Filipinos in Nueva Espana (Guevarra 2011)

Access Provided by Old Dominion Libraries & (Viva) at 04/20/12 9:04PM GMT

Filipinos in nueva españa

Filipino-Mexican Relations, Mestizaje, and Identity

in Colonial and Contemporary Mexico

rudy p. guevarra jr.

jaas october 2011 • 389–416© the johns hopkins university press

The Mexico-Philippines relationship created and managed by Spain from

the 1500s to the 1800s was the first Pacific Rim association, especially to

demonstrate that the cultural byproducts of the transcontinental ties

deserve as much attention as their economic, political, and military

counterparts.

—Evelyn I. Rodriguez1

In november 2004, I took a trip with a friend to Acapulco, Mexico, to

embark on an exploration of cultural identity and history. It was then

part of my dissertation research. I wanted to find out just how long and

extensive the relationship between Filipinos and Mexicans was, which

I knew predated those beginning in the early twentieth century in the

United States, and in particular San Diego, California, where there is a

large and growing multiethnic Mexipino population.2 I knew that the

story of Filipino and Mexican interethnic relationships has a rich, complex

history. During the course of this trip I came to find out just how rich

and complex the history is.

Walking down Calle Cinco de Mayo in Acapulco, I could not help but

notice the Filipino-owned stores and shops, and hear the conversations as

the proprietors spoke to their staff and clientele in Spanish and Tagalog. All

over Acapulco there are other distinct signs of a recent Filipino presence.

Many of the local residents have visible Filipino or Asian features.3 The

390 • Jaas • 14:3

cultural signposts along this journey spoke to the intimate relationship

between Mexico and the Philippines, spanning several generations. The

relationship was facilitated for 250 years during the Manila-Acapulco gal-

leon trade (1565–1815).4 These transpacific voyages were responsible for

one of the world’s most lucrative and long-lasting global enterprises, which

included an enormous array of luxury goods, medicinal plants, agricultural

products, and people.5 This essay addresses how these exchanges had a

profound impact on both Mexico (Nueva España) and the Philippines.6

Indeed, the ways in which both indigenous and mixed-race Filipinos and

Mexicans crossed a vast ocean to become part of each other’s social and

cultural worlds and the mestizaje (racial and cultural blending) that oc-

curred attest to an extensive historical connection with lasting implications.

Luxury Goods, siLver BuLLion, and Brown Bodies across the Pacific

Between 1565 and 1815, numerous goods from Asia, the Philippines, and

other areas of the Pacific were highly coveted by the Spanish elite in the

Americas and Spain. Manila was the entrepôt from where all goods were

processed, readied, and shipped to Acapulco, Mexico (which was also

known as the “City of Kings”).7 Trade goods such as silks, porcelains, agri-

cultural produce, spices, teas, and other luxury and consumer merchandise

from China, the Philippines, Japan, India, Borneo, Cambodia, Malay, Siam

(Thailand), the Spice Islands (Moluccas, Java, and Ceylon), and other parts

of Asia and the Pacific were traded for silver to Chinese merchants.8 In

addition to silver, other goods shipped back to the Philippines included a

wide variety of agricultural goods, medicinal plants, and other items that

“covered the necessities of the island population.”9 This global exchange of

goods and silver transformed the material and cultural lives of merchants

and consumers in Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

The Philippines provided key items in this transpacific endeavor.

Indeed, probably the greatest item produced/built and exported from

the Philippines were the galleons themselves. The majority of the vessels

were built in the shipyards of Cavite, but galleons were also constructed

in Acapulco, Natividad, Zihuantanejo, and other port towns in Mexico.10

In the Philippines, most of the workforce used to construct these mighty

vessels was managed through a forced system of labor called polo, which

391Filipinos in nueva españa • guevarra •

was considered “the most oppressive phase of the Spanish domination on

the islands.”11 Countless Filipino indios (Indians) were worked to death in

the construction of these galleons. Seen as a dispensable commodity, these

workers were underfed, mistreated, and worked to the point of exhaus-

tion and death. Though there were skilled Chinese and Filipino indio and

mestizo artisans who helped construct the galleons, the majority of the

hard labor was done in the shipyards by indigenous Filipinos.12

The shipbuilding process was very labor intensive. Filipino indios cut

down the abundant teak and other hardwood trees and hauled them from

the jungles to other workers who were waiting in the shipyards to construct

the galleons.13 The hardwood trees were desired for their durability and

strength to withstand canon fire. So important were these hardwoods in

the construction of the galleons that they were considered “the best that

can be found in the universe,” and “if it were not for the great strength

of the galleons and the quality of their timbers . . . so dangerous a voy-

age could not be performed.” Given the durability and strength of the

completed galleons, they were often referred to as “castles in the sea.”14

Yet once completed the galleons generated a new form of forced servitude

for many of the workers. Filipino indios (who were also known as chinos)

were forced to board the galleons alongside Sangleys (ethnic Chinese) and

mestizos de Sangleys (Chinese mestizos) and work as seamen, servants, and

slaves. Slaves were sold upon arrival in Acapulco to the highest bidders.

Slaves were part of the galleon cargo, despite restrictions by the Spanish

Crown. At first, a 1626 law levied a tax of 4,000 reales, or 500 pesos, per

slave brought from the Philippines. By 1700, a royal order was implemented

prohibiting the trading of Filipino indio slaves altogether, yet slavery was

not the focus of the wealth that Spain depended upon.15

Though not in numbers comparable with other European powers in

the transatlantic slave trade, Spain nonetheless brought slaves as part of the

galleon cargo.16 Pacific ports such as Acapulco were used as docking sta-

tions to deliver these slaves into Mexico and other parts of South America.

Slaves were also used in conjunction with other local and mixed-race

populations to replenish the local supply of Mexican indios who, not even

fifty years earlier, were decimated by Spanish diseases. Filipino indios and

Chinese and African slaves were thus brought in to supply the demand for

indentured labor in what became known as the “Acapulco slave trade.”17

392 • Jaas • 14:3

Filipino indio women suffered other indignities. They were used as concu-

bines for Spanish nobles and other officials, who often times impregnated

and abandoned them once they reached port. This practice became such

a problem that the Spanish Crown wanted to avoid it altogether; thus a

decree was issued in 1608 to put an end to this custom: “One prominent

official had carried fifteen of these women with him on the voyage. Several

were delivered of children by him, while others left the ship at Acapulco

in a pregnant condition, ‘which made a great scandal.’”18

For Filipino indio men in the galleon trade, their fate had multiple

outcomes. As previously mentioned, there were thousands who served as

laborers in the building of galleons, both in the Philippines and Mexico. As

underpaid sailors and slave labor, Filipinos were also used to navigate the

galleons. The navigating prowess of the Filipino seamen and their knowl-

edge of the Pacific Ocean assured that many of the galleons touched port

in Acapulco. Their history of inter-island and long-voyage trading with

other Asian countries made them invaluable navigators. The experience

of these Filipino indios across Pacific waters forced the Spanish to rely

heavily on them. For most galleon crews, Filipino indios outnumbered the

Iberians by five to one.19 A Spaniard later praised these seamen as follows:

There is not an Indian in those islands who has not a remarkable

inclination for the sea, nor is there at present in all the world a people

more agile in manoeuvres [sic] on shipboard, or who learn so quickly

nautical terms and whatever a good mariner ought to know. . . . They

can teach many of the Spanish seamen who sail in those seas. . . . There

is hardly an Indian who has sailed the seas who does not understand

the mariner’s compass, and therefore on this trade route there are some

very skilful [sic] and dextrous [sic] helmsmen. . . . When placed upon a

ship from which they cannot escape, they fight with spirit and courage.20

Despite the contributions Filipino indios made to the galleon voyages,

their Spanish masters and employers treated them inhumanely. Various

complaints were made regarding their condition, which included mis-

treatment and poor or inadequate food, water, and other amenities. One

Castilian recalled Filipino indios being “treated like dogs.”21 The problem

was so bad that Spanish officers implemented a law in 1620 to protect

them from such abuses. As one galleon passenger noted: “That day the

cloth the king allows the seamen to keep them warm was divided among


them. The rations allowed to the Indios were about half that granted to

the Spaniards, and near the end of the voyage, when the provisions grew

scarce and foul, it was the fare of the native seamen that was most restricted

in amount and quality.”22

Moreover, when provisions ran out, “unnecessary cargo,” (for example,

indios) was “dumped overboard to prevent the starvation of the crew”

(Spanish crew members). In addition to these abuses, the Filipino seamen

were cheated out of their wages. Many were the victims of wage fraud of

most if not all of their pay.23 Filipino indios grew tired of the brutal treat-

ment and the long, arduous voyages. They responded by deserting once

they disembarked in Mexico. In Mexico, these deserters found freedom

in an atmosphere and with a people similar to their own who they could

intermarry with and blend into.

Thousands of Filipino indios deserted. In fact, according to historian

Edward Slack Jr., the overwhelming majority of Asians who came to Mexico

during the course of the 250-year galleon trade era were Filipino.24 Their

desertion freed them from forced servitude. However, Filipino indios knew

their ties would be completely severed from the Philippines and, more

important, their families and friends. One can only imagine what many

of them felt knowing they would never see their loved ones again if they

deserted. These actions thus give us insight into the cruelty and horrors

that these Filipino indios faced under Spanish colonialism, which led them

to desert in such mass numbers, never to return to the Philippines. Once

they deserted and were assimilated into Mexican communities, many of

them cohabitated and married local Mexican Indians and other mixed-

race women, starting their own familial and friendship networks. Some

remarried even though they had wives back in the Philippines.25 Once

they were settled, they invited other Filipino indios arriving to Acapulco to

also desert and join their multiethnic communities. Their ability to blend

among the local Mexican indio and mixed-race population illustrates the

shared racial, class, and, to a lesser extent, gender elements that channeled

them to these specific communities, where they would be accepted yet also

escape the clutches of their Spanish masters.26

The opportunities available to Filipino indios in Mexico also far

outweighed those in the Philippines. The cultural exchanges of food, agri-

394 • Jaas • 14:3

cultural products, language, and other influences that took place between

Filipino and Mexican indios and mestizos established the foundation for

their continued interrelationships. Though Spain colonized both Mexico

and the Philippines, it was Mexican and Filipino interaction on an intimate,

local level that initiated the transpacific cultural and human exchange as

it exists today, which has influenced both countries tremendously. Thus

the relationship between Mexico and the Philippines can help us to sub-

stantiate broader arguments and reconceptualize the people’s role in this

era of colonial globalization.

food, Medicine, and sPirits

The making of tuba wine (lumbanog) provides an example of this cultural

exchange through early globalization. The Filipino indios who deserted

the galleons taught local Mexicans how to make tuba wine. They referred

to this drink as tuba fresca or vino de cocos (in brandy form). By the 1600s

there were already established coconut groves ranging along Mexico’s

western coast.27 Filipino indios were already involved in the production

of the wine, so they freely engaged with their Mexican counterparts in

teaching them how to make this spirit.

According to historian Henry J. Bruman, the beverage was so popular

that by 1610 a Spanish decree was implemented prohibiting the making

of tuba wine. Spain moved to outlaw the production of tuba wine mainly

because it had become the beverage of choice for the local Mexican popu-

lation in provinces such as Colima and Zacatula. In addition, the sales of

Castilian wine had dropped, leaving Spain with less tax revenue. Taverns

and even churches replaced the Castilian spirit with the Filipino coconut

wine, which led to its prohibition.28 Despite the prohibition of the co-

conut wine and threats to fine those who participated in its production,

distribution, or consumption, the industry still thrived. By 1619 the vino

de cocos industry became so organized and popular that Spanish officials

reported that Mexican locals drank nothing else except “what the Filipinos

make.” The report stated:

It can be averted, provided all the Indian natives of the said Filipinas

Islands are shipped and returned to them, that the palm groves and

vessels with which the wine is made be burnt, the palm-trees felled, and


severe penalties imposed on whomever remains or returns to making

that wine. . . . All the Indians who have charge of making that wine go

to the port of Acapulco when the ships reach there from Manila, and

lead away with them all the Indians who come as common seamen. For

that reason, and the others mentioned, scarcely any of them return to

the said Filipinas Islands.29

The competition with Castilian wine was so great that Spain was

willing to deport Filipino indios who made their wine back to the Philip-

pines. Mexican officials, however, permitted them to participate in the

local economies when their skills encouraged cooperation and the mutual

benefit to each other. The coconut wine that Filipino indios introduced

to Mexico is still produced today. In western Mexico, locals still use the

Tagalog word “tuba” to describe this popular spirit.30

The agricultural exchange between the Philippines and Mexico ex-

pands beyond the introduction of tuba wine to the Mexican population.

The use of nipa palm leaves by Filipino indios, who brought the coconut

palm trees with them, also introduced thatched roofs to Mexico. These

nipa huts were called palapa by Mexicans, and are also used to this day.31

Many other types of agricultural and medicinal products and seeds were

also exchanged. Mexico provided the Philippines with maize (corn), avo-

cado, guava, maguey, tobacco, and the cacao bean, from which chocolate

is derived. Other products through Mexico via the galleon trade included

pineapple, arrowroot, peanut, lima beans, yams, balimbing, cassava, chico,

papaya, zapote, tomato, and squash. Medicinal plants included tuberose,

spider lily, canna, Mexican poppy, camchile (for its tanbark), ipil-ipil,

various peppers, lantana, cactus, madre de cacao, periwinkle, campanella,

and an assortment of dye plants, including mimosa, indigo, and achuete.

From the Philippines, Mexico received coconuts, the mango de Ma-

nila, tamarind, rice, and various medicinal plants introduced by Filipino

indio mediquillos to the Spanish missionaries and, arguably so, to native

Mexicans once these herbs were brought overseas. Mexican culinary tradi-

tions were also influenced with the introduction of ceviche (kilawin), and

cultural forms of entertainment such as the spectacle of cockfighting also

have their origins in the Philippines.32 These are just some of the many

agricultural and cultural exchanges that both groups engaged in, which

had a lasting impact on both their countries.

396 • Jaas • 14:3

LinGuistic exchanGes

Spain had its own cultural impact on both Mexicans and Filipinos for

over 300 years, which further solidified their common experiences.

These included language, food, religion, fiestas, music, and clothing. For

one, the Iberians introduced thousands of their words into the Tagalog

language, as well as Chavacano, another Filipino dialect.33 Spanish is also

the dominant language in Mexico. Even words that described the familial

and kinship ties that were created through God parenting were similar.

The word compadrazgo in Mexico, for example, was compadrinazgo in

the Philippines. Comadre and compadre in Mexico were kumadre and

kumpadre in the Philippines. Though they had spelling variations, their

meanings and use were the same.34 The use of language to describe par-

ticular foods was also prevalent. These included menudo, caldo de arroz,

paella, chicharones, asado, escabeche, pan de sal, empanadas, adobo, lechon,

chorizo, and many others.35

Similarly, Filipinos and Mexicans had a crossbreed of language with

many Mexican words, or “Mexicanismos,” making it into regional Philip-

pine dialects. Indigenous Mexican words from the Aztec Nahuatl language,

for example, made it into the Tagalog vocabulary. These include: achuete,

atole, avocado, cahuete, cacao, caimito, calabaza, camachile, camote, cala-

chuche, chico, chocolate, coyote, nana(y), tata(y), tinagui, tocayo, zacate,

and zapote among others. Words that were Nahuatl in origin that took

on a Filipino name include xicama-tl (singkamas), tianquiztli (tiyangge),

cachuatl (kawkaw, or chocolate), xoco-atl (tsokolate), tamalli (tamales),

chayohtli (sayote), tocaitl (tocayo), and chilli (sili), among others. From

the Philippines, Mexico got tuba (tuba fresca), ilang-ilang (hilanhilan),

and Parian. There were also other idioms and modes that were exchanged

between Mexicans and Filipinos. Language would thus be a significant

factor in facilitating their cultural and genetic blending.36

reLiGious and cuLturaL fiestas

Religious and cultural fiestas among Mexicans and Filipinos also share

a Spanish influence. Spanish Catholicism played a pivotal role in the

conversion of many indigenous peoples in both Mexico and the Philip-


pines. Though not always successful, it was the means by which Iberian

conquistadors and clergy tried to wipe out the indigenous identity of those

they conquered. The newly converted indios were given Spanish surnames

during baptism.37 This not only showed their conversion to Catholicism

but was useful for Spain to keep census counts of their converts. As with

language, religion was brought to the Philippines via Mexico.

Mexico was so vital to Castilian control over the Philippines that

even their religious affairs were handled under the jurisdiction of its sister

colony, and not Spain.38 Mexico sent many clergy from various religious

orders to convert the indios in the Philippines. Due to the success of these

religious orders, it is estimated that 80 percent of the current population is

Catholic. Yet, in other parts of Asia, resistance and martyrdom met many

of these priest and friars. Thus, because of the success of Catholicism in the

Philippines, it is the only predominantly Catholic country in Asia. Spanish

influence is also evident in the myths in both the Philippines and Mexico,

such as the Aparecido, or apparition. Furthermore, devotion to La Virgen

de Guadalupe, an indigenous Mexican version of the Virgin Mary, can be

found in churches throughout the Philippines. Other religious images that

made their way from Mexico to the Philippines include La Virgen de la

Salud from Pátzcuaro, La Virgen de San Juan De Los Lagos from Zapopan,

La Virgen de Antipolo, and the Cristo Negro from Guiyapo, among others.39

Fiestas and other cultural activities were also very similar. For example,

the serenading of women was prevalent in both the Philippines (harana)

and Mexico (serenata). Musical devices, such as la bandurria, and other

stringed instruments were analogous.40 Both groups also share the celebra-

tion of certain religious holidays. In both Mexico and the Philippines, for

example, Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) is celebrated every first of

November. During the Christmas season, other festivities and religious

practices are comparable. Both groups traditionally attend Midnight

Mass and Las Posadas. Moreover, harvest festivals are also similar, such as

the maize festival in Oaxaca, Mexico, and the lutrina in the Philippines.41

Other cultural celebrations that both Mexicans and Filipinos share are the

coming of age ceremonies for young women. The Mexican quinceañera

and the Filipino debut are alike in tradition and significance. The Mexi-

can camisa guayabera (dress shirt) is another example. The shirt’s origins

come from Cuba, which was also influenced by long-term contact with

398 • Jaas • 14:3

the Philippines. The shirt’s designs and embroidery resembled the Filipino

barong Tagalog, which was based off of the Camisa de Chino worn by Chi-

nese and mestizos in Manila. In Southern Mexico, the camisa guayabera

is also known as the Filipinas. Indeed, volumes can be said regarding the

multiple similarities between Mexicans and Filipinos, which were shared

and blended over centuries.42

accuLturation and inteGration

One of the most significant exchanges that took place because of the gal-

leon trade between the Philippines and Mexico involved people. Given

that the Philippines formed part of a colonial extension of Mexico, and

not Spain, this relationship facilitated the traveling of Filipinos to Mexico

and Mexicans to the Philippines.43 Thus began of the process of mestizaje,

or the racial and cultural blending of peoples between both countries.

The transpacific passage promoted the intermixing or amalgamation of

these two peoples and their cultures, and has been part of the historical

process that continues to this day between the Philippines and Mexico.44

As previously mentioned, these include the slaves, servants, and seamen,

as well as soldiers, clergy, administrators, and civilians. Within this con-

text, both Filipinos and Mexicans lived and married each other within the

local populations. When Miguel López de Legazpi traveled from Mexico

to the Philippines for example, it is estimated that over half of his crew

(300 out of 400 men) were Mexicans, which included creoles, mestizos,

and Mexican indios.45

Subsequent voyages to the Philippines introduced more Mexicans

to the local Filipino population. Although the exact numbers cannot be

determined, it is highly likely that thousands of Mexicans who made their

way to the Philippines deserted and blended into the local population.

In time, their historical memory and identity as Mexican was lost after

generations; thus they became Filipino. Their country of origin may have

been lost, but their cultural and linguistic remnants still exist.46 Mexicans

living in the Philippines at the time were called Guachinangos. This term

was most likely used to describe their mixed-race ancestry and social class.

In addition, there is a town called Mexico in the province of Pampanga in

the Philippines, arguably another testimony to this connection.47


The desertion and settlement of thousands of Mexicans in the Philip-

pines indeed illustrates the ways in which their connection was not unilat-

eral, but reciprocal. Filipinos migrated to Mexico in even greater numbers

than Mexicans who established permanent lives in the Philippines. Scholars

such as Edward Slack Jr. estimate that approximately 75,000 Filipinos

settled in Acapulco, San Blas, Costa Grande, and other parts of Mexico

during the galleon era.48 As the main port of entry, Acapulco, Guererro,

was the center for migration. From Acapulco, Filipinos fanned out and

made their way along el camino de China (the Chinese road) to Oaxaca,

Puebla, Michoacán, Jalisco, Puerto Vallarta, Guanajuato, Vera Cruz, and

Mexico City. They also settled in Baja and Alta California.49 They married

within the local population of Mexican indios and mestizos, blending and

escaping the confines of their life of drudgery on the galleons. The Mexican

coastal communities provided a welcoming environment familiar in its

tropical climate and people, who shared similar indigenous and mixed-

race populations as well as Spanish-influenced customs.50

I contend that cultural exchange was one of the fundamental reasons

both Mexicans and Filipinos continued to have interrelationships beyond

the Spanish colonial era and into the twenty-first century. These former

Iberian colonies shared so many elements of their culture through the

process of mestizaje that it left an imprint on each other’s lives. Con-

sciously or unconsciously, this surfaced between Mexicans and Filipinos

whenever they interacted with each other, whatever the circumstance.

Their physical appearance as dark-skinned indigenous and mixed-race

peoples with Spanish surnames and similar language benefited those that

deserted, whether it was in Mexico or the Philippines. Moreover, the rich

tapestry of their connectedness through blood, culture, religion, food,

music, language, habits, family life, traditions, and folklore strengthened

a bond that would last for generations.51 Often times we take for granted

those things that we have borrowed from others and make as our own.

The fact that both Filipinos and Mexicans borrowed and shared so many

things with each other is a topic of discussion that warrants further re-

search. What makes this connection so impressive is that it was a 250-year

process that ensured both groups would have long-lasting ties beyond a

few generations of Filipino deserters in Mexico. In fact, one scholar claims

the Filipino presence in Mexico goes back as far as fifteen generations.52

400 • Jaas • 14:3

Monuments and other remnants also evoke a Filipino presence in

Mexico. In Salina Cruz, Oaxaca, for example, stands a statue of Lorenzo

Paulo, a Filipino sailor during the nineteenth century who settled in the

area. Other areas of western Mexico that still have descendants of Filipinos

include Acapulco, the Costa Grande north of Acapulco, Coyuca (which was

once called Filipino town), and the state of Colima.53 One claim estimates

around 200,000 descendants of these Filipinos currently reside in Mexico.

Given the length of time that they have been in Mexico, all of these Filipino

descendants have been absorbed into the general population and now

culturally identify as Mexican.54 As previously mentioned, their physical

and cultural similarities also made it possible for them to be assimilated

into local Mexican communities, thus influencing how their identities

were forged. Although most of these descendents identify as Mexican, they

nonetheless recognize their Filipino ancestry and are proud to let people

know about their multiethnic identity. This connection to their Filipino

ancestors and heritage binds them to the historical tapestry of Filipino-

Mexican relations over time and geographic space.

As Filipinos became part of the local Mexican population, settling

down and forming families and kinship ties with friends, their involve-

ment in Mexico went far beyond the Manila-Acapulco galleon trade. Their

activities in Mexico also went beyond economic and cultural contribu-

tions. Many Filipinos were also participants in several historical events in

Mexican history. According to Philippine historian Jaime B. Veneracion,

for example, there were several key Filipino figures involved in the revolt

against Spain led by Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla. These included

Ramon Fabie, a Filipino who served as lieutenant with Father Hidalgo

when he proclaimed Mexican independence from Spain on September

16, 1810. Fabie’s role in the revolt cost him his life. He was hanged with

several others for his participation in the rebellion.55 There were also two

Filipino brigade commanders under General Jose Maria Morelos whose

army came from the state of Guerrero. Under Morelos, approximately 200

Filipino-Mexicans joined the struggle against Spain and soon served under

General Vicente Guerrero.56 One can only fathom how many countless

Filipino-Mexicans participated in this event, as well as other historical

moments in Mexican history.


To add to the richness and complexity of this relationship between

Mexico and the Philippines, there were Mexican revolutionaries, such as

Fr. Hidalgo’s confidant Epigmenio Gonzalez, his brother Emeterio, and

forty others, who were exiled to the Philippines. They remained in the

Philippines until Mexico finally achieved its independence from Spain

in 1821. Given their presence in Philippines, it is likely that they shared

ideas of revolution with their Filipino counterparts who came into contact

with them while in exile and incarcerated. In addition, a revolt of criollos

(Mexican-born Spanish) occurred in the Philippines in 1822.57 Although

the revolt ended in defeat and some of the participants were either executed

or returned back to Mexico aboard the galleon Flor del Mar, it was the sign

of the times that Spain was losing its control over its overseas colonies.

Spain in turn tried to eradicate anything Mexican in the Philippines

for fear of similar ideas of revolt. Spain’s military weakness however, was

already apparent to local Filipinos. The writings of these criollo revolu-

tionaries, such as Luis Rodriguez Varela, quickly gained public attention.

In his Proclama Historial, for example, he referred to himself as “el conde

Filipino.” As noted by Jaime B. Veneracion, “perhaps for the first time, a

political statement used the term ‘Filipino’ as a national identification.”58

Indeed, for an Iberian born in Mexico to refer to himself as a Filipino

inadvertently showed the bond that these two countries had as colonies

of Spain, despite his own ethnic background as a Spaniard. The cries for

revolution in Mexico reverberated across the Pacific Ocean to its sister

colony the Philippines, where seeds of rebellion were slowly beginning to

take root. At the time, revolutionary Mexico understood the ties that it

had with the Philippines, not only economically, but also culturally and

politically. A secret Mexican government memorandum stated:

Now that we Mexicans have fortunately obtained our independence by

revolution against Spanish rule, it is our solemn duty to help the less

fortunate countries . . . especially the Philippines, with whom our country

has had the most intimate relations during the last two centuries and a

half. We should send secret agents . . . with a message to their inhabitants

to rise in revolution against Spain and that we shall give them financial

and military assistance to win their freedom. Should the Philippines

succeed in gaining her independence from Spain, we must felicitate

her warmly and from an alliance of amity and commerce with her as a

402 • Jaas • 14:3

sister nation. Moreover, we must resume the intimate Mexico-Philippine

relations, as they were during the halcyon days of the Acapulco-Manila

galleon trade.59

As this letter suggests, Mexico not only saw the importance of aid-

ing the Filipinos in revolting against Spain but also wanted to continue

its economic, social and cultural relationship. The implications of this

message were evident fifty years prior to the Katipunan and their revo-

lution against Spain. Led by General Emilio Aguinaldo, the Philippines

declared its independence and established a republic. Filipinos however,

would have to fight against the United States, which had its own imperial

ambitions and ushered in another era of colonialism after the start of the

Philippine-American War of 1898.60 Although Philippine independence

from Spain did not occur as early as desired, just the thought of the type

of relationship between the two countries is enough to evoke excitement

and pride, since both recognized each other as allies. As Bishop Antonio

Joaquin Perez of Puebla, Mexico, wrote: “Never mind. In God’s own time,

the Filipinos will rise in arms against Spain and win their independence

like our people. Then, and only then, shall we be able to resume our ties

with the Philippines.”61

Bishop Antonio Joaquin Perez’s statement illustrated the welcom-

ing possibility in resuming their relationship as independent nations.

The opportunity, however, never materialized. By 1815 the galleon trade

finally came to an end. This resulted from both increased competition

with foreign traders after the Seven Year’s War with Britain, and Mexico’s

increasing activities toward full independence from Spain, which it finally

achieved in 1821. Although Mexico and the Philippines would not have

the same sort of constant connection of people, goods, and ideas as they

once did during the heyday of the Manila-Acapulco galleon trade, they

did nonetheless recognize their shared history under Spanish colonial-

ism. In Acapulco, Mexico, for example, there are several museums, such

as the Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, and the Museo

Histórico Naval de Acapulco, which have extensive information on the

Manila-Acapulco galleon trade and the influences of these countries on

each other’s history and culture.62 Scholars from both the Philippines

and Mexico have also written about this intimate connection, which has

sparked a growing interest among new generations of academics who seek


to further this line of inquiry with regards to this understudied aspect of

mestizaje in the Americas.63

Since the galleon trade, Mexicans and Filipinos have forged a continu-

ous, albeit new thread to the historical connectedness they once shared.

The Manila-Acapulco galleons of the past have now been replaced by the

ocean cruise liners of the present, which bring thousands of Filipinos to

Mexico every year as unconscious agents of this modern journey of identity

and community formations now driven by the tourist industry. Indeed,

their presence symbolizes this historical conjuncture, which manifests

itself in current migrations. These contemporary relationships are now

forged through global markets where Filipinos and Mexicans come into

contact at the local level in an exchange of goods, services, and relation-

ships. These contemporary relationships although mirroring history, are

now under a different guise: transnational tourism.

conteMPorary fiLiPino-Mexican reLations

As a result of the long-lasting interrelationships between Mexicans and

Filipinos in areas like Acapulco, there are many documented locals who

“looked like Filipinos.”64 The enduring presence of Filipinos in Mexico

ties the historical legacy to more recent migrations. Indeed, they con-

tinue to venture to Mexico, though not as slaves, servants, or seamen per

se. Filipinos (and Filipinas) who now come to Mexico do so as workers

aboard Norwegian, Carnival, and other cruise line ships. In juxtaposing

the lives of the Filipino galleon seamen with contemporary experiences

of Filipino cruise line workers, these recent migrations are links to past

migrations, which continues to shape Filipino-Mexican interrelationships

in the twenty-first century. These vessels can be considered modern-day

galleons that bring Filipino workers in contact with the local Mexican

community in areas like Acapulco, for example, which is now a famous

tourist destination. Annually, thousands of Filipino cruise workers dock

and spend their down time in the town of Acapulco while tourists shop.

They spend their money in the local community, shopping and buying

goods for their next trip across the Pacific. They also visit local Filipino-

Mexican-owned restaurants and bars where ties have been forged through

previous contact with Mexican locals.

404 • Jaas • 14:3

There are even contemporary Filipino immigrants who have decided

to remain in Acapulco, working in the various restaurants as cooks, enter-

tainers, and service workers. Some even established their own businesses.

One such individual is Gavino, who owns the Lutong Pinoy (Filipino

eatery) in Acapulco.65 Along with his Mexican wife, Lore, and their staff,

they cater seasonally to the Filipino clientele who visit their restaurant for

some home-cooked Filipino delicacies after working on cruise liners for

weeks at a time. Gavino serves familiar delicacies such as lechón kawali

(crispy pan-fried roasted pork), garlic shrimp, and fried tilapia, along

with steamed rice. He even has special Filipino dishes such as sisig that

he cooks on the side for his favorite customers and friends who visit him

nightly from these ships.66 His restaurant not only offers familiar foods

but also karaoke, pool tables, and other forms of entertainment familiar

to Filipinos, as well as hotel rooms above the restaurant for patrons to

stay overnight.

I spent several nights in Acapulco listening to the stories of these

Filipino and Filipina cruise line workers.67 For many of them this was

Figure 1. photo of the lutong pinoy, Calle Cinco de Mayo, acapulco, Mexico. image provided by author, 2004.


their home away from home. They could converse freely in Tagalog with

each other and Gavino (who also speaks Spanish and English), while the

Filipino men flirted with the Mexican waitresses. In fact, several Filipinos

are involved with some of the waitresses and have children with them.68

These relationships, and the children born out of this experience, con-

tinue to forge this legacy of Filipino-Mexican relations and the shaping of

contemporary multiethnic identities. These workers, the significant others

they have in Acapulco, and those Filipinos who decide to stay in Mexico

are modern-day reminders of the relationships that were formed during

the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.

I also had the good fortune of interviewing several Filipinos and

multiethnic Mexipinos in Acapulco.69 One was Jun Lacang, who works

as a singer at a local restaurant. A Philippine citizen, he worked as an

entertainer on one of the cruise ships that docked in Acapulco. He fell

in love with a local Mexican woman whom he met through her uncle,

his former employer in California. Needless to say, as he put it, “I fell in

love with a beautiful Mexican woman, and decided not to go back to the

Philippines.”70 He has been in Acapulco for over thirty years. He often

reminisces about the Philippines but mentions that he is happy living in

Mexico. As Jun keenly noted, in the United States he faced a lot of discrimi-

nation because he was Filipino, yet in Mexico he was accepted and found

a place to call home. He has a FM2 passport, which allows him to live in

Acapulco though he cannot vote. Jun and his wife own property, and his

children, who are multiethnic Mexipinos, hold dual citizenship with the

Philippines and Mexico. Jun, like many other Filipinos before him, made

Mexico his home, where he lives a happy life.71 For many Filipino men, the

reason they stayed in Acapulco was because they fell in love with a local

Mexican woman. As with Jun, Gavino also mentioned how he worked as

a chef on a cruise ship but fell in love with a local Mexican woman and

stayed in Acapulco. He decided to establish his roots there as well, raising

his Mexipino children.72

The identities of these multiethnic Mexipinos is worth noting. The

Mexipinos I spoke with in Acapulco were proud to call themselves Filipino

even though they were culturally raised as Mexican. Such is the case of

Araceli Tellechea, a Mexipina born and raised in Acapulco, Mexico. Her

406 • Jaas • 14:3

grandfather, who was Filipino, came to Acapulco during the late 1920s,

where he worked as a fisherman. According to Araceli, her grandfather met

and fell in love with her grandmother while he was working in Acapulco.

He decided to stay and raise a family, which is now in its fourth generation.

Though they are more culturally Mexican and have no ties to the Philip-

pines, Araceli is proud to be Filipina and acknowledges her multiethnic

identity through the connection she has with her Filipino grandfather.

The way she embraces both her ancestries illustrates her identity as be-

ing both Mexican and Filipina.73 Further research into this phenomenon

in Mexico will no doubt continue to add to the complexity of this story.

concLusion

The 250 years that Filipinos and Mexicans initially came into contact

through Spanish colonialism and their involvement in the Manila-Aca-

pulco galleon trade laid the foundation for what would become a large,

cultural, religious, agricultural, and human exchange across the Pacific.

The descendants of those Mexicans living in the Philippines, and Filipinos

living in Mexico, are the remnants of this rich history. For Mexico, this

was more evident due to the larger numbers of Filipinos who migrated

and remained. Though most of the knowledge we have about Mexican

history overlooks the contributions of Filipinos and other Asians to the

region, their legacy has been well documented and celebrated in Acapulco.74

Although Filipinos and other Asians were a part of the complex pro-

cess of mestizaje that took place throughout the Americas, their presence

has been missing from the larger historical Mexican and Chicano narrative.

Yet as historian Evelyn Hu-DeHart has noted regarding the Asian pres-

ence in the Americas, “these histories are hidden in plain view.”75 Indeed,

places like Acapulco, with its rich history through the galleon trade, have

recognized and celebrated this cultural diversity. Recent scholarship has

also begun to unearth these narratives and include the Filipino presence

in the Asian and Pacific Islander diaspora to the Americas.76 Though time

has passed since the days of the galleon trade, the interconnectedness of

Mexicans and Filipinos has endured through contemporary times under

the guise of transnational tourism. Acapulco is still a haven for contem-


porary Filipinos who come to live among a people who are very similar

to their own. Moreover, individuals like Araceli, as well as the children of

Gavino, Jun, and other Filipinos who married or had relationships with

local Mexican women, are contemporary examples of this legacy. Filipinos

and Mexicans continue to have relationships and marry in Mexico, as well

as in the United States, another area where a growing multiethnic Mexipino

population is occurring. These stories illustrate a historical phenomenon

that has spanned time and place to create a multicultural experience that

is deeply Mexican yet also Filipino.

notes I would like to thank Marivel Danielson, Seline Szkupinski-Quiroga, Kelly

F. Jackson, and Django Paris for providing comments on earlier versions of this essay. Many thanks as well to Evelyn Hu-DeHart and Edward R. Slack Jr., who also provided insightful comments and additional sources to include in later versions of this essay, which I am grateful for. All errors remain my own.

1. Evelyn I. Rodriguez, “Primerang Bituin: Philippines-Mexico Relations at the Dawn of the Pacific Rim Century,” Asia Pacific Perspectives 6, no. 1 (May 2006): 4.

2. The author would like to thank David Galbiso for his invaluable assistance in gathering information for this article. He helped track down my interviewees and assisted during the interview process. For more on Mexipino identity, see Rudy P. Guevarra Jr., “Burritos and Bagoong: Mexipinos and Multiethnic Identity in San Diego, California,” in Crossing Lines: Race and Mixed Race Across the Geohistorical Divide, ed. Marc Coronado, Rudy P. Guevarra Jr., Jef-frey Moniz, and Laura Furlan Szanto (Walnut Creek, Calif.: Alta Mira Press, 2005), 73–96.

3. Mexicans refer to those who have Asian features as looking “chino,” or “chinito” (Chinese), a generic label that collectively includes Filipinos and other Asian ethnic groups.

4. The name for this was often referred to as the Manila, Acapulco, or Manila-Acapulco galleon trade, depending on who was writing about it and what direction the ships were heading. For the purpose of this essay, I use the term “Manila-Acapulco galleon trade” to highlight the connectedness of these two locations in Spain’s global trading. See William Lytle Schurz, “Mexico, Peru, and the Manila Galleon,” Hispanic American Historical Review 1, no. 4 (November 1918): 389–402; Miguel Ángel Fernández, The China Galleon (Monterrey, Mexico: Grupo Vitro, 1998); William Lytle Schurz, The Manila Galleon: The Romantic History of the Spanish Galleons Trading Between Manila and Acapulco (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1959).

408 • Jaas • 14:3

5. See Schurz, Manila Galleon; Juan Crespí, A Description of Distant Roads: Original Journals of the First Expedition into California, 1769–1770, trans. Alan K. Brown (San Diego, Calif.: San Diego State University Press, 2001), 21.

6. Mexico at the time of Spanish control was called Nueva España, or New Spain. From this point on I will refer to New Spain as Mexico, in order to distinguish my point about the interrelationships being between Mexico and the Philippines.

7. Edward R. Slack Jr., “The Chinos in New Spain: A Corrective Lens for a Dis-torted Image,” Journal of World History 20, no. 1 (2009): 37.

8. For a more detailed description of the goods that were shipped, see Eugene Lyon, “Track of the Manila Galleons,” National Geographic, September 1990, 7–16; Schurz, Manila Galleon, 32–33, 49–50, 70, 73–74, 115; and Stanley J. Stein, “Tending the Store: Trade and Silver at the Real de Huautla, 1778–1781,” Hispanic American Historical Review 77, no. 3 (August 1997): 378.

9. Museum Exhibit Display Information, “Contributions of New Spain to the Philippines,” Museo Histórico de Acapulco Fuerte de San Diego, Acapulco, Mexico. All subsequent references to the museum’s exhibit displays will be referred to as MEDI.

10. In addition to shipbuilding in Cavite, galleons were constructed in Panga-sinan, Albay, Mindoro, Marinduque, and Iloilo. Cavite, however, remained the main shipyard where hundreds of Filipino indios and mestizos, and Chinese, constructed these vessels. With regard to galleons being constructed in Mexico, Gaspar Molina, a Filipino sailor, provides such an example. Span-ish officials commissioned Molina to construct two galleons, Nuestra Señora de la Concepción (1761) and Nuestra Señora de Loreto (1768) in Loreto. See MEDI, “Construction of Galleons,” Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, Acapulco; Lyons, “Track of the Manila Galleons,” 30–31; Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, Guía Turística y Cultural de Mexico 5, no. 27 (n.d.): 18; Floro L. Mercene, “15 Generations of Filipinos Thriving in Mexico,” Philippine News, June 21–27, 2000, A15; Harry W. Crosby, Antigua California: Mission and Colony on the Peninsular Frontier, 1697–1768 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1994), 347; and Fernández, China Galleon, 45.

11. Mercene, “15 Generations of Filipinos,” A15; Schurz, Manila Galleon, 197; Lorraine Jacobs Crouchett, Filipinos in California: From the Days of the Gal-leons to the Present (Cerritos, Calif.: Downey Place Publishing House, 1982), 7–9; Teodoro A. Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People, 8th ed. (Quezon City: Garotech Publishing, 1990), 83–87.

12. “Indio” was a term used by the Spanish to refer to those who were indigenous to the Americas, the Philippine Islands, and other areas where they encoun-tered native peoples.

13. Slack, “Chinos in New Spain,” 39.14. Schurz, Manila Galleon, 196; Fernandez, China Galleon, 46.


15. Schurz, Manila Galleon, 33.16. A brief definition of terms must be discussed for the purpose of this article.

According to Edward R. Slack Jr., “chino” identity was used to collectively identify persons who came from Asia, including the Philippines. It is a complex, dynamic term that is “chronically and geographically determined.” Thus it depended on the context and when it was used since it changed over time. The Spanish also referred to the Chinese as Sangleys, which was a distinctive term specifically for them. To be mestizo de Sangley meant one was a Chinese mestizo, or Chinese-native Filipino. The term “indios chinos” (Chinese Indians) was a subgroup, which meant native Filipinos. Most ref-erences to “indios” in Spanish records regarding the Philippines generally referred to native Filipinos. Where they were from would also be included at times to distinguish Filipinos from a particular area. For example, native Filipinos from the island of Luzon were called “indios Luzones.” The term “Filipino” was initially reserved for Spanish born in the Philippine Islands until the nineteenth century. For the purpose of this article, I will use the terms “Filipino indios” and “Filipinos” interchangeably to describe native Filipinos. For more on these terms, see Edward R. Slack Jr., “Sinifying New Spain: Cathay’s Influence on Colonial Mexico via the Nao de China,” Journal of Chinese Overseas 5 (2009): 5–8; Slack, “Chinos of New Spain,” 35–67; Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran, “The Slave Trade in Mexico,” Hispanic American Historical Review 24, no. 3 (August 1944): 419–421; Schurz, Manila Galleon, 63, 210; Crouchett, Filipinos in California, 6; Alex Fabros Jr., email correspondence with author, December 9, 2002; Edward Slack Jr., email correspondence with author, January 3–4, 2011; Mercene, “15 Generations of Filipinos,” A14; Alex Fabros Jr., “Were We Here Before the Mayflower?” Filipinas (October 1995): 32; Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People, 74–76; and Antonio S. Tan, “The Chinese Mestizos and the Formation of the Filipino Nationality,” Asian Center Occasional Papers Series II, No. 2 (Quezon City: University of the Philippines, 1984).

17. Alex Fabros Jr., email correspondence with author, December 9, 2002; Fernán-dez, China Galleon, 32; Fabros, “Were We Here Before the Mayflower?” 32; Stannard, American Holocaust, 77–87; Alfred W. Crosby, Ecological Imperial-ism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 200; Alfred W. Crosby Jr., The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1972), 35–63; Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Hu-man Societies (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999), 355; Beltran, “Slave Trade in Mexico,” 420–421; Slack, “Chinos in New Spain,” 41–42; and Slack, “Sinifying New Spain,” 9–10.

18. Not much is known about the whereabouts of these Filipino indio women after they were abandoned in Acapulco. One can only conclude that they also assimilated into the local Mexican indio and mestizo communities. See Schurz, Manila Galleon, 272.

410 • Jaas • 14:3

19. Schurz, Manila Galleon, 210.20. Ibid., 211.21. Ibid., 212.22. Ibid.23. Governor Corcuera noted this abuse in 1636, when he stated that “they have

not been paid in one, two, three, or even ten and fifteen years.” See Schurz, Manila Galleon, 211–212; and Fabros, “Were We Here Before the Mayflower?” 32.

24. Edward Slack Jr., email correspondence with author, January 3, 2011. 25. Slack, “Chinos in New Spain,” 39–40.26. Africans were also a part of Mexico’s multiracial society. See Beltran, “Slave

Trade in Mexico,” 412–431; Herman L. Bennett, Africans in Colonial Mexico: Absolutism, Christianity, and Afro-Creole Consciousness, 1570–1640 (Bloom-ington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 1–2, 14–32; Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán, La Población Negra de México, 1519–1810: Estudio Ethnohistórico (México: Ediciones Fuente Cultural, 1946); Patrick J. Carroll, Blacks in Colonial Vera Cruz: Race, Ethnicity, and Regional Development (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991); C. E. Marshall, “The Birth of the Mestizo in New Spain,” Hispanic American Historical Review 19, no. 2 (May 1939): 172–173. The problem of desertion was so bad that some galleons at Acapulco did not have a crew for the return trip to Manila. Such was the case of the Espíritu Santo, which lost practically all of its Filipino indio workers. William Lytle Schurz states that seventy-four of the seventy-five Filipino seamen deserted; however, Henry J. Bruman provides evidence that seventy out of seventy-five deserted the galleon Espíritu Santo. Bruman relied on a Spanish report written by Sebas-tián de Pineda in 1619, which was translated and included in Emma Helen Blair and James A. Robertson, eds., The Philippine Islands, 1493–1898, 55 vols. (Cleveland, 1903–1909), 18:184–185. All accounts document that the majority of the galleon crew deserted. See Schurz, Manila Galleon, 211; Henry J. Bruman, “Early Coconut Culture in Western Mexico,” Hispanic American Historical Review 25, no. 2 (May 1945): 216.

27. See Bruman, “Early Coconut Culture,” 212–215; and Mercene, “15 Genera-tions of Filipinoso,” A14.

28. Bruman, “Early Coconut Culture,” 215. See also Henry J. Bruman, Alcohol in Ancient Mexico (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2000).

29. Bruman, “Early Coconut Culture,” 215–216.30. For more on the process of making tuba wine, see Ramon Almario Jr., “Back-

yard Winery: Sobering Thoughts on a Potent Brew,” in Filipino Heritage: The Making of a Nation (Manila: Lahing Pilipino Publishing, 1977–1978), 3:640–644; Bruman, “Early Coconut Culture,” 215–219; and Slack, “Chinos in New Spain, 41.

31. The word “palapa” is derived form the Javanese word “kelapa,” which means coconut. For more on the introduction of the nipa palm, see Agoncillo, His-tory of the Filipino People, 87; and “Philippines-Mexican Connection,” http://www.bughaw.com/?p=84.


32. Ceviche is fish or shrimp that is chopped up and cooked by marinating it in the acid of citrus fruits, such as lemons or limes. It is usually mixed with onions, tomatoes, cilantro, and avocado, depending on the recipe. Filipinos have a similar dish, kilawin. The process of making this Filipino dish was taught to Mexican locals, since they previously did not have citrus fruits until the galleon trade. See MEDI, “Contributions of New Spain to the Philippines”; Cecilia Manguerra Brainard, “The Man Who Would Have Been L.A.’s First Filipino,” in Philippine Woman in America (Quezon City, Philippines: New Day, 1991), 56; Eduardo Quisumbing, “Herbolario Drugstore: Medicinal Plants Can Be Useful to Modern Doctors,” in Filipino Heritage, 3:692–693; Mercene, “15 Generations of Filipinos,” A14; Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People, 86–87; and Carlos Quirino, “The Mexican Connection: The Cultural Cargo of the Manila-Acapulco Galleons,” (source unknown), 933–934, Manila Galleons File, Filipino American National Historical Society, National Pinoy Archives, Seattle, Wash. All subsequent citations will be referred to as FANHS NPA.

33. MEDI, “Crossbreeding or Mestizaje,” Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, Acapulco; Amalia R. Mamaed, “Distant Cousins,” Hispanic (January/February 1994): 30–32.

34. For more on the concepts of compadrazgo and compadrinazgo, see Robert R. Alvarez Jr., Familia: Migration and Adaptation in Baja and Alta California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987); and Donn V. Hart, Com-padrinazgo: Ritual Kinship in the Philippines (De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1977).

35. Gilda Cordero-Fernando, “There’s a Spaniard in My Soup,” in Filipino Heri-tage, 5:1152–1153; Mamaed, “Distant Cousins,” 33; Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People, 87. Nahuatl words were verified by using Frances Karttunen, An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983).

36. MEDI, “Crossbreeding or Mestizaje,” and “Influences,” Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, Acapulco; Brainard, “L.A.’s First Filipino,” 56; Cordero-Fernando, “There’s a Spaniard in My Soup,” 1153; Quirino, “Mexican Connection,” 932.

37. According to writer Gutierre Tibon, a lot of Spanish surnames are actually Mexican in origin, from the Nahuatl language. Some of these include Ayate, Apan, Zacate, and Mecate, among others. See Gutierre Tibon, Diccionario Etimólogica Comparado De Los Apellidos Españoles, Hispanos Americanos, y Filipinos (México: Editorial Diana, 1988), xii–xiii.

38. MEDI, “Religious Life,” Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, Acapulco; Quirino, “Mexican Connection,” 934.

39. MEDI, “Religious Life”; Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People, 86; John W. Burton, “Myths Shared with Mexico,” in Filipino Heritage, 5:1276–1283; Mamaed, “Distant Cousins,” 30.

40. Mamaed, “Distant Cousins,” 32.

412 • Jaas • 14:3

41. “Las Posadas” is the Spanish word for “inn” or “shelter.” Both Mexican and Filipino Catholics traditionally celebrate the event. It is the reenactment of Joseph and Mary’s flight from Nazareth and their search for shelter in Beth-lehem. This tradition was brought to the Philippines, where it is celebrated as Simbang Gabi. Mexican and Filipino Catholics also traditionally celebrate Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, then go home to open presents. For more on this, see Praveena Raman, “Las Posadas: A Latino Christmas Celebration,” Tri-City Voice Online, December 22, 2005, http://www.tricityvoice.com/ar-ticledisplay.php?a=1116. Dia de los Muertos, as it is known in Mexico, is called Araw ng mga Patay in the Philippines. Known also as the “Day of the Dead,” it is a celebration honoring loved ones who have died. The celebration has its origins in Mexico, were indigenous groups such as the Aztecs were practicing it for at least 3,000 years. Although the Spanish tried to eradicate this practice, they were unsuccessful. Instead, the celebration took on a sort of fusion of both Aztec cultural and Spanish Catholic elements. Spanish clergy moved it to November, so it would coincide with the Catholic celebration of All Saints Day. This celebration traveled across the Pacific during the sixteenth century, making its way into the religious lives of newly converted Filipino Catholics, where it is still celebrated. See Carlos Miller, “Indigenous People Wouldn’t Let ‘Day of the Dead’ Die,” Arizona Republic Online, October 5, 2005, http://www.azcentral/ent/dead/history/; and Friar Frank Wintz, O.F.M., “All Saints Day in the Philippines Festive Celebrations Amid the Tombs,” American Catholic.org, http://www.americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/fj102805.asp. For more on the maize festival in Mexico and the lutrina festival in the Philippines, see Jaime B. Veneracion, “Mexican Footprints,” Filipinas (July 1997): 20.

42. See Evelyn Ibatan Rodriguez, Comparing Filipina Debuts and Mexican Quinceañeras, Mexican-Filipino American File, FANHS NPA. For more on the camisa guayabera and barong Tagalog, see Lynn Pan, Sons of the Yellow Emperor: A History of the Chinese Diaspora (New York: Kodansha Globe, 1994), 160; Jean Baptiste Mallat, The Philippines: History, Geography, Customs, Agriculture, Industry and Commerce of the Spanish Colonies in Oceania, trans. Pura Santillan-Castrence and Lisa S. Castrence (Manila: National Historical Institute, 1983); Floro L. Mercene, Manila Men in the New World: Filipino Migration to Mexico and the Americas from the Sixteenth Century (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 2007), 123–127; Quirino, “Mexican Connection,” 934; Mamaed, “Distant Cousins,” 32; and Marcelino A. Foronda Jr., “Vigan: A Study of Mexican Cultural Influences in the Philippines,” Journal of Social History (Manila) 21, nos. 1–2 (January–December 1976): 1–12.

43. An example that novelist Cecilia Manguerra Brainard mentions are Cebuanos who were sent to Mexico in 1565, and a group of 300 Mexicans who arrived in Cebu in 1567. See Brainard, “L.A.’s First Filipino,” 55; and Quirino, “Mexican Connection,” 933.


44. Although the Chinese and other Asians as well as Africans were a part of this mestizaje collectively, for the purpose of this article I focus on Filipinos and Mexicans. See MEDI, “Crossbreeding or Mestizaje,” and “Philippine Culture,” Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, Acapulco. For more on the term and process of mestizaje, see Arnoldo Carlos Vento, Mestizo: The History, Culture, and Politics of the Mexican and Chicano (New York: University Press of America, 1998); Suzanne Bost, Mulattas and Mestizas: Representing Mixed Identities in the Americas, 1850–2000 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2003); Marshall, “Birth of the Mestizo,” 161–184; and Gloria Anzaldúa, Borlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza (San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987).

45. Schurz, Manila Galleon, 22; Carlos Quirino, “Mexican Connection,” 933–934.46. Given that most of the Filipino indio crews usually deserted upon landing

in Acapulco, on the return voyages to the Philippines, Mexican indios and mestizos comprised the bulk of the crew back to Manila. If their treatment was similar to what Filipino indios endured, it is likely that they, too, jumped ship when they landed in Manila and were absorbed into the local Filipino populations. See MEDI, “Contributions of New Spain to the Philippines,” and “Crossbreeding or Mestizaje”; Quirino, “Mexican Connection,” 933; Brainard, “L.A.’s First Filipino,” 55–56; Greg B. Macabenta, “The Global Pinoy: The Ma-nila-Acapulco Connection,” Manila Times Online, December 7, 2005, http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/dec/07/yehey/opinion/20051207opi2.html.

47. In her article, Cecilia Manguerra Brainard lists Cebuanos being sent from the Philippines to Mexico under Fray Urdaneta’s expedition back to Acapulco in 1565. Mexicans were also sent to the Philippines from Mexico, including 300 in 1567 and another 200 in 1570. Although Brainard claims the term “Guachi-nango” means “one who dwells in the forests and jungles,” the word in fact is used to describe the red snapper fish. Given that Mexicans in the Philippines were soldiers of Indian and/or mixed-race ancestry, the term may have been used to describe their character as someone from the lower social classes in the Philippines. These Mexicans were eventually assimilated into Philippine society by the nineteenth century. See Brainard, “L.A.’s First Filipino,” 55–56; Mercene, Manila Men in the New World, 134; and “guachinango,” Oxford Spanish Dictionary (2005), http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=guachinango. Some of the descendents from Mexico, Pampanga in the Philippines, include both Filipinos and Filipino Americans, who have an organization called Circulo Mexicano in the Bay Area of California. See Danny Galang, “Circulo Mexicano’s Twin Events,” Philippine News, February 26–March 3, 1997, 15, Circulo Mexicano File, FANHS NPA.

48. Although Floro Mercene claims that 60,000 Filipinos deserted and remained in Mexico, Edward R. Slack Jr. notes that 75,000 is a more reliable estimate given the fact that 75 percent of all chinos were actually Filipino indios. This number is also based on the number of ships (not just galleons) that made

414 • Jaas • 14:3

the journey from the Philippines to Mexico and the numbers of total Asian immigrants who came to Acapulco, which Slack notes: “(100,000) would be within the bounds of probability.” See Mercene, “15 Generations of Filipinos,” A1; Edward Slack Jr., email correspondence with author, January 3, 2011; Edward Slack Jr., “Orientalizing New Spain: Perspectives on Asian Influence in Colonial Mexico,” APMA symposium series paper (provided courtesy of Edward R. Slack Jr.), 2, 6; and Slack, “Chinos in New Spain,” 37.

49. El camino de Chino (the Chinese road or path) included what Edward R. Slack Jr. called “the arteries” that connected Acapulco to these other sites in Mexico. Given the geographical disbursement of Filipinos, they most likely took this path along with other Chinese and Asian deserters and settlers. See Slack, “Chinos in New Spain,” 37–38; and Mercene, Manila Men in the New World, 81–90.

50. Veneracion, “Mexican Footprints,” 20.51. MEDI, “Philippine Culture,” and “Crossbreeding or Mestizaje.” 52. See Mercene, “15 Generations of Filipinos,” A1, A1453. Araceli Tellechea, interview by author, Acapulco, Mexico, November 11, 2004. 54. Floro Mercene quotes Mexican scholar Ricardo Pinzon on this estimate. See

Floro L. Mercene, “Central America: Filipinos in Mexican History,” Ezilon Infobase, January 28, 2005, http://www.elizon.com/information/printer_476.html; Mercene, “15 Generations of Filipinos,” A1, A14; and Veneracion, “Mexican Footprints,” 20.

55. Veneracion, “Mexican Footprints,” 21.56. According to Ricardo Pinzon, these two Filipino soldiers—Francisco Mongoy

and Isidoro Montes de Oca—were so distinguished in battle that they are regarded as folk heroes in Mexico. General Vicente Guerrero later became the first president of Mexico of African decent. See Floro L. Mercene, “Central America: Filipinos in Mexican History,” Ezilon Infobase, January 28, 2005, http://www.elizon.com/information/printer_476.html.

57. Brainard, “L.A.’s First Filipino,” 55; Veneracion, “Mexican Footprints,” 21.58. Veneracion, “Mexican Footprints,” 21–22; Cordero-Fernando, “There’s a

Spaniard in My Soup,” 1153.59. Veneracion, “Mexican Footprints,” 22.60. For more on the Katipunan and the Philippine-American War, see Agoncillo,

History of the Filipino People, 149–212; Federal Research Division, Philippines: A Country Study (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Library of Congress, 1991), 20–21; and Paul A. Kramer, The Blood of Government: Race, Empire, the United States and the Philippines (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006).

61. Federal Research Division, Philippines, 22.62. In November 2004, I visited both museums while conducting research for

my dissertation. The Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, was the old Spanish fort that once guarded the inner harbor of Acapulco and the sailing galleons from pirates. It has since been renovated into a museum with numerous artifacts and a wealth of historical information and publi-


cations on the Manila-Acapulco galleon trade. The Museo Histórico Naval de Acapulco is the Naval Museum of Acapulco, which also has extensive historical information, maps, and artifacts on the galleons. For more on the museums, see Departmento de Servicios Educativos, “Acapulco,” Acatl Car-rizo (Acapulco, Mexico: Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, Agosto-Septiembre, 1997), 7; Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, Guía Turística y Cultural de Mexico 5, no. 27 (n.d.): 10–11; and Lyon, “Track of the Manila Galleons,” 28.

63. See Adolfo Gómez Amador, “La Influencia Filipina en la Arquitectura del Occidente Mexicano (Primera Parte),” Revista Filipina 4, no. 2 (Otoño 2000): 1–5; Mercene, Manila Men in the New World; and Veneracion, “Mexican Footprints,” 20.

64. Mercene, “15 Generations of Filipinos,” A14. These were also similar things I noticed among the locals when I visited Acapulco, Mexico, to conduct research on this project in November 2004.

65. During our conversation, Gavino requested that his full name not be printed. Personal interview notes, November 10, 2004.

66. Sisig is a spicy and fatty pork dish.67. I was in Acapulco in November 2004 with another Mexipino friend, David

Galbiso, who introduced me to Gavino. 68. This was revealed to me by some of the waitresses during my stay with my

hosts at the Lutong Pinoy. Personal field notes, Acapulco, Mexico, November 10, 2004.

69. Although my interviewees did not identify as Mexipino, I use this term as a means to interpret their understanding of being multiethnic Mexican-Filipino.

70. Jun Lacang, interview by author, Acapulco, Mexico, November 12, 2004. 71. Ibid.72. I did not find any instances of Filipinas forming relationships with Mexican

men and staying in Mexico. This is not to say it did not occur. More research is needed in this area to fully document the gender dynamics of these rela-tionships.

73. Araceli Tellechea, interview by author, Acapulco, Mexico, November 11, 2004.74. While in Acapulco, I had the opportunity to speak with Conrado Palomino,

the administrator of the Museo Histórico de Acapulco, Fuerte de San Diego, who informed me of the relationship that Acapulco still has with the Phil-ippines. In the past, Philippine officials visited the museum to partake in celebrations honoring the Filipino presence and contributions to the region. For example, Philippine president Fidel Ramos visited the museum during the late 1990s, where he donated a replica of a galleon ship to be displayed. Gavino also informed me of this particular event where he was invited to cook for President Ramos. Personal interview notes, November 2004.

75. This quote was borrowed from Evelyn Hu-DeHart’s presentation at the “Unruly Crossings” plenary at the Association for Asian American Studies conference in Austin, Texas, in April of 2010.

416 • Jaas • 14:3

76. For more on recent scholarship documenting the Filipino presence in Mexico, see Slack, “Sinifying New Spain,” 5–27; Slack, “Chinos in New Spain,” 35–67; and Mercene, Manila Men in the New World.

Documents

Filipinos in Nueva Espana (Guevarra 2011)