Catholic, Sangley, Mestizo, Spaniard, Filipino: Negotiating "Chinese" Identities at the Turn-of-the-Twentieth-Century Manila- Richard T. Chu Introduction Among the Chinese diasporic communities in Southeast,Asia, none offers more distinct food for thought in the study of identities than the case of the Philippine Chinese. For compared to their Southeast Asian counterparts, they and their descendants had experienced living under the control of not just one but three colonial regimes (Spanish, American, Japanese), and under the influence of two nationalist movements (Chinese and Filipino) -all of which had different ways of classifying their ethnic identities. Furthermore, the Catholic Church had had a very strong interest in their conversion since the Spaniards colonized the Philippines in 1565, leading scholars to take into account when studying their ethnicity both State and Church classifications.' Thus, the study of the ethnogenesis of the Philippine Chinese-especially when viewed from the perspective of the Chinese themselves-offers potentially rich, new, and important insights into the meanings and complexity of what constitutes a "Chinese" and a "Catholic" over time, •An earlier version of this paper was presented at the panel on "Transnational Communities in the Philippines," Sixth International Philippine Studies Conference, Quezon City, 11 July 2000. I am particularly grateful to Edgar Wickberg, John E. Wills, [r., Charlotte Furth, and Eugenio Menegon for their comments. .space, and context. But while there have been few studies focusing on the legal and ethno-religious categories constructed by these hegemonic groups, there have been even fewer studies analyzing the ways these diasporic "Chinese" managed to creatively adapt to and appropriate the meanings and symbolisms of their localized identifications (for instance, Hodder, 1996; and Szanton-Blanc, 1997). Overview of Related Literature Historical works on the Philippine Chinese share with other studies of "overseas Chinese" communities the same bias towards the use of earlier sociological and anthropological theories of ethnicity­ theories that are based on the concepts of assimilation and integration and often tied-up to nation-based metanarratives (Ong and Nonini, 1997:7).2 Thus, the i'Chinese" in the different Southeast Asian countries are often viewed as one discrete, homogeneous group pitted against a similarly homogenized community of "Thais," "Indonesians," "Malaysians," "Filipinos," etc., while the creole offspring of these "Chinese" - the lukjins of Thailand, the babas of Malaysia, the peranakans of Indonesia, or the mestizos of the Philippines - are considered either as having formed another distinct ethnic group, or having been assimilated into one of the local ethnic groups (see Skinner, 1957, 1959, and 1996; Purcell, 1948; Tan, 1988; Willmott, 1956; Williams, 1960; Coppel, 1983; Suryadinata, 1979; Wickberg, 1964, 2000). However, recent works in cultural studies have shown these ethnic constructions to be the modus operandi by which national governments and other dominant groups have sought to control others in order to achieve certain political ends (Anderson, 1991; Eley and Suny, 1996; Hobsbawn and Ranger, 1983). For instance, while the formation of a united "Chinese" community in the Philippines may have provided the "Chinese" there with some form of leverage and protection against increasing uncertainty and hostility over their fate as an "alien" community during the American colonial period, this reification of their identity had also fostered local ethnic tension. Thus, we as scholars may unwittingly contribute to this ethnic tension if and when we fail to question and deconstruct the 42 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THETURN-OF-THE-1'wENTIETH-eENTURY MANILA administrative, ideological, and religious classificatory systems of the colonial rulers and the nationalist rhetoric of the leaders in China and in the Philippines. In fact, many scholars have already begun to veer away from such an approach to the study of ethnicity, focusing instead on how different ethnic groups view themselves and others (see, for example, Leonard, 1992; Oxfeld, 1993; Chan and Wong, 1998). Such an approach not only provides us with a more complex and sophisticated understanding of "identity" but also brings back agency to the people whom we study. Following the lead of these studies, I plan to show in this paper how the "Chinese" and their families at the turn of the century negotiated their differing identities and cultural backgrounds. Through an investigation of some of their familial "border-crossing" practices, particularly their marriage practices and dispensation of their wealth and property, I hope to show how they managed to creatively appropriate Chinese, Spanish, Catholic, and local practices in their everyday lives. My main argument is to show that the so-called "Chinese" and their "mestizo" offspring during the late-nineteenth century were not distinctly separate and homogeneous ethnic groups. Rather, I argue that the categories "Catholic," "sangley," or "mestizo" can also be understood as flowing along a shifting and problematic continuum. Consequently, I hope to offer an alternative view to the modern-day nationalist constructions of a rigid, unchanging, and universal "Chinese" and "Filipino" binary; and to past studies using the assimilationist-integrationist model in the study of the Chinese in the Philippines. I must point out that this paper is a preliminary research report. But in writing and presenting it, I hope to alert other scholars to new archival materials that can be used for the study of the Chinese and mestizos in the Philippines, inform them of the direction of my research, solicit their feedback and comments, and invite them to use a similar approach in the study of ethnic relations and identities in the Philippines. Before proceeding to discuss these marriage and inheritance cases, I wouldlike to give an overview of the different ethno-legal classifications used by the Spanish and American colonial rulers for the Chinese and their families at the end of the nineteenth and R. T.CHU 43 the beginning ·of the twentieth centuries. Also, I would like to highlight how other scholars, particularly Edgar Wickberg, have analyzed the relations between the Chinese and their mestizo descendants. Historical Background The Spanish Colonial Period: 1565 to 1898 According to Edgar Wickberg, in areas penetrated by the Spaniards, and particularly in those that later became centers of trade and commerce, there grew different cultural communities consisting of Spaniards, the natives, and the Chinese (2000:7). Soon, socio-cultural and political distinctions among them were built into the Spanish 'colonial administrative structure. Aside from the category "Spaniard," the classification"indio" was used for the natives, while the Chinese were called "sangley."3 But as unions between the Chinese and the natives grew in number, so did the number of mestizo children. Thus, around the middle of the eighteenth century, another classification was created for these creole offspring, turning urban centers like Manila and Cebu into a community of "indios," "sangleys," and "mestizos."4 Initially, this division among the different groups under Spanish colonial rule was mainly drawn along tax purposes. However, this division soon included rights to travel, property ownership, and participation in government. For such rights, the division was two-fold, in that the indios and the mestizos shared the same rights while the Chinese did not (Wickberg, 1964:64-65; 2000:31). Wickberg also notes that the creation of a mestizo class was partly a result of the Spaniards' policy of conversion and control. The Chinese who chose to convert enjoyed more benefits than those who did not. Among the benefits they had was the opportunity to marry local women. The Spaniards hoped that with the creation of more Catholic Chinese-mestizo families, not only would they be carrying out their mission of conversion, but they would also be creating a colony of loyal and faithful subjects (2000:68-69).5 44 "CHINESE" IDENTITIES AT THE TURN-oF-THE-TWENTIETH-eENTIJRY MANILA However, from around the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth centuries, the Spanish colonial government began to slowly remove the benefits enjoyed by Chinese converts over non-converts. For instance, the restrictions commonly reserved for non-Catholics, such as the restrictions on the freedom of travel or to own land, were gone by the late eighteenth century. Moreover, the Spaniards stopped classifying them according to religious affiliation" and began to classify them instead in terms of residence status, i.e, as "transient" (invernado) or "resident" (radicado) (Wickberg, 2000:155). But in spite of the fact that religious affiliation no longer was the basis for classifying the Chinese, it still played an important role up to the end of the Spanish colonial period. For instance, those who aspired to state-recognized leadership positions still had to be Catholic. And even if the Spanish Civil Code that was extended to the Philippines in- 1889 allowed people to many in civil courts, this change was never carried out, thus making conversion still a prerequisite (Fisher, 1947:vi; Wiley, n.d:138). Furthermore, in 1840, when the Spaniards made it possible for the Chinese to become naturalized subjects of Spain, one had to be baptized in order to qualify for naturalization." Lastly, in my own research I have found government and Church documents