The Image of Filipinos and Javanese in Colonial Discourse (17th-20th Centuries)

The Image of the Filipinos during the 17th to 19th Centuries\n\n## Early European Observations of Filipinos\n* Careri (1696)\n * Described Filipinos as resembling Malays in their shallowness of judgment.\n * Noted that Bisayans had become lazy under Spanish rule.\n * Quote: "It is their laziness, that makes them appear less ingenious; and they are so entirely addicted to it, that if in walking they find a thorn run into their foot, they will not stoop to put it out of the way, that another may not tread on it."\n\n* Friar Sabastian Manrique (1629-1634)\n * Observed Chinese in Manila to be highly motivated by the Spanish dollar.\n * They would "descend into hell in order to produce new articles for sale, so as to get possession of the coveted silver and longed-for reales-of-eight".\n\n* Le Gentil (mid-18th century)\n * French scholar who described Filipinos (specifically Tagalogs) as idle, easy-going, unambitious, and uninventive, exhibiting "great mediocrity".\n * He also blamed inhabitants of the Tropics for the vices of their colonial masters.\n * Noted the decline of Spanish family fortunes in Manila.\n * Observed corrupt morals in Manila, where Spanish ladies received callers in their husbands' absence.\n * Attributed loose morals to Filipinos, stating their men and women bathed and flirted together, which led to celibate priests having children.\n * He also mentioned that insanity seemed to affect many Spaniards, especially priests and women, in Manila.\n * The siesta, or afternoon nap, from $12$ to $3.00 ext{ p.m.}$, was introduced by Spaniards, during which city gates were closed, potentially due to guards taking siestas.\n\n* Friar Gaspar de San Agustin (1720)\n * Presented an extensive and largely negative portrayal of the Filipino character in a letter to a friend in Spain.\n * Considered his letter a far-reaching pronouncement on national character, applying generalizations to all "peoples of the East Indies".\n * Listed more than $30$ negative traits.\n * Negative Traits:\n * Fickle, false, mendacious.\n * Untrustworthy, dull, lazy.\n * Physiognomy: Cold and humid due to "great influence of the moon".\n * Fond of traveling by river, sea, and lake.\n * Ingratitude: Never repay borrowed money to friars and avoid mass to evade them.\n * Lack of responsibility with borrowed items: Only returned if asked for, based on the excuse of no prior request.\n * Extreme laziness: Often left doors open and discarded tools where they were last used ($\$ "if they open a door they never close it; and if they take any implement for any use, such as a knife, pair of scissors, hammer, etc. they never return it whence they took it, but drop it there at the foot of the work." $\$).\n * Dishonesty with payments: Received advance payment then abandoned work and kept the money.\n * Meddlesome and inquisitive: Followed individuals, even for bodily necessities; curious about letters and private conversations.\n * Rude by nature: Scratched temples (men) or thighs (women) when talking to friars or Spaniards; "more polished" scratched their heads.\n * Poor manners/habits: Made a mess folding cloaks, walked in front of their wives, always wanted to know the priest's movements.\n * Lack of privacy/respect: Entered Spanish houses and convents uninvited, peeped through cracks if doors were locked.\n * Inconsistent work ethic: Rose early in their own homes but followed masters in rising late.\n * Preference for comfort/socializing: Happy in the kitchen in convents; broke seats by sitting with outstretched legs to see women.\n * Disregard for safety: Threw blazing torches wherever they liked at night.\n * Unwillingness to stay where women were absent.\n * Peculiar waking habits: Would gently call a sleeping person for up to two hours rather than directly waking them ($\$ "It is laughable to see them waken another who is sleeping like a stone, when they come up without making any noise and touching him very lightly with the point of the finger, will call him for two hours, until the sleeper finishes his sleep and awakens." $\$).\n * Positive Traits (in concluding part of his letter):\n * Good at handicraft.\n * Built galleys, served as sailors, artillerymen, and divers.\n * Manufactured powder, swivel-guns, cannons, and bells.\n * Furnished Spaniards with food and services.\n * Agricultural products provided great profit for Spaniards in Manila.\n * Reasons for Filipino Insurrections: San Agustin attributed these to the "authority and arrogance that every Spaniard assumes upon his arrival" and the tyranny of some alcalde-mayors and other Spaniards "elevated from low beginnings" who became "gods and kings" in the provinces.\n\n## Debates on Filipino Character among Spanish Observers\n* The subject of national character was debated more seriously among Spanish observers compared to British or Dutch circles.\n\n* Juan Jose Delgado (visited Philippines in $1771$; wrote Historia $1751-54$)\n * Objected to San Agustin's generalizations, particularly regarding Filipino borrowing habits.\n * Countered that Spanish boys serving in convents behaved similarly to Filipinos regarding not shutting doors.\n * Denied the universality of San Agustin's description of waking a sleeping person, stating he had observed otherwise.\n * Impressed by Filipinos' honesty and sense of sin about stealing.\n * Attributed Filipino deceptiveness towards Spaniards partly to Spaniards often deceiving them and teaching them bad habits.\n\n* Sinibaldo de Mas (Author of Informe de las Islas Filipinas $1842$)\n * Objected to the general characterization of Filipinos as prone to stealing, despite theft being a major crime.\n * Suggested the Spanish administrative system could be a cause of crime.\n\n## Later European Descriptions of Filipinos\n* Feodor Jagor (German scholar, mid-19th century)\n * Echoed earlier views, finding Filipinos addicted to idleness and dissipation.\n * Noted their passion for cock-fighting in Manila.\n * Described native Filipinos as imitative to a wearisome degree, copying without intelligence ($\$ "They imitate everything that passes before their eyes without using their intelligence to appreciate it." $\$).\n * Observed a lack of incentive in their labor; examples include oars breaking being seen as an opportunity for rest ($\$ "If they happen to break, so much the better; for the fatiguing labor of rowing must necessarily be suspended till they are mended again." $\$).\n * Cited a man sleeping on a heap of coconuts on the Pasig river, only rousing himself to push off when the raft ran ashore, then relapsing into slumber.\n\n* Spanish priest Zuniga (work first published $1803$)\n * Attributed Filipinos' liking for fish to their indolent habits.\n * Suggested easily grown foods were better suited to their relaxed habits.\n * $\$ "In this occupation the inhabitants of these islands take more delight than in anything else, as it is a pursuit which at once indulges their indolent habits and gratifies their partiality to fish in preference to animal food… the pith of the palm, shoots of the sugar-cane, green withes, and other succulent productions, serve for food to those who have no desire to labour for their subsistence." $\$\n\n* Sinibaldo de Mas (Author of Report on the Condition of the Philippines in 1842, published in Madrid in $1843$)\n * Sent as a diplomatic attache to gather scientific, political, and commercial information.\n * His views were consistently ideological, anticipating a stir for independence.\n * Recommended drastic measures to maintain the Philippines as a Spanish colony:\n * Keep natives in an "intellectual and moral state" of inferiority to ensure their numerical superiority weighs less politically than "a bar of gold".\n * Avoid the formation of liberals, as "in a colony, liberal and rebellious are synonymous terms".\n * Break Filipino pride: Spaniards should have special clothes forbidden to natives.\n * Enforce deference: Filipinos/mestizos must stop and greet a Spaniard (except in Manila); stand when a Spaniard talks to them or passes.\n * Harsh punishments for offenses against Spaniards: Raising a hand, even in self-defense, meant hard labor for life; verbal offense meant proportionately lower penalty.\n * Social segregation: Spaniards forbidden from seating Filipinos/mestizos in their homes or eating with them; penalties included fines and banishment for repeat offenses.\n * Prohibition of intermarriage: No Spaniard permitted to marry a Filipina or mestiza.\n * Restrict luxuries: Filipinos/mestizos needing a carriage or saddled horse required an annually taxed license to limit their use.\n * Language barrier: Filipinos were not to be taught Spanish.\n * Military restriction: Filipino soldiers should rise no higher than corporal.\n * Described Filipinos as rude, lazy, and defiant: Recounted instances of Filipinos blocking paths, laughing at his eyeglasses, refusing to sell goods, and exhibiting disrespect like making "noisy emanations" in his presence.\n * Longed for times "when the natives knelt down when a Spaniard passed by".\n * Imperialist Ideology: De Mas's report is seen as a naked manifestation of imperialist ideology.\n * Catholic religion as the foundation of Spanish rule; priesthood to remain Spanish.\n * Divide and rule policy for Chinese and Filipinos: government skill lies in "keeping them separate and at odds, so they can never form one mass nor have a common public spirit, but on the contrary, one should serve as the instruments to keep the other a subject."\n * Preparation for independence: Despite his views, de Mas, as a Spaniard, surprisingly favored preparing the Philippines for independence, as he believed it was not useful to Spain.\n\n* Robert MacMicking (British merchant, Recollections of Manila and the Philippines published $1851$; covered years $1848-1850$)\n * Critical of Spanish rule and Spanish writings on Filipinos, accusing Spaniards of indolence in their investigations.\n * Graded the personal strength and mental activity of Filipinos higher than Malays in Java or Singapore.\n * Explained Filipino indolence by the hot climate: Believed intense labor was unsustainable in the tropics, and "indolent habits are in some degree necessary to their existence" for recuperation.\n\n* Sir John Bowring (former Governor of Hong Kong, A Visit to the Philippine Islands published $1859$)\n * Disagreed with a European author who found Filipinos industrious.\n * Blamed Filipino indolence for the country's backwardness.\n * Noted Filipino indifference and pliability.\n * Quoted a priest: "Did all mankind hang on a single peg, and that peg were wanted by an Indian for his hat, he would sacrifice all mankind."\n * Observed their lack of fear of death and indifference even in the presence of the dying or on the scaffold, smoking cigars tranquilly.\n * Their fatalistic view on death: "I know I am going to die. I cannot help it. I have been wicked it was the will of God, it was my fate."\n * Bowring's own observations:\n * Described the Indian as "more of a quadruped than a biped" due to large hands, pliant toes (for climbing), and being "almost amphibious" (spending much time in water).\n * Insensible to extreme weather (burning sun, drenching rain).\n * Transitory impressions and feeble memory of events; couldn't state age or ancestors.\n * Few wants, little ambition, not jealous or envious, little regard for neighbor's or own affairs.\n * His master vice: idleness, which is his "felicity".\n * Gave labor grudgingly, only out of necessity.\n * Relied on herbs for health; did not use soap or razor, bathing in the river and pulling facial hair with a sharp shell.\n * Had no need for modern conveniences like clocks, tables, chairs, plates, cutlery.\n * Valued a hacha (large knife) and bag; preferred the crowing of his cock to music; considered shoes superfluous.\n\n* These views, from the $17^{ ext{th}}$ century onwards, generally resembled those held by the Dutch and British on the Javanese and Malays, perpetuating the "image of the indolent native".\n * Antonio de Morga's (lieutenant-governor of the Philippines, book published $1609$) differing account is noted but reserved for later discussion.\n\n# The Image of the Javanese from the 18th to 20th Centuries\n\n## Emergence of the "Lazy Javanese" Myth\n* Negative judgments on Javanese character became more prevalent as Dutch colonial control increased, particularly from the late $18^{ ext{th}}$ to the early $19^{ ext{th}}$ century.\n* Dutch East India Company's (VOC) forced delivery system and later van den Bosch's (1830) system of forced cultivation (Culture System) required a moral justification, which the "myth of the lazy Javanese" provided.\n* Earlier Dutch records ($17^{ ext{th}}$ to early $18^{ ext{th}}$ century) rarely mentioned Javanese laziness, as the Dutch did not directly regulate native labor then.\n* Governor-General J. van den Bosch considered the Javanese intellectually comparable to Dutch children of $12$ or $13$ years.\n\n## Economic Observations on Javanese Habits\n* Clive Day (economic historian, $1904$), commenting on the late $19^{ ext{th}}$ century:\n * Noted a small class of landless, tradeless natives working for hire, mostly absorbed into village organizations.\n * The average cultivator's living standard was low by Western standards; a family's total personal property might be worth only $\$5$ to $\$10$ (in contemporary currency).\n * However, with small wants, a low standard of life could satisfy them, as long as they weren't starving.\n * It was deemed "impossible to secure the services of the native population by any appeal to an ambition to better themselves and raise their standard."\n * Only "immediate material enjoyment" would motivate them.\n * This led to a universal practice of employers offering a large part of wages in advance, making laborers indebted and thus compelled to work.\n * This system, though deplored, was recognized as necessary by employers, officials, and even the government for wage laborers.\n\n## The "Lazy Javanese" as Colonial Ideology\n* The theme functioned as a core component of colonial ideology for Dutch, British, and Western Imperialism generally.\n* In Java, it was central to the ideological conflict between conservative and liberal factions within Dutch colonial circles, particularly from the late $18^{ ext{th}}$ century to $1830$. Both aimed to benefit Holland but differed on exploitation methods.\n* In $1830$, conservatives, led by van den Bosch, won with the introduction of the Culture System.\n\n## The Culture System (Introduced by van den Bosch in $1830$)\n* Reasons for Introduction:\n * Aimed to address the continual deficits of the Indies Government after the fall of the VOC and huge expenses from the Java War ($1825-1830$), which resulted in Holland borrowing $\$38 ext{ million guilders}$ for the colonies.\n * Holland itself faced serious financial issues post-Napoleonic rule and due to bad financial management.\n * The system promised immediate replenishment of public funds, even at the expense of native welfare.\n* Original Recommendation (Idealized Plan):\n * Enhance soil productivity for European market crops.\n * Rejected private agricultural enterprise due to competition with cheap slave labor in America.\n * Proposed voluntary contracts between government and villages.\n * Villagers would plant a maximum of $1/5^{ ext{th}}$ of their rice fields with commercial crops for the government.\n * Cultivation under European supervision and native headmen management, not exceeding time for their own rice cultivation.\n * Government would bear all risk, grant exemption from land revenue, and pay producers for surplus produce.\n* Abuses in Practice (First $20$ years):\n * Increasing extortion of native populations by officials.\n * The $1/5^{ ext{th}}$ land use condition was rarely observed.\n * Compulsory labor extended: Original normal period of $66$ days per year was extended to $240$ days for certain government crops.\n * Land revenue was still levied in addition to compulsory cultivation.\n * Widespread violations of fundamental principles of the system.\n * Excessive use of forced unpaid labor for infra-structure (roads, bridges), building materials (wood, stone, tiles), and necessary establishments.\n * Forced unpaid labor also used for growing government-demanded crops.\n * All responsibility placed on Javanese farmers for crop failure and adverse economic/natural factors.\n * Scanty wages based on market value, not services rendered, sometimes falling to nothing.\n * Farmers had no say in crop choice or ground and were often forced to grow unsuitable crops with poor yields, sometimes in remote sites.\n* Abolition: Detrimental influence led to the abolition of many compulsory cultivations in the $1860 ext{s}$.\n\n## Debates: Forced Labor and Javanese Character\n* Upholders of the Culture System (Conservatives):\n * Argued that the system provided "millions of government profit" to Holland.\n * Claimed Javanese were "not capable of free labor" and that labor in Java had "always been forced".\n * Appealed to Javanese history.\n* Liberal Critics/Opponents (e.g., Dirk van Hogendorp, Edward Douwes Dekker):\n * Appealed to human nature and principles of justice.\n * Sympathetic to introducing industry, European capital, and managerial labor.\n * Required free labor, opposing the Culture System.\n * Expressed genuine concern for the Javanese.\n\n### Dirk van Hogendorp (Late 18th Century Reformer)\n* In $1791$, recommended reforms to a high commission:\n * Abolition of compulsory labor, slavery, and forced deliveries in kind.\n * Introduction of free trade and free labor.\n * Legal redress for indigenous population.\n * Anticipated Raffles in suggesting fixed taxation and recognition of individual ground property/hereditary land tenure.\n * Vehemently opposed corruption.\n * Persecuted in Java by colonial administration, fled to Holland.\n * Quote on colonial incomes: "All the incomes of the Governor, the supreme chiefs, the residents and other servants of the Company in Java, cannot be otherwise considered than theft, robbery, plunder and monopoly."\n\n### Governor-General J. Siberg's Refutation of van Hogendorp ($1802$)\n* Offered six main arguments against distributing land and abolishing forced delivery, rooted in the "lazy native" myth:\n 1. The Javanese were "too lazy and too sluggish" to acquire more than subsistence needs.\n 2. Forced delivery compelled them to produce and labor more.\n 3. If they made more profit in a liberal capitalist system, they would abandon work until profit was exhausted.\n 4. Distributed land would fall into disuse and ruin.\n 5. These lands would then be sold cheaply to Chinese or Europeans, who would become "little princes" and exploit them.\n 6. Javanese rulers, with vested interests, would resist van Hogendorp's plan.\n\n### W. H. van Ijsseldijk ($1802$)\n* Recognized abuses and adverse conditions, supported van Hogendorp's reforms.*\n Preferred reforms restricted to Dutch East India Company jurisdiction.\n* Mainly concerned with abolition of forced labor, free trade, and eliminating abuses.\n* *Notably, made no reference to the "lazy Javanese".\n\n### H. W. Muntinghe ($1812$)\n Noted *Javanese indolence*, but suggested its causes were *environmental, not hereditary.\n Not completely in favor of abolishing forced labor, despite agreeing previous conditions were objectionable.\n* His political philosophy: "every colony exists, or must exist for the benefit of the mother country."\n* Claimed *Europeans were unfit to cultivate ground in a tropical climate, which became an ideological justification for relying on native labor.\n\n## Punitive Measures and Opposition to Culture System\n The significance of forced labor and cultivation was highlighted by punitive actions against native dignitaries who failed to enforce production:\n * $1791$: Two *Radens* (Javanese aristocracy) banished for a year for neglecting coffee cultivation.\n * $1706$: A Javanese chief banished to Onrust island for "laziness" (insufficient compulsion of population to produce prescribed crops).\n * $1747$: Regent of Tjiblagoeng punished for "sluggishness".\n * $1788$: A patih threatened with banishment for "playing the lazy one".\n * Regents threatened with banishment to Ceylon and the Cape.\n * $1805$: A Soemedang chief lashed with rotan and sentenced to $5$ years forced labor for neglecting a Dutch plantation.\n * $1800$: A chief in Krawang chained at the feet.\n * Several village supervisors in Krawang punished by chain for "laziness".\n\n### Edward Douwes Dekker (Pseudonym Multatuli; Author of Max Havelaar $1860$)\n* Prominent critic of the Culture System and forced labor.\n* Opposed the "lazy native" theme.\n* Argued that oppression and ill-treatment of the native population led to their apathy in forced undertakings.\n* Viewed the Javanese's apathic reaction to forced labor as a silent protest against the Dutch government's policy.\n* Argued that the colonial government's reliance on unwilling native labor stemmed from the unwillingness of Europeans to work as estate laborers in the colonies due to climatic unsuitability, thus defining this native unwillingness as indolence.\n\n## British Colonialism and the "Lazy Native" (Raffles)\n* Even reformers like Raffles retained the image of the lazy native, despite his efforts to abolish forced labor.\n* The British faced the same issue: the native population remained outside the network of British colonial capitalism (mining, cash crops).\n* British investment in Malaya/Straits Settlements:\n * WWI ($1914-1918$): Total world investment in Straits Settlements approx. $\$200 ext{ million USD}$, with $\$150 ext{ million USD}$ from the UK.\n * WWII ($1942-1945$): UK investment in Malaya approx. $\$400 ext{ million USD}$ out of $\$700 ext{ million USD}$ total world investments.\n * British control was even greater in earlier decades.\n* Raffles's "Double Standard" on Monopoly:\n * He condemned Dutch monopolies on Malay States but supported British government monopoly if it didn't hinder internal commerce and industry.\n * His $ext{1811}$ treaty with the Sultan of Mataram demanded transfer of edible birdsnest territories and sole control of imposts on trade to the British government in exchange for an annual grant, while compelling the Sultan to ignore previous disadvantageous treaties with other European powers.\n * His trade policy was imperial, in the interest of England, not truly liberal, and rejected the principle of equal opportunity.\n * He has been criticized for "vulgar denunciation of the Chinese and the Arabs", making him a founder of racial prejudice in the region.