Women are nothing but sex objects

That head exemplifies what the Internet calls “clickbait.” Were I truly making the argument, University of the Philippines alumni would lynch me from the College of Law balcony. The online comments from those who read only the head prove the point. But why do we readily hold that the fake head is sexist, but debate whether outrageous slurs against an ethnic minority are in fact racist?

I wrote “Anti-Chinese-Filipino slurs are invisible” (6/15/15) to protest National Artist for Literature F. Sionil José’s Philippine Star statement last June 7 that Chinese-Filipinos will side with China in a war. What followed was quite revealing. First, perhaps as expected, anonymous racist comments to my racism essay were soon posted online.

Second, there was no public outcry or indignant trending Twitter topic. Alarmed reactions were written largely by those who self-identify as Chinese-Filipino: Boying Pimentel’s viral follow-up in the Inquirer (6/23), Melanie Lim in Sun.Star Cebu (6/20), Clinton Palanca in Spot.ph (6/24) and Caroline Hau (6/16) and Yvette Tan (6/24) in their blogs.

They minced no words, using phrases like “second-class citizens,” “xenophobia,” “senile” and “easy targets.” Pimentel linked the “mean-spirited” words to the shooting of nine African-Americans in a South Carolina church. Palanca stressed how his father pursued the long, difficult process of obtaining citizenship.

Third, the few other reactions had completely different tones and angles. The Inquirer’s Jose Montelibano (6/26) seemed to disbelieve the racial slur. He praised Pimentel and Palanca for sounding “amicable” and “courteous,” and advised that “Chinese­Filipinos would fare better not to be so defensive,” as though one were not discussing a crime of being born, to paraphrase Justice Robert Jackson. Montelibano concluded: “It might be a good move if Filipino-Chinese communities and organizations make overt public expressions of their loyalty.” I wonder if assuming that one must identify as Chinese-Filipino in the context of a community or organization, as many have neither, reinforces an implicit assumption that we are outsiders.

Richard Davad Heydarian, like Palanca, stressed in The Huffington Post (6/26) how “the Filipino-Chinese community has evolved into an authentic, integral component of the Filipino society.” But even this sympathetic response euphemistically stated that José was “implicitly questioning [Chinese-Filipinos’] loyalty.” In contrast, the most poignant reaction to the South Carolina shootings came from white comedian Jon Stewart.

Fourth, José’s next Star column (6/21) dismissively made even more racist slurs: “[M]any of our ethnic Chinese love China as much as they hate me. They called this tired old hack a bigot, a racist, a Hitler. … All these labels I have ignored because they reduce thinking and argument into senseless name calling.

“What I ask of our ethnic Chinese who are Filipino citizens is simplicity itself: In a war with China, will you be on our side? …

“If you say you are with us … Then go shout it from the rooftops….

“Otherwise, leave this country which has made you comfortable….

“And to my long suffering countrymen … in the end, we—not they—will prevail.”

Many see this as fair debate and not racism, and even agree that Chinese-Filipinos should publicly proclaim their loyalty, never mind that many in fact did after feeling deeply insulted by José. But why should we condone asking any segment of citizens to do something no one else is doing or leave?

Replace Chinese-Filipinos and see how odd José’s slurs sound. For example: “If you are male and not a chauvinist pig … Then go shout it from the rooftops!” Or the more familiar: “If you are Muslim and reject terrorism … Then go shout it from the rooftops!” It is ironic how US-based Filipinos led by Inquirer columnist Rodel Rodis are pursuing legal action against the anti-Filipino slurs of American Apparel’s former CEO, yet back home, one can publicly brush aside being called racist and bigot as mere name-calling.

Where the US debate has moved from the church shooting to President Barack Obama’s using the word “nigger” to discuss it, ours has moved from José to Tiffany Grace Uy, an Immaculate Conception Academy alumnus who just graduated from UP with a 1.004 grade average and a perfect score in all but one subject. WhenInManila.com highlighted several reader comments on its feature on Uy, questioning her place in state-subsidized UP because of her ethnicity. Even seemingly flattering stereotypes can be dehumanizing, with the wealthy minority myth colliding with our image of an “Iskolar ng Bayan.”

To paraphrase Obama, perhaps racism is in our DNA and the disuse of the phrase “Intsik beho” does not mean it is no longer there. The South Carolina shooting brought into view how US media portray white mass shooters as mentally ill but highlight negative facts about black victims of police violence, and how the Confederate flag, a symbol of slavery, still flies in South Carolina. Any decent person should immediately condemn discrimination in his or her midst, but José shows we are not ready to confront even cybertaunts to a fresh graduate like Uy.

We impose no social price to being racist with impunity, no matter how much young Chinese-Filipinos in particular are hurt. Bigotry is readily deodorized by eloquent, intellectual packaging such that one questions our democracy’s capacity to resolve racially charged issues such as the Bangsamoro Basic Law. It should not take a shooting in San Juan’s Mary the Queen Parish to remind that words can wound as much as bullets.

* * *

React: oscarfranklin.tan@yahoo.com.ph, Twitter @oscarfbtan, facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.