The Spanish Exchange Student Wrote Back: A Filipino Answers the Empire Question
The Spanish Exchange Student Wrote Back: A Filipino Answers the Empire Question
A schoolmate from Spain read our World Cup piece and objected: the Indies were vice-royalties, not colonies, and under Spanish law all Christians had the same rights. Here is the answer. It starts with a tax roll in Luzon.
A few weeks after we published our piece on the 2026 World Cup final, a message came in from someone I have known since 1985. He spent our senior year at Hogan High School in Vallejo as an exchange student from Spain. We were friendly to him that year — he made a lot of Filipino friends in the 707. Years later we found each other on Facebook, the way people do. He wrote:
When Spain lost its American and Asian territories, vice-royalties, not colonies, the largest part of the population was indigenous, Spaniards were a minority and had been intermarrying with the native population for 300 years, legally, under Spanish laws, all Christians had the same rights. How can that be "an empire built on racial purity"? Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the game.
There are four separate claims in that message, and I will take all of them. But one sentence is carrying the weight of the whole argument, and I want it sitting in front of you before we go any further — his words, not mine:
Hold onto that. Everything below is, in one way or another, a test of that sentence against the record.
This is not the first time we have disagreed about this, and the earlier rounds did not end well. What I could never get past was not the position — plenty of people hold it — but the tone underneath it. A proprietary note. As though Spain still held some deed to the Philippines. As though we were carrying a debt that had not finished coming due, and the decent thing was to say thank you. We stopped being Facebook friends in 2015 over precisely that.
So I am not answering at length because the exchange has been warm. I am answering because the argument itself is one my children are going to hear — from a coworker, from a comment section, from a tito at a party — and it deserves a documented reply instead of a shrug.
It is written for him only in the sense that he asked the question. It is written for my kids, my nieces and nephews, my cousins — every Filipino American who has never lived a day in the Philippines and has therefore never been handed the vocabulary to answer a question like this. When someone tells you the empire that ruled your ancestors was not really an empire, you should not have to shrug. You should be able to open the law.
💬 Please comment below ↓
Meaning: Tax; tribute; what is levied and taken.
"Ang buwis ay hindi lamang salapi — ito ay katibayan kung sino ang nasa ilalim." ("Tribute is not only money — it is proof of who is underneath.")
Buwis is also the root of buwis-buhay, "to stake one's life." The same word carries both the tax and the cost of resisting it. Our language remembered the connection even when our schoolbooks did not.
First, What I Actually Wrote
Before I make my case, I owe him a correction, because he is quoting a sentence I did not write.
The phrase in his message — "an empire built on racial purity" — appears nowhere in the article. What the piece said was that both Spain and Argentina were shaped by the fantasy of racial purity, that Spain exported a "colonial hierarchy of blood and caste," and that the two nations inherited the same colonial racial order. Those are different claims, and the difference matters. I never argued that Spain was a racially exclusive settler state on the Anglo-American model. I argued it built a graded hierarchy in which ancestry determined legal standing.
He is right to object to the sentence he read. I am simply saying it is not the sentence I published. Now let me defend the one I did.
"All Christians Had the Same Rights"
That is his sentence. Here is the test, and it is specifically Filipino rather than Mexican or Peruvian. Everything else in this article is elaboration on it.
The tributo was a head tax owed to the Crown. The polo y servicios was a compulsory labor draft: for most of the colonial period, forty days a year of unpaid work — cutting timber, building roads, hauling for the shipyards — later reduced to fifteen days by royal decree in 1883. Liability ran roughly from age sixteen to sixty. You could buy your way out by paying a fee called the falla, which meant the wealthy escaped and the farmer did not.
Now put the two men side by side. Both were Christians. Both were baptized in the same Church, absolved by the same sacrament, buried in the same consecrated ground. One owed the state money and labor because of his ancestry. The other did not, because of his.
If that is equality, the word has no content. And notice what I have not had to invoke to make the point: no massacre, no atrocity, no contested casualty figure, no argument about intent. Just the ordinary, everyday, thoroughly legal operation of the colonial state, applied to Christians in good standing. The hierarchy was not a deviation from Spanish law in the Philippines. It was Spanish law in the Philippines.
If you grew up in Vallejo or Daly City or Jersey City rather than Manila, nobody ever taught you these words. They are not decoration. They are the machinery.
- indio
- The legal category for a Christianized native Filipino. A tax and labor status, not just an epithet.
- tributo
- The head tax owed to the Crown, assessed by racial category. Replaced by the cédula personal in 1884.
- polo y servicios
- The compulsory unpaid labor draft imposed on indios and Chinese mestizos.
- falla
- The fee you paid to escape the labor draft. Wealth bought exemption; poverty did not.
- peninsular / insular
- A Spaniard born in Spain / a Spaniard born in the Philippines. The second was disadvantaged in practice and resented it.
- mestizo de sangley
- A person of mixed Chinese and native ancestry. Paid double the standard tribute rate — and still became the wealthiest commercial class in the islands.
- principalía
- The native elite the Spanish kept in place to govern locally. Exempt from tribute. A real avenue of Filipino power, and a real instrument of Spanish control.
- frailocracia
- "Friar rule." The term Filipino reformers used for the political and economic dominance of the religious orders.
Where My Schoolmate Is Right
A great deal, actually. If this article only prosecuted, it would be propaganda, and my granddaughter should be able to read it in 2070 and find no place where I cheated.
He is right that Spanish law legalized intermarriage early. A royal decree of 1514 under Ferdinand confirmed the validity of marriages between Spanish men and native women and directed local officials not to obstruct them. Compare that with the English colonies in North America: Maryland criminalized certain interracial marriages in 1664; Virginia banished those who entered them in 1691. These are not the same system, and anyone who flattens them into one is not being honest.
He is right that Spain produced a genuine body of protective law. The Laws of Burgos in 1512 regulated native labor. The papal bull Sublimis Deus in 1537 declared indigenous peoples rational beings possessing liberty and property. The New Laws of 1542 abolished native slavery and moved to wind down the encomienda. In 1550 and 1551 at Valladolid, the Crown actually paused to argue about whether conquest was just — Las Casas against Sepúlveda — which no other European empire did. Francisco de Vitoria and the School of Salamanca argued that indigenous nations held real sovereignty before the Spanish arrived, and in doing so helped invent international law.
These were not decorative. The Spanish Crown also freed indigenous slaves in the Philippines under an order of Philip II, executed by Governor Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas in 1591. Spanish rule preserved native communal landholding and native nobility in ways Anglo settler colonialism systematically did not.
He is right about the demographics. European-born Spaniards in the Philippines never numbered more than a few thousand against a population in the millions — well under one percent, concentrated in Intramuros and a handful of provincial seats. This was rule by a vanishingly thin layer of administrators, friars, and officers.
And he is right about something most decolonial writing ignores: the Philippines did not suffer the demographic catastrophe the Americas did. There was no population collapse on the Mexican or Caribbean scale. Our islands were not depopulated. I will not pretend otherwise to make my case sound worse than it was.
Limpieza de Sangre: The Words That Answer the Question
Here is where the claim breaks, and it breaks on Spanish terms, in Spanish, from Spanish statute books.
In 1449, the Sentencia-Estatuto de Toledo established the doctrine of limpieza de sangre — purity of blood. Over the following century it spread into the Inquisition, cathedral chapters, the military orders of Santiago and Calatrava and Alcántara, university colleges, and elite guilds. To hold public office, take a university degree, enter a major religious order, or receive a knighthood, you submitted a probanza — a genealogical investigation, paid for by you, in which investigators traveled to your ancestral towns and interviewed witnesses to confirm that your bloodline carried no Jewish, Muslim, or heretical ancestry. Fail it, and those doors closed.
The doctrine originated as religious. What the historian María Elena Martínez demonstrated in Genealogical Fictions is that in the Americas it mutated into something else: a legal regime organized around ancestry and appearance. The vocabulary of clean and tainted blood, invented in Toledo to sort Christians from converts, was carried across the ocean and repurposed to sort Europeans from everyone else.
I want to be precise about what this proves. It does not prove Spain practiced racial exclusion in the Anglo-American sense — it plainly did not. It proves something narrower and harder to argue with: that Spanish law took a formal, documented interest in whose blood you carried, and attached consequences to the answer. An empire that requires genealogical investigations before it will let you take a degree is not an empire indifferent to ancestry.
The Crown Put a Price on It
And then there is the detail I cannot get out of my head, the one that ends the argument for me.
In 1795, the Crown issued a schedule of gracias al sacar for the Americas — a price list of royal dispensations available for purchase. Seventy-one categories of favors. The last two allowed a person of African descent to buy legal relief from their racial classification. The listed prices: 500 reales to be dispensed from the status of pardo, 800 for quinterón. An 1801 revision raised them.
Ann Twinam's Purchasing Whiteness is the definitive study, and honesty requires me to report what she actually found, including the parts that cut against me. Twinam identified only about forty whitening applications between 1743 and 1810 — this was rare, not routine. And she found that the clause was slipped onto the 1795 list by an administrator in Spain who does not appear to have thought through what he was doing; the sustained policy debate came afterward, in response to petitions and elite protest. It was not a grand design.
Fine. Take all of that. The clause still tells you what the surrounding society believed, because a price list only prices things people want and cannot otherwise have. And Twinam's larger finding is the one my schoolmate has to answer: people of African ancestry were, as a matter of law, barred from the university, from ordination, from royal office, from the liberal professions, and from carrying arms. That is why anyone would pay 500 reales in the first place.
When the Caracas city council learned of the policy, it protested furiously — arguing that letting such people buy their way in would destroy the social order. That is not the Black Legend talking. That is a Spanish colonial cabildo, in its own words, describing the order it was defending.
"Vice-Royalties, Not Colonies" — And the Philippines Was Neither
My schoolmate's strongest technical point is his first one, and it has real scholarship behind it. Under the doctrine compiled in the Recopilación de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias of 1680, the Indies were annexed to the Crown of Castile and could not be alienated from it. Juan de Solórzano Pereira argued in Política Indiana (1648) that they were kingdoms under royal tutelage. The Argentine historian Ricardo Levene built a whole book on the thesis — Las Indias no eran colonias, 1951 — arguing "colony" was a later Bourbon-era import. It is a real position, though a minority and dated one, and mainstream historiography treats it with considerably more skepticism than its champions do.
But here is the thing. Whatever its merits for Mexico and Peru, it does not describe us.
The Philippines was never a viceroyalty. It was a Captaincy General, subordinate to the Viceroyalty of New Spain in Mexico City from 1565 until Mexican independence in 1821, and governed directly from Madrid thereafter through the Ministry of Overseas Territories. We were a dependency of a dependency for two and a half centuries.
And in the nineteenth century, Spain settled the question itself, in its own constitutional law. Filipinos briefly had a voice: Ventura de los Reyes, a Manila merchant, sat in the Cortes of Cádiz and signed the liberal Constitution of 1812. That door closed. The Constitution of 1837 carried an additional article stating that the overseas provinces would be governed by leyes especiales — special laws. The overseas delegates were removed from the Cortes. The promised special laws were never enacted. What filled the vacuum was the Governor-General, exercising what were called facultades omnímodas — sweeping, essentially unreviewable powers.
So: for the last sixty years of Spanish rule, the Philippines had no representation in the parliament that governed it, no constitutional protections extended to it, and one man in Manila with near-absolute authority over it. Spain wrote that arrangement into its own constitution. I did not have to reach for a hostile source to find it.
The Two Republics
There is one more legal structure worth naming, because it goes directly to the "same rights" claim. Colonial administration divided society into the república de españoles and the república de indios — two parallel legal orders. Indigenous subjects were classified in Spanish jurisprudence as miserables personas, which sounds like an insult but was a technical term: it designated them as legal minors under permanent Crown guardianship.
That status cut both ways, and I will say so. It came with genuine protections — restrictions on alienating native land, access to special legal recourse, a duty of care the Crown took seriously often enough to matter. But it also meant permanent legal minority: limits on contracts, on carrying weapons, on moving your residence without permission. You were protected the way a child is protected. You were not a citizen. You were a ward.
What the Ilustrados Were Asking For
Here is the argument I find hardest to answer on my schoolmate's behalf, and I want my kids to remember this one above all the Latin.
Between 1889 and 1895, a group of Filipino writers in Barcelona and Madrid published a newspaper called La Solidaridad. José Rizal wrote for it. Marcelo H. del Pilar edited it. Graciano López Jaena founded it. And what did they spend seven years demanding?
Representation in the Spanish Cortes. Equality before the law. Secularization of the parishes. Freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Recognition of the Philippines as a genuine province of Spain.
Every one of those is a demand for something they did not have.
You cannot campaign for seven years for rights you already possess. The Propaganda Movement is not evidence produced by hostile foreign historians. It is testimony from Filipinos who had read Spanish law, who wrote in fluent Spanish, who admired Spanish liberalism, and who were petitioning Spain in Spain's own language and legal vocabulary — and who were told no. Del Pilar's La Soberanía Monacal en Filipinas, published in Barcelona in 1889, laid out the friar power structure in detail. He died in Barcelona in 1896, broke and sick, still waiting.
And these men were not radicals. They were assimilationists. They wanted in. Rizal was executed by firing squad at Bagumbayan on December 30, 1896, for rebellion, sedition, and illegal association. Twenty-four years earlier, three priests — Mariano Gómez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora — were garroted at the same field on February 17, 1872, after the Cavite mutiny. Their crime, in substance, was leading the campaign to let Filipino priests run Filipino parishes.
"But We Got Catholicism"
There is a version of my schoolmate's argument that I hear far more often from Filipinos than from Spaniards, and it usually arrives at a party, in a warm voice, from someone I love: whatever else happened, at least Spain gave us the faith.
I want to handle this carefully, because I am not writing against anybody's faith. Most of my family is Catholic. Tess and I were married three times — once in Bukidnon before her family, with a Filipino Catholic priest; once in a civil ceremony in Reno; and once at St. Basil's in Vallejo, by a Filipino Catholic priest from our parish at St. Catherine of Siena. I am not interested in taking that from anyone.
But sit with that detail for a second, because it is the answer hiding inside the objection. Both priests who married us were Filipino. That was the entire thing Spain would not concede. The secularization fight — the one that got Gómez, Burgos, and Zamora garroted at Bagumbayan in 1872 — was fundamentally an argument about whether Filipinos could run Filipino parishes. Spain said no, and killed three priests over it. A century and change later, in a church in Vallejo, a Filipino priest married a Filipino couple, and nobody in the building thought it was remarkable.
That is not something Spain gave us. That is something we took, eventually, at a cost.
And look at what the argument concedes on its own terms. Both men in my tribute example were Catholic. The faith did not sort them. Something else did, and it rode in on the same ships, administered by the same institution. The friar who baptized your great-great-grandfather was frequently the same reason your great-great-grandfather could not be ordained.
So "at least we got Catholicism" is not a rebuttal to anything I have written. It is a statement about what Filipinos did with what they were handed — which is a genuinely different and more interesting subject. Our people took a colonial religion and made it unmistakably ours: the Santo Niño, Simbang Gabi, the Black Nazarene, the way a Filipino funeral runs nine days. That is not a gift received. That is a thing built. Give the credit to the right party.
What It Left in Our Heads
In 2015 I posted about a book on this site, and it drew the sharpest reaction I had ever gotten from the schoolmate in question. The book was Brown Skin, White Minds: Filipino-/American Postcolonial Psychology, by Dr. E.J.R. David — Eric John Ramos David — published in 2013.
David was born in the Philippines and raised in Alaska. He took his master's and doctorate in Clinical-Community Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and teaches at the University of Alaska Anchorage. In other words: a kid who left the islands young, grew up somewhere in America with very few people who looked like him, and then spent a career building the empirical case for what that does to a person.
His subject is colonial mentality — internalized oppression, measured rather than asserted. His book moves from pre-colonial Tao culture through Spanish and American rule to the psychological residue of both, and its implications for kapwa, for identity, for mental health, and for what decolonization would actually require in a clinic rather than a slogan.
And here is the part your cousins will recognize before they finish the paragraph. One of the plainest manifestations David documents is the skin-whitening industry — the products, the clinics, the celebrity endorsements, an entire consumer economy in the Philippines organized around the proposition that lighter is better. Nobody legislated that in 2013. It is the 1795 price list still running, without a statute, on autopilot, inside people's heads.
This is why I do not accept that the legal history is a dead letter. My schoolmate can argue that the statutes read generously and that the empire dissolved a hundred and twenty-eight years ago. Fine. Then explain the shelf at the Filipino grocery store. Explain why maputi is a compliment and maitim is a warning. Explain why a Filipina in Vallejo carries an umbrella on a clear day. The law ended. The ranking did not — it just moved somewhere harder to repeal.
That is the difference between grievance and diagnosis, and David's book is the reason I know how to tell them apart. Grievance says: look what they did to us. Diagnosis says: here is what is still operating, here is how to measure it, and here is what it would take to interrupt it before it reaches my daughter. I am after the second one. I always have been.
What I Am Not Claiming
Because a Filipino should be able to make this case without inheriting the exaggerations that often travel with it, let me be explicit about the things I refuse to say.
I am not claiming Spain operated a one-drop rule. It did not. The Spanish system ran on calidad — a blend of ancestry, wealth, reputation, and standing — and historians genuinely disagree about how rigid it was. Magnus Mörner read it as a hard legal hierarchy; R. Douglas Cope and Robert McCaa found substantial fluidity, with people renegotiating their classification in daily life. Both readings are in the literature and I am not going to pretend the question is closed.
I am not claiming Filipinos were held in chattel slavery under Spain. Indigenous slavery was outlawed in the sixteenth century. The system ran on tribute and forced labor drafts, which is a different thing and should be named accurately.
I am not claiming a planned extermination. The demographic catastrophe of the Americas was driven overwhelmingly by disease meeting exploitation, and the Philippines did not experience it on that scale at all.
And I am not claiming modern Spain is a racist country, or that my schoolmate bears one gram of responsibility for a statute written in Toledo in 1449.
I am claiming one thing, and only one thing: that an empire which taxed you by ancestry, drafted your labor by ancestry, investigated your bloodline before letting you hold office, priced dispensation from racial status in reales, and then wrote your exclusion from its own parliament into its own constitution — that empire had a racial order. Naming it is not hatred. It is literacy.
For My Kids, My Cousins, and the Grandkids I Haven't Met
Most of you have never been to the Philippines. Some of you have never met anyone who lived under any of this. It can feel like ancient history with a lot of Spanish words in it.
So here is why it is yours.
Your surname almost certainly came out of a catalog. In 1849, Governor-General Clavería distributed the Catálogo alfabético de apellidos, and families across the islands were assigned surnames from a list — so the state could track tribute and the labor draft. Whatever name is on your driver's license in California right now, there is a strong chance it entered your family as an administrative convenience for tax collection. Mine did.
And here is the part I want you to hold onto. Our people did not spend three centuries as victims waiting to be rescued. They became the wealthiest merchant class in the islands while paying double tribute. They sent their sons to the University of Santo Tomás and then to Madrid, learned the colonizer's law better than the colonizer did, and used it to write him a seven-year argument in his own language. They lost that argument and started a revolution — the first successful anti-colonial revolution in Asia. Rizal's own family descended from a Chinese immigrant named Domingo Lam-co. The people who dismantled the story were the people the story was written about.
That is the inheritance. Not grievance. Literacy, and the nerve to use it.
To the schoolmate who wrote: you were right about the sentence you quoted, and right about a good deal else, and I have said so at length rather than in passing. But you are reading this empire from Madrid, where the statutes read generously. I am reading it from a tribute register in Luzon, where they were applied. Both documents are Spanish. Only one of them is where my family stood.
I am not writing to change your mind. I gave that up around 2015. I am writing so that the next Filipino who gets this argument at a dinner table has the documents in hand — and does not feel obliged to be grateful for the question.
- María Elena Martínez, Genealogical Fictions: Limpieza de Sangre, Religion, and Caste in Colonial Mexico (Stanford University Press, 2008)
- Ann Twinam, Purchasing Whiteness: Pardos, Mulattos, and the Quest for Social Mobility in the Spanish Indies (Stanford University Press, 2015)
- Magnus Mörner, Race Mixture in the History of Latin America (1967); R. Douglas Cope, The Limits of Racial Domination (1994); Robert McCaa, "Calidad, Clase, and Marriage in Colonial Mexico," Hispanic American Historical Review 64:3 (1984)
- E.J.R. David, Brown Skin, White Minds: Filipino-/American Postcolonial Psychology (Information Age Publishing, 2013)
- Edgar Wickberg, The Chinese in Philippine Life, 1850–1898 (Yale University Press, 1965)
- Birgit Tremml-Werner, Spain, China, and Japan in Manila, 1571–1644 (Amsterdam University Press, 2015)
- Recopilación de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias (1680); Juan de Solórzano Pereira, Política Indiana (1648)
- Ricardo Levene, Las Indias no eran colonias (1951); Julián Juderías, La Leyenda Negra (1914); María Elvira Roca Barea, Imperiofobia y leyenda negra (2016); José Luis Villacañas, Imperiofilia y el populismo nacional-católico (2019); Ricardo García Cárcel, La leyenda negra: Historia y opinión (1992)
- Marcelo H. del Pilar, La Soberanía Monacal en Filipinas (Barcelona, 1889; trans. Encarnación Alzona)
- José Rizal, "Filipinas dentro de cien años," La Solidaridad (1889–1890); Noli Me Tángere (1887); El Filibusterismo (1891)
- Constitución Española de 1837, additional article on the overseas provinces; Constitución Política de la Monarquía Española (1812)
- Decree of Governor-General Narciso Clavería y Zaldúa, Catálogo alfabético de apellidos (1849), National Archives of the Philippines
- Papal documents Sublimis Deus and Pastorale Officium (1537) and the annulling brief Non Indecens Videtur (June 1538)
Help Us Become the #1 Filipino-American Media Platform in the U.S.
PinoyBuilt is built by the community, for the community. If this article gave you words you didn't have before — send it to someone in your family who needs them too.
💬 Drop a comment below — what were you taught about Spanish rule, and who taught you?
📲 Text this article to your kids, your cousins, your tito who argues about history at every party.
📣 Share it on your socials — every share brings us closer.
4.6 million Filipinos in the U.S. One platform telling our stories. Salamat, kababayan.
J.F. (Jonjo) left the Philippines at age nine, spending a lifetime bridging the gap between his Marikina roots and his Chicago/Vallejo upbringing. A proud Hogan Spartan from East Vallejo, he founded PinoyBuilt not just as a digital archive, but as a cultural compass for his three children — so they might navigate their heritage, language, and identity with Pinoy pride, and with eyes wide open.
Please comment below ↓
Comments
Post a Comment
Hi! Thank you for dropping by. Please leave us a comment. Sige na!