Who’s Hispanic? Who’s Filipino? Part Two
by Emily Monroy
April 1, 2018
This article is a follow-up to “Who’s Hispanic? Who’s Filipino.” The gist of my original article: the Philippines and Latin America1 were both conquered and ruled by Spain for a period of roughly three centuries. However, Latin America came out of Spanish domination with a primarily Western culture, whereas the Philippines did not. The majority of Latin Americans speak Spanish as their native language. On the contrary, relatively few Filipinos speak Spanish as a mother tongue. While thanks to American rule English has eclipsed Spanish as a lingua franca in the Philippines, most Filipinos use one of the country’s many native languages (the most widespread one being Tagalog) in their everyday lives. Neither the US’ nor Spain’s rule appears to have usurped the Philippines’ original character.
The Philippines, in my view, serves as a powerful counterweight to the argument that Latin America is not Western but Indian (or a few might say, in the case of those countries with a large Black component, African) at heart. Interestingly, the two factions who subscribe to the view of Latin America as non-Western appear at first glance to be diametrically opposed to one another: White racists on one hand and left-wing romantics of all racial backgrounds on the other. White racists argue that because most Latin Americans are not 100% European genetically they can never be “like us.” Left-wing romantics dismiss Latin America’s “Europeanness” because they hate to think of an “oppressed” group having anything in common with the “oppressor” (that is, White Europeans and their descendants in places like the United States and Australia). Despite their differences, though, these two factions both tend to use vague, slightly undefinable terms like “heart” and “soul” to refer to what they claim is Latin America’s true nature.
The example of the Philippines seriously challenges the notion of Latin America as a pre-Columbian holdover. Some commentators on both the left and right try to get around this challenge. For instance, Chiqui Ramírez, a self-described “Mayan priestess,” describes Castilian Spanish as an “imposed lingua franca” resulting from exploitation by Spain. For the vast majority of Latin Americans, though, Spanish is not a lingua franca. A lingua franca would be English in India or in some former British colonies in Africa: a language that a certain percentage of the population knows but that is not their mother tongue. For most Latin Americans, Spanish is their mother tongue, so it is not a lingua franca.
As for Spanish being an “imposed” language in Latin America, one might ask why Spain never managed to impose Castilian in the same way on the Philippines, despite ruling over those islands for roughly the same time as the Spanish Americas (300 years). Obviously, the Spanish would have wanted to – and did – exploit the Philippines, but the fact that Spanish never established itself as a mother tongue there suggests something else besides exploitation or imposition was going on in Latin America.
Ironically, in a right-wing publication called, incidentally, View from the Right, commentator Howard Sutherland writes about Mexico, “The racial mixing that produced the mestizo happened a long time ago, and did not create a new breed of Westerner.” He also states, “The culture of rural Mexico… is more like the Philippines than Spain.” Then why, one might wonder, do most – not all, but most – Mexicans speak Spanish rather than a native language as their mother tongue while a majority of Filipinos do not?
I doubt very much that Ms. Ramírez and Mr. Sutherland share much in common politically or philosophically other than the view that Latin America is not Western. It is also worth mentioning that not all other right- or left-wing commentators share this view. For example, in The Pan-american Dream: Do Latin America’s Cultural Values Discourage True Partnership with the United States and Canada?, conservative writer Lawrence E. Harrison asserts, unlike Howard Sutherland, that Mexico’s culture today is in the main Spanish, not Native American.
All this evidence can lead to one conclusion: Latin America is Western. Perhaps the best evidence for this is the fact that another Spanish ex-colony, which was under Spain’s rule for the same amount of time, is not.
Emily Monroy is a professional translator and is of Irish, Italian and Norwegian descent. Born in Windsor, Ontario, she now resides in Toronto. Her articles have appeared in several publications, including Interracial Voice, Cats Canada, and Urban Mozaik. She welcomes feedback on her articles. You can contact Emily here.
Footnotes:
It seems that you are obsessed with Filipinos than Filipinos are obsessed with themselves.
Most people in the Philippines do not identify as Hispanic. Period. Filipino-Americans do not represent the entire Philippine population. You are so obsessed with Filipinos having or having no Spanish ancestry yet you ignore Filipinos with Chinese ancestry
I’d also like to add that the contemporary culture of the Philippines is not “purely” nor predominantly native. As a white person, it may not look like to you but the contemporary Filipino culture is actually a mix of indigenous and Southern Chinese with a bit of Indic influence (atsara, bathala, dukha, diwata, puto, tapa, etc are all SOUTH ASIAN influence). While the Philippines did not receive a lot of European immigrants, it did receive a lot of Chinese immigrants. Just look at the New Year superstitions of Filipinos as well as mainstream cuisine. Even food that has Spanish name like asado, arroz caldo are actually of Chinese origin. You are presenting an unchanged Philippines when it is clear that is has mixed cultural influences – from the Indic influence to the Chinese influence. One proof to dispel your implication that the culture hardly evolved from its native form – just look at how different the Igorot (Austronesian) culture is from the lowland (Austronesian) culture is.
“Then why, one might wonder, do most – not all, but most – Mexicans speak Spanish rather than a native language as their mother tongue while a majority of Filipinos do not?”
To answer this question: look at the post-colonial policies. Mexico went the blanqueamento way(preferring white immigrants to “dilute” the natives) while the Philippines went towards indigenization due to influences from its neighbors. Remember that Japan had a “Asia for Asians” policy and post-ww2 Philippines imbibed this. This is very evident from immigration policies. In the post war years, the Philippines shifted from jus soli to jus sanguinis and limited immigration to 50 per country per year.
Remember that when Mexico gained independence, only 1/4 of the population can speak Spanish. You virtually ignored that intended “whitening” of post-colonial Mexico. Something that did not happen in the Philippines. The opposite actually happened – it was indigenization. Spanish was heavily demonized in the post-war years to the point that the few people of Spanish descent emigrated or stopped speaking Spanish.
You are doing Latin American a disservice by stripping it off its native heritage
Hi. Sorry, I didn’t see this comment until now. Yes, I know that most Filipinos do not identify as Hispanic – because they are not Hispanic (or the majority of them; there are Spanish mestizo families in the Philippines). I also agree that the Spanish influence on the Philippines was fairly minor – and the reason is that relatively Spaniards or other Europeans went to the islands. Most sources say that far more Chinese than Spanish went to the Philippines; here we agree. (About Chinese immigration to the Philippines, I didn’t address it in detail because my focus was on European – more specifically, Spanish – immigration to the Philippines versus Latin America.) It would be interesting to see a study showing how much the Chinese influenced the Philippines genetically (existing studies generally find Filipinos as a whole have around 5% European ancestry – far less than most Latin Americans do).
In addition, I’m not saying that the native heritage did not have any influence on Latin America – but in all in all, it’s been overshadowed by European influence. Why do most Latin Americans (other than Brazilians, who speak Portuguese) speak Spanish rather than a native language or even a creole?
The other thing is that yes, fewer Europeans went to the Philippines than to Latin America, but are you sure it was due to immigration policies? In colonial times, it might have been due to the distance between the Philippines and Europe (by “Europe,” most of the time, that refers to Spain) and, from the Spanish Crown’s point of view, a dearth of natural resources like gold and silver that attracted Whites to the Americas. So I think that even without restrictive immigration policies, not many Europeans would have made the effort to move to the Philippines, or at least, not enough to have a major impact on the racial and cultural character of the country. So the effect of European colonization on the Philippines was bound to be relatively minor.
Hi. Sorry, I didn’t see this comment until now. Yes, I know that most Filipinos do not identify as Hispanic – because they are not Hispanic (or the majority of them; there are Spanish mestizo families in the Philippines). I also agree that the Spanish influence on the Philippines was fairly minor – and the reason is relatively Spaniards or other Europeans went to the islands. Most sources say that far more Chinese than Spanish went to the Philippines. (About Chinese immigration to the Philippines, I didn’t address it in detail because my focus was on European – more specifically, Spanish – immigration to the Philippines versus Latin America.) It would be interesting to see a study showing how much the Chinese influenced the Philippines genetically (existing studies generally find Filipinos as a whole have around 5% European ancestry – far less than most Latin Americans do).
In addition, I’m not saying that the native heritage did not have any influence on Latin America – but in all in all, it’s been overshadowed by European influence. Why do most Latin Americans (other than Brazilians, who speak Portuguese) speak Spanish rather than a native language or even a creole?
The other thing is that yes, fewer Europeans went to the Philippines than to Latin America, but are you sure it was due to immigration policies? In colonial times, it might have been due to the distance between the Philippines and Europe (by “Europe,” most of the time, that refers to Spain) and, from the Spanish Crown’s point of view, a dearth of natural resources like gold and silver that attracted Whites to the Americas. So I think that even without restrictive immigration policies, not many Europeans would have made the effort to move to the Philippines, or at least, not enough to have a major impact on the racial and cultural character of the country. So the effect of European colonization on the Philippines was bound to be relatively minor.
Hi. Sorry, I didn’t see this comment until now. Yes, I know that most Filipinos do not identify as Hispanic – because they are not Hispanic (or the majority of them; there are Spanish mestizo families in the Philippines). I also agree that the Spanish influence on the Philippines was fairly minor – and the reason is relatively Spaniards or other Europeans went to the islands. Most sources say that far more Chinese than Spanish went to the Philippines. (About Chinese immigration to the Philippines, I didn’t address it in detail because my focus was on European – more specifically, Spanish – immigration to the Philippines versus Latin America.) It would be interesting to see a study showing how much the Chinese influenced the Philippines genetically (existing studies generally find Filipinos as a whole have around 5% European ancestry – far less than most Latin Americans do).
In addition, I’m not saying that the native heritage did not have any influence on Latin America – but in all in all, it’s been overshadowed by European influence. Why do most Latin Americans (other than Brazilians, who speak Portuguese) speak Spanish rather than a native language or even a creole?
The other thing is that yes, fewer Europeans went to the Philippines than to Latin America, but are you sure it was due to immigration policies? In colonial times, it might have been due to the distance between the Philippines and Europe (by “Europe,” most of the time, that refers to Spain) and, from the Spanish Crown’s point of view, a dearth of natural resources like gold and silver that attracted Whites to the Americas. So I think that even without restrictive immigration policies, not many Europeans would have made the effort to move to the Philippines, or at least, not enough to have a major impact on the racial and cultural character of the country. So the effect of European colonization on the Philippines was bound to be relatively minor.