people. There are numerous accounts of the Chinese exploiting and duping the natives not only of their goodwill but also of their resources and well-being. Further, we also have to register their “legacy” with regard to our language. We have to consider that when it comes to cheating, abusing and taking advantage of another, the Chinese had infiltrated our vocabulary to include the words such as “linlang”, “goyo”, etc.
Then, up to now, their control the supply and demand of our rice (rice cartel/hoarding). During the time of Rizal, they also have a hand in the elicit opium business (Quiroga). Now, opium is no longer the fad, they shifted their lucrative satanic business to the production of shabu.
Does Mr. Ocampo have the guts and the balls to say the truth that majority of the big-time drug lords are Chinese with the connivance of the local Chinese?
How come Mr. Ocampo did not talk about the inferior products, the smuggling and the black market?
The unjust treatment of the Chinese of our domestic helpers? (Mga Kuko ng Liwanag).
The White slavery, sex in Binondo?
Their act of controlling our banking and finance?
Finally and most importantly; who were the number one proponent, defender and utilizer of the dreaded and incontestably immoral contractualization?
Instead of writing about all of these evils, what Mr. Ocampo did is the reverse. Here is the portion of his rubbish article that he wants us to see in reference to his beloved Chinese:
“Then there was bread and credit: “Many bakers make bread with the wheat and fine flour which they bring from China, and sell it in the marketplace and along the streets. This has much benefited the city, for they make good bread and sell it at a low cost; and although this land possess much rice, many now use bread… They are so accommodating that when one has no money to pay for the bread, they give him credit and mark it on a tally… This has been a great help for the poor of this city, for had they not found this refuge they would suffer want.””
Do I have to remind this pseudo-“historian” that while Rizal was in Dapitan, there he organized the inhabitants and form a cooperative (this in my view is the embryonic form of his La Liga Filipina) in order to fight the monopoly of the Chinese in the area?
Again, for the benefit of this idiot and to save our people, the Filipino people from his propaganda, falsified history and indescribable impertinence, let me quote Rizal himself in his letter:
On Oct. 22, 1895, Rizal wrote to his mother, Dona Toedora Alonzo:
“I vowed not to buy anymore from them (Chinese), so that sometimes I find myself very hard up. Now we have almost neither dishes nor tumblers.”
Carlo Figueroa, in his article, “National hero not a fan of China” which appeared in VERA Files on June 17, 2012 wrote that:
A year earlier (1894), he had written his friend, Austrian scholar Ferdinand Blumentritt, describing how he organized a farmers’ cooperative while in exile in Dapitan to empower local traders against their Chinese counterparts:
“Here I have become half physician, half businessman. I have established a commercial company here. I have taught the poor Mindanao folk to unite for trading so that they may become independent and free themselves from the Chinese and thus be less exploited.”
While Bryan Anthony C. Paraiso, in his “DID RIZAL CONSIDER RETRACTING WHILE IN DAPITAN?”, HNCP, September 19, 2012 wrote that:
“Obach’s letter also details Rizal’s initiative of opening a wholesale store in Dapitan to compete with the Chinese traders, “who do nothing but cheat the Indios.” In fact, Rizal had prepared the statutes and regulations of the Society of Dapitan Agriculturists, aiming to facilitate the easy buying, selling, and storage of products for export, and curtailing the trade monopoly of the Chinese.”
Indeed, “there is a lot to rediscover about the Chinese in Philippine life” and what we need to do as modern Filipinos is to study our past using our very own lens and learning from all the lessons of our history.
Hence, I would very much like to ask categorically: is the evil and utterly nefarious act of the Chinese government today in occupying our islands and grabbing our territories within our own exclusive economic zone their modern version of their ancient perverted practice of sodomy to the people of the Philippines?
I wonder how would our fake “historian” shall or will answer this query!
So much so for this bloody bastard freak! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!!!