Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T05:24:45.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chinese Mestizo in Philippine History*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

E. Wickberg
Get access

Extract

Our knowledge is still insufficient to allow us to assess the overall significance of the mestizo in Philippine history. But on the basis of what we now know we can make some generalizations and some hypotheses for future study. It is clear, in the first place, that the activities I have described are those of Chinese mestizos – not Spanish mestizos. While the Chinese mestizo population in the Philippines exceeded 200,000 by the late nineteenth century, the Spanish mestizo population was probably never more than 35,000. Furthermore, those who commented at all on the Spanish mestizo noted that he was interested in military matters or the “practical arts” – never in commerce. The aptitudes and attitudes of the Chinese mestizo were in sharp contrast to this.

Secondly, the Chinese mestizo rose to prominence between 1741 and 1898, primarily as a landholder and a middleman wholesaler of local produce and foreign imports, although there were also mestizos in the professions. The rise of the mestizos implies the existence of social change during the Spanish period, a condition that has been ignored or implicitly denied by many who have written about the Philippines. It needs to be emphasized that the mestizo impact was greatest in Central Luzon, Cebu, and Iloilo. We cannot as yet generalize about other areas.

Third, the renewal of Chinese immigration to the Philippines resulted in diversion of mestizo energies away from commerce, so that the mestizos lost their change to become a native middle class, a position then taken over by the Chinese.

Fourth, the Chinese mestizos in the Philippines possessed a unique combination of cultural characteristics. Lovers of ostentation, ardent devotees of Spanish Catholicism – they seemed almost more Spanish than the Spanish, more Catholic than the Catholics. Yet with those characteristics they combined a financial acumen that seemed out of place. Rejecters of their Chinese heritage, they were not completely at home with their indio heritage. The nearest approximation to them was the urbanized, heavily-hispanized indio. Only when hispanization had reached a high level in the nineteenth century urban areas could the mestizo find a basis of rapport with the indio. Thus, during the late nineteenth century, because of cultural, economic, and social changes, the mestizos increasingly identified themselves with the indios. in a new kind of “Filipino” cultural and national consensus.

Those are my conclusions. Here are some hypotheses, which I hope will stimulate further study:

1. That today's Filipino elite is made up mostly of the descendants of indios and mestizos who rose to prominence on the basis of commercial agriculture in the lattetf part of the Spanish period. That in some respects the latter part of the Spanish period was a time of greater social change, in terms of the formation of contemporary Philippine society, than the period since 1898 has been.

2. That in the process of social change late in the Spanish period it was the mestizo, as a marginal element, not closely tied to a village or town, who acted as a kind of catalytic agent. In this would be included the penetration of money economy into parts of the Philippines. There were areas where the only persons with money were the provincial governors and the mestizos.

3. That the Chinese mestizo was an active agent of hispanization and the leading force in creating a Filipino culture characteristic now of Manila and the larger towns.

4. That much of the background explanation of the Philippine Revolution may be found by investigating the relationships between landowning religious orders, mestizo inquilinos, and indio kasamahan laborers.

It is my hope that these hypotheses may stimulate investigation into this important topic which can tell us so much about economic, social, and cultural change during- the Spanish period of Philippine history.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1964 , pp. 62 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Human Relations Area Files, Area Handbook on the Philippines, ed. Eggan, Fred (4 vols; Chicago, 1956), I, p. 440.Google Scholar

2. As indicated below, the lerm “Filipino”, during most of the Spanish period, was used to indicate a Spaniard born in the Philippines. Because this article deals with social organization during Spanish times, the terms as used then are employed here for clarity's sack. Thus, the term “indio”, as used here is a neutral one, and is intended to reflect no discredit upon the Filipino.

3. Phelan, John, The Hispanization of the Philippines (Madison, 1959), pp. 95, 97Google Scholar; Comyn, Tomás de, “Estado dc las Islas Filipinas en 1810,” Las Islas Filipinas. Progresos en 70 años, ed. del Pan, J. F. (Manila, 1877), p. 114Google Scholar; Purcell, Victor, The Chinese in Southeast Asia (London, 1951), pp. 598–99Google Scholar; PNA (Philippine National Archives), Gremios de naturales, mestizos, y chinos, 16–5–5. Note that key numbers in references to PNA materials are based upon my own system, there being no comprehensive finding system for that archives.

4. See, for instance, an anti-gambling proclamation of 1800 in Berriz, Miguel Rodríguez, Diccionorio de la administración de Filipinas…Anuario 1888 (2 vols; Manila, 1888), II, p. 346.Google Scholar

5. Recopilación de leyes de los reynos de las Indias (2nd ed; 4 vols; Madrid, 1756)Google Scholar, libro 6, titulo 18, ley 3; Purcell, , p. 598Google Scholar; BR (Blair, Emma H. and Robertson, James A., ed., The Philippine Islands, 1493–1898 (55 vols; Cleveland, 1903–1907), L, p. 200.Google Scholar

6. PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5; PNA, Provincial Documents, legajo 117Google Scholar, número 70Google Scholar. legajo 56Google Scholar, número 11.Google Scholar

7. Chinos. Sus reglamentos y sus contribuciones, comp. El Faro Administrativo (Manila 1893), pp 13–14Google Scholar PNA, Provincial Documents, legajo 56Google Scholar, número II.

8. The perpetuation of a mestizo group was also aided by the post-1800 marriage legislation, which tended to discourage mestizo-indio marriages. Pedro, Joaquin Rodríguez San, Legislatión ultramarina (16 vols; Madrid, 1865–1859), II, pp. 513–23Google Scholar; Comenge, Rafael, Cuestiones filipinas. l.a parte. Los chinos (Manila, 1894), p. 233.Google Scholar

9. Craig, Austin, Rizal's Life and Minor Writings (Manila, 1927), pp. 7–23.Google Scholar

10. A brief outline of this procedure, with references, is found in J. F. King, “The Case of José Ponciano de Ayarza: A Document on Gracias al Sacar,” Hispanic American Historical Review, XXXI, No. 4 (11 1951).Google Scholar

11. I am aware of only one case of a mestizo formally requesting transfer to Chinese status. See Comenge, , p. 229.Google Scholar

12. Retnna, W. E., Diccionario de filipinismos (New York; Paris 1921), p. 127Google Scholar; United States Philippine Commission, 1899–1900, Report of the Philippine Commission to the President (4 vols; Washington, 1900–1901), II, p. 179Google Scholar; PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5.

13. LeRoy, James A., The Americans in the Philippines (2; vols; Boston, New York, 1914)Google Scholar, passim. See also his Philippine Life in Town and Country (New York, London, 1905), esp. pp. 35–38Google Scholar. LeRoy mentions “half-caste caciques” and also speaks of “mestizo plantation owners” in Batangas and Pampanga, but does not further identify them. See Philippine Life, p. 186Google Scholar, and Americans, I, p. 10.Google Scholar

14. More detailed discussion is found in my unpublished dissertation, The Chinese in Philippine Economy and Society, 1850–1898 (University of California, Berkeley, 1961), Part I.Google Scholar

15. BR, X, p. 251; Archivo del bibliófilo filipino, ed. Rctana, W. E. (5 vols; Madrid, 1895–1905), III, p. 55Google Scholar; Tavera, T. H. Pardo de, Una memoria de Anda y Salazar (Manila, 1899), p. 23Google Scholar; Berriz, , Anuario 1888, I, p. 567.Google Scholar

16. Recopilación, libro 6, lítulo 18, ley 8, Cunningham, Charles H., The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies as Illustrated by the Audiencia of Manila (Berkeley, 1919), p. 378.Google Scholar

17. The text of Dasmariñas' “donation” is found in PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5. Compare Jesús Gayo, O.P., “Ensayo histórico-bibliográfico,” Doctrina Christiana; Primer libro impreso en Filipinas (Manila, 1951), p. 70.Google Scholar

18. Morga, Antonio de, Sucesos de las Islas Filipinos, ed. Retana, W. E., (Madrid, 1910), p. 225Google Scholar; BR, XVII, p. 216. Gayo (p. 73) gives 800.

19. Gayo, , pp. 72–73.Google Scholar

20. PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5.

21. Ibid. See also Gayo, , pp. 27, 90.Google Scholar

22. PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5.

23. Ibid. The term gremio in the Philippines had a range of meaning from a religious sodality to a craft gild. At times it was applied to almost any kind of group.

24. See BR, XXIX, pp. 102–03.

25. PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5; “List of Gobernadorcillos of Mestizos of Santa Cruz, 1741–1889,” Philippine Historical Review, I, No. 4 (08 1905), No. 5 (Sept. 1905).Google Scholar

26. Quoted in Foreman, John, The Philippine Islands (2nd ed; New York, 1899), p. 214.Google Scholar

27. We do have some 1738 data for one province, Pampanga, in Central Luzon, which was said have 870 mestizo tribute-payers and 9275 indio tribute-payers. Joaquin Martínez de Zúñiga, O.S.A., Estadismo de las Islas Filipinas, ed. Retana, W. E. (2 vols; Madrid, 1893), I, p. 460Google Scholar. If each tribute-payer represented about 6.5 persons, there may have been over 5,000 mestizos in a population of over 65,000. In other words, the mestizos made up perhaps seven or eight percent of the Pampanga population.

28. Comyn, p. 186. The appearance of fractional figures is due to the use of the factor 6.5 as representing the number of persons per tribute. The figures given here were derived by multiplying the number of tributes for each province by 6.5. Note that sometimes two provinces are represented as having exactly the same number of indios or mestizos. Note also the round numbers for Zamboanga. Clearly, these figures can give us only a general impression of the population.

29. Comyn, pp. 187, 201, Zúñiga, I, 150, 194, 306, 461, 539; II, pp. 9, 20, 25, 31, 40, 47, 53, 62, 67, 70, 77, 81, 88, 93, 96, 100, 103, 110, 113.

30. Wickberg, , The Chinese, p. 21.Google Scholar

31. Wickberg, , “Early Chinese Economic Influence in the Philippines, 1850–1898”, Pacific Affairs, XXXV, No. 3 (Fall 1962), p. 277Google Scholar; Zúñiga, , I, pp. 44ff, 306, 334–35, 460, 539Google Scholar; II, pp. 20–203; Juan Delgado, S.J., Historia sacro-profana, política, y natural de las Islas del Poniente llamadas Filipinas (Manila, 1892), pp. 27–46Google Scholar; Comyn, p. 186.

32. Zúñiga, , I, 45–48, 334–35, 398.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., I, p. 12. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.

34. Ibid., I, pp. 44–45.

35. Ibid., I, pp. 48–51.

36. Ibid., I, p. 296, 334–35, 348–49.

37. Ibid., I, pp. 296, 335.

38. Ibid., I, pp. 348–50, 353.

39. Ibid., I, pp. 204, 206, 272.

40. Ibid., I, pp 364–65, 398, 440, 492–93. See also, 50–51.

41. Ibid., I, pp. 364, 367, 395, 398, 440, 457.

42. BR, L, p. 241; Berriz, , Anuario 1888, I, p. 591Google Scholar; “Contratos usurarios,” Revista general de legislación y jurisprudencia, XXV (Madrid, 1864), p. 176.Google Scholar

43. Zúñiga, , I, pp. 368–70; 404–05.Google Scholar

44. Ibid., 1, pp. 493–941 See also pp. 404–05 for mestizo indigo purchasing in Bulacan. Some years later, del Pan noted that most of the lands in Bataan had been acquired by people from Malabon and Pampanga. Del Pan, Las Islas Filipinos, p. 365.Google Scholar

45. Zúñiga, , I p. 440.Google Scholar

46. Ibid., II, p. 100.

47. Comyn, p. 153.

48. BR, LI, pp. 203–06. For the size of the secular clergy see Comyn, p. 159 and BR, L, p. 59. On educational opportunities for mestizos and indios and the mestizo response thereto see BR, XLV. pp. 121–230; Pedro, San, II, p. 523.Google Scholar

49. Comyn, p. W.

50. Ibid., p. 59.

51. Ibid., p. 56.

52. Bassilan, Jean Mallat de, Les Philippines (2 vols; Paris, 1846), I, p. 97Google Scholar; SirBowring, John, A Visit to the Philippine Islands (London, 1859), p. 111Google Scholar, The official figure derived from the 1877 census was 5,567,685. Agius, Josè Jimeno, Población y comercio de las Islas Filipinas (Marid, 1884), p. 10.Google Scholar

53. Mallat, , I, p. 97Google Scholar. Sinibaldo de Mas estimated there were “over 200,000”. BR, LII, p. 39.

54. Arenas, Rafael Díaz, Memorias históricas y estadísticas de Filipinos (Manila, 1850)Google Scholar, cuaderno 5Google Scholar. Díaz Arenas gives no data for Leyte.

55. Mallat, , I, p. 97.Google Scholar

56. Lannoy, J., Iles Philippines (Bruxelles, 1849), p. 113.Google Scholar

57. BR, LII, pp. 64–65.

58. José María Zamora y Coronado, Biblioteca de la legislación ultramarina en forma alfabética (7 vols; Madrid, 1844–1846), VI, p. 103.Google Scholar

59. Bowring, , pp. 340, 344–45, 350–51.Google Scholar

60. Mallat, , I, pp, 171. 184Google Scholar; II, pp. 138, 320.

61. Ibid., II, pp. 365–66. Jagor noted the extension to Camarines of mestizo land acquisitions by mortgage foreclosures. “Some mestizos possess several pieces of ground; but they are seldom connected together, as they generally acquire them as mortgages for sums bearing, but a small proportion to their real value.” Feador, Jagor, Travels in the Philippines (London, 1875), p. 156.Google Scholar

62. BR, LI, p. 199; Mallat, , I, pp. 98, 182, 188Google Scholar. The town of Taal, which had reached quite a considerable size, was regarded as a kind of exception to the general Central Luzon rule in that it had no mestizos. Pan, Del, Las Islas Filipinas, p. 371.Google Scholar

63. Mallat, , I, pp. 189, 245.Google Scholar

64. Bowring, , pp. 113–14.Google Scholar

65. Mallat, , I, pp. 311–20Google Scholar; PNA, Provincial Documents, legajo 117Google Scholar, número 4Google Scholar; Bowring, , pp. 114, 359–403.Google Scholar

66. BR, LI, p. 245.

67. Mallat, , I, pp. 311–20Google Scholar. Mallat also notes that the internal trade of Samar was controlled by the mestizos of that island, Ibid., I, pp. 290–91.

68. Ibid., I, p. 311.

69. Manuel Buzeta, O.S.A. and Felipe Bravo, O.S.A., Diccionario geográfico, estadístico, histórico de las Islas Filipinas (2 vols; Manila 1850), I, pp. 552–53.Google Scholar

70. Jagor, , p. 302.Google Scholar

71. Bowring, , pp. 114, 359, 377, 400–03.Google Scholar

72. Ibid., pp. 359, 377, 394–97, 400–03.

73. Legarda, Benito Jr., Foreign Trade, Economic Change, and Entrepreneurship in the Nineteenth-Century Philippines (Harvard University, 1955)Google Scholar. See also his “American Entrepreneurs in the 19th-century Philippines,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, IX, No. 3 (02 1957).Google Scholar

74. Pan, Del, Las Islas Filipinas, p. 243Google Scholar; Corpuz, O. D., The Bureaucracy in the Philippines (Quezon City, 1957), pp. 101–03.Google Scholar

75. On the practices of the governors before 1844 see Legarda, , Foreign Trade, pp. 319–21Google Scholar. On mestiz`o-governor rivalry see Mallat, , II, p. 135Google Scholar. See also) BR, LI, pp. 234–35, 245–46.

76. Wickberg, , The Chinese, Part I.Google Scholar

77. PNA, Reales órdenes, caja 49Google Scholar, número 96.Google Scholar

78. Berriz, , Anuario 1888, I, pp. 576, 594Google Scholar. Discussion in Wickberg, , The ChineseGoogle Scholar. See also Nicholas Loney's comments on the scarcity of Chinese in the provinces as late as the middle of the nineteenth century. Bowring; pp. 400–03.

79. Note Bowring's comparative comments about British Borneo. Bowring, , p. 115n.Google Scholar

80. Pan, Del, Las Islas Filipinas, p. 399.Google Scholar

81. Ibid., pp. 399–400; Mallat, , II, pp. 134–35Google Scholar; Buzeta, and Bravo, , p. 244Google Scholar; Comenge, , pp. 214–15Google Scholar; Ratzel, Friedrich, Die chinesische auswanderung (Breslau, 1876), p. 135.Google Scholar

82. BR, LII, pp. 61–62.

83. Del Pan believed that by the 1870's it was true for all provinces. Las Islas Filipinas, p. 348Google Scholar. Pardo de Tavera's observations are also worth quoting here: “In the same manner as, by the arrival of the Spaniards, the old Filipino caciques were subjected to the Spanish officials, now the caciques, who dominated during the period of tutelary sequestration, found themselves immediately supplanted and converted into something lower than the new caciques of the economic order.” Quoted in Benitez, Conrado, History, of the Philippines (Rev. ed; Manila, New York, 1954), p. 323.Google Scholar

84. Mallat, , II, p. 135.Google Scholar

85. Comments on mestizo-indio animosity are found in BR, LII, p. 64; Jagor, , p. 33Google Scholar; and (for later in the nineteenth century), Plauchut, Edmond, “L'Archipel des Philippines,” Revue des deux mondes, XX (1877), p. 904Google Scholar; José Montero y Vídal, El Archipiélago Filipino y las Islas Marianas y Palaos, (Madrid, 1886), p. 151Google Scholar; and Eduardo Navarro Ordóñez, O.S.A., Filipinas, Estudios de algunos asuntos de actualidad (Madrid, 1897), p. 105.Google Scholar

86. BR, LII, p. 64; PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5; PNA, Provincial Documents, legajo 117Google Scholar, número 70Google Scholar; legajo 56Google Scholar, número 11.Google Scholar

87. BR, LII, p. 64; PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5.

88. BR, LII, pp. 44–65, 85–87. See also Mallat, , II, p. 289Google Scholar and Buzeta, and Bravo, , I, p. 214Google Scholar. Although Spanish conservatives favored a “divide and rule” policy, some Spanish liberals advocated the encouragement of intermarriage, on the assumption this would produce a “superior” mestizo society. For an extreme statement of this viewpoint see Geler, Raitnundo, Islas Filipinas (Madrid, 1869)Google Scholar, summarized in Retana, W. E., Aparato bibliográfico de la historia general de Filipinas (3 vols; Madrid, 1906), II, p. 752.Google Scholar

89. PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5.

90. Jean Francois do Galaup de lai Perouse, A Voyage Around the World in the Years 1785, 1786, 1787 and 1788 (3rd ed; 3 vols; London, 1807), I, p. 521Google Scholar; Comyn, p. 203.

91. PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5; PNA, Provincial Documents, legajo 117Google Scholar, número 70Google Scholar; legajo 56Google Scholar, número 11Google Scholar. “They are all Catholics.” Mallat, II, p. 135.Google Scholar

92. Wickberg, , The Chinese, esp. Part II.Google Scholar

93. Pan, Del, Las Islas Filipinas, p. 362.Google Scholar

94. Los Chinos en Filipinas, ed del Pan, J. F. (Manila, 1886), pp. 110, 18–19.Google Scholar

95. Ibid., pp. 27–28, 64–65. However, it is evident that some mestizos remained in commerce, as, for instance, those of Dagupan and Calasiao in Pangasinan, who were still the preeminent traders of their region in 1901. Flormata, Gregorio, Memoria sobre la Provincia de Pangasinan (Manila, 1901), p. 20Google Scholar

96. Pan, Del, Las Islas Filipinas, pp. 69, 358.Google Scholar

97. Jagor, , pp. 303–05, 347Google Scholar; Benitez, , pp. 238–39Google Scholar; Echáuz, Robustiano, Apuntes de la Isla de Negros (Manila, 1894), p. 24Google Scholar. Although, according to Del Pan, Chinese competition caused the decline of the Cebu gremio de mestizos, there was still a separate census entry for the barrio of the Parian as late as 1903. Census of the Philippine Islands Taken Under the Direction of the Philippine Commission in the Year 1903) (4 vols; Washington, 1905), II, p. 156.Google Scholar

98. Jajor, , p. 304.Google Scholar

99. Ibid., pp. 304–05.

100. “The owners of the soil know how to keep the peasants in a state of dependence by usurious loans; and one of the results of this abuse is that agriculture in this island; stands lower than in almost any other part of the archipelago.” ibid., p. 302.

101. Pan, Del, Las Islas Filipinas, pp. 338–39.Google Scholar

102. “The future is theirs; even in politics.” Notes to Zúñiga, , II, p. 526Google Scholar. Palgrave spoke of the Chinese mestizos as the “most bulky estate-owners”. Palgrave, W. G., “The Far-off Eden Isles;” Country Life in the Philippines Fifty Years Ago by a British Consul Manila, 1929), p. 59Google Scholar. Frederic Sawyer, however said the Chinese mestizos owned less land than the Spanish mestizos. The Inhabitants of the Philippines (London, 1900), p. 293.Google Scholar

103. Victor Clark's survey of Philippine labor conditions at the beginning of the American period generalizes: “As an agricultural landlord the mestizo is more prominent than the pure Mongolian, but he does not affiliate with the latter and more usually holds aloof from commercial pursuits.” Labor Conditions in the Philippines, U.S. Bureau of Labor Bulletin, X (Washington, 1905), p. 836Google Scholar. On the other hand, the 1903 census indicated that some eighteen percent of the mestizos were in agricultural work and some twenty-one percent in commerce. The problem here is that the 1903 census simply put all half-castes into a “mixed” category. It is therefore impossible, to separate the Chinese mestizos.

104. Wickberg, , The Chinese, Part II.Google Scholar

105. Pan, Del, Las Islas Filipinas, pp. 356, 358Google Scholar; Gregoria Sancianco y Goson, F.l progreso de Filipinas. Estudios económicos, administrativos y politicos. Parte económica (Madrid, 1881), pp. 104–18.Google Scholar

106. Pan, Del, Las Islas Filipinas, pp. 347–48Google Scholar. One abortive Spanish attempt to adjust to the new situation without changing the old tax system may be seen in an attempt of 1851 to force mestizos who lived in masonry houses to pay double the ordinary mestizo tribute. San Pedro, VIII, pp. 408, 410–11.

107. PNA, Gremios, 16–5–5.

108. Wickberg, , The Chinese, Part III.Google Scholar

109. The Chinese community of later years honored the memory of Ildefonso Tambunting, as one of a very few prominent mestizos who openly indentified themselves as Chinese and followed Chinese customs. Fei-lú-p'ir Min-li-la Chunghua Shang-hui san-shih chou-nien chi-nien k'an (Thirtieth Anniversary Commemorative Publication, Manila Chinese Chamber of Commerce), ed. Huang Hsiao-ts'ang (Manila, 1936), p, 198.

110. LeRoy, , Americans, I, p. 279Google Scholar. See biographies of Telesforo Chuidian, Mariano Limjap, Roman Ongpin, and Francisco Osorio in Manuel, E. Arsenio, Dictionary of Philippine Biography. Volume One (Quezon City, 1955), pp. 131–33, 248–50, 295–97Google Scholar. See also Foreman, , p. 523Google Scholar; Tavera, T.H. Pardo de, Biblioteca Filipina (Washington, 1903), p. 129Google Scholar; Sawyer, , p. 81Google Scholar; and biographical sketch of Luis R. Yangco in Stagg, Samuel W., Teodoro Yangcos Leading Filipino Philanthropist and Grand Old Man of Commerce (Manila, 1934), p. 28.Google Scholar

111. Ordóñez, Navarro, pp. 105–06.Google Scholar

112. Montero, , p. 151.Google Scholar

113. See testimonies in Report of the Philippine Commission, II, pp. 17–19, 167, 187–90, 198–201, 204–06, 216, 229Google Scholar. Other Spanish comments are found in Commenge, pp. 213–14 and in the newspaper La Política de Españe en Filipina 06 23, 1891, p. 117 and 09 13, 1892, p. 241Google Scholar

114. Quoted in Benitez, , p. 335.Google Scholar

115. Sancianco, , pp. 223–237Google Scholar; Census, I, p. 380Google Scholar. See also Jesus, Z.Valenzuela. A History of Journalism in the Philippine Islands (Manila, 1933), pp. 43–44, 90–92.Google Scholar

116. Sancianco, , pp. 104–18.Google Scholar

117. Blumentritt, Ferdinand, “Die mcstizen dcr Philippinen-Inseln,” Revue coloniale internationale, I, No. 4 (10 1885), pp. 253, 257Google Scholar; Foreman, , p. 410Google Scholar; Ahuja, Francisco, Reseña acerca del estndo social y económico de las colonias de España en Asia (3 vols; Madrid, 1874–1875), III, pp. 20–21Google Scholar; Fernández, Ramón González and Jérez, Federico Moreno, Manual del viajero en Filipinas (Manila, 1875), pp. 51, 93.Google Scholar

118. Eestimates of thq number of Spanish mestizos vary widely. Mallat (I, p. 97) estimated 20,000; Díaz Arenas cauderno 5) counted 7, 515, excluding those in the Marianas; Zamora (VI, p. 104) presents a figure of 11,254. All of these are mid-nineteenth century estimates, made at a time when the total Philippine population was 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 and the Chinese mestizos numbered about 200,000. The only late nineteenth century estimate I have is one of 1891 (given in Sawyer, p. 292) which gives the number of Spanish mestizos as 75,000, and the number of Chinese mestizos as 500,000. The latter estimate is about twice the actual amount. I suspect the former is equally in error. The Spanish population, at its highest point, was about 34,000. BR, LII, pp. 115–116n.

119. Lannoy, , p. 113Google Scholar; Mallat, , II, p. 134Google Scholar; Buzeta, and Bravo, , II, p. 2441Google ScholarPlauchut, , p. 904.Google Scholar

120. For example, Jacoby, E. H., Agrarian Unrest in Southeast Asia (Chapel Hill, 1950), pp. 85–90Google Scholar; Scaff, Alvin, The Philippine Answer to Communism (Stanford, 1955), pp. 86–87.Google Scholar

121. BR, LI, pp. 235–39.