A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy’s Philippine Cartoons: Political

Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941)

Political cartoons and caricature are a rather recent art form, which veered away from the classical art
by exaggerating human features and poking fun at its subjects. Such art genre and technique became a
part of the print media as a form of social and political commentary, which usually targets persons of
power and authority. Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing opinions through heavy use of
symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial and opinion pieces. The unique way that a
caricature represents opinion and captures the audience’s imagination is a reason enough for historians
to examine these political cartoons. Commentaries in mass media inevitably shape public opinion and
such kind of opinion is worthy of historical examination.

In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941), Alfred McCoy,
together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals
in the aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look at selected cartoons and explain
the context of each one.

The first example was published in The Independent on May 20, 1916. The cartoon shows a politician
from a Tondo, named Dr. Santos, passing his crown to his brother-in-law, Dr. Barcelona. A Filipino guy
(as depicted wearing salakot and barong tagalog) was trying to stop Santos, telling the latter to stop
giving Barcelona the crown because it is not his to begin with.

The second example was also published by The Independent on 16 June 1917. This was drawn by
Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a commentary to the workings of Manila Police at that period.
Here, we see a Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken because he had nothing to eat. The police officer
was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A man wearing a salakot, labeled Juan de la Cruz was grabbing
the officer, telling him to leave the small-time pickpockets and thieves and to turn at the great thieves
instead. He was pointing to huge warehouse containing bulks of rice, milk, and grocery products.

The third cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of colorum automobiles in the city of
streets. The Philippine Free Press published this commentary when fatal accidents involving colorum
vehicles and taxis occurred too often already.

The fourth cartoons depict a cinema. A blown-up police officer was at the screen saying that couples are
not allowed to neck and make love in the theater. Two youngsters looked horrified while an older
couple seemed amused.

The next cartoon was published by The Independent on 27 November 1915. Here, we see the caricature
of Uncle Sam riding a chariot pulled by Filipinos wearing school uniform. The Filipino boys were carrying
American objects like baseball bats, whiskey, and boxing gloves. McCoy, in his caption to the said
cartoon, Says that this cartoon was based on an event in 1907 when William Howard Taft was brought
to the Manila pier riding a chariot pulled by students of Liceo de Manila. Such was condemned by the
nationalists at that time.
The last cartoon was published by Lipang Kalabaw on 24 August 1907. In the picture, we can see Uncle
Sam rationing porridge to the politicians and members of the Progresista Party (sometimes known as
Federalista Party) while members of the Nacionalista Party look on and wait for their turn. This cartoon
depicts the patronage of the United States being coveted by politicians from either of the party.

Analysis of the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”

As mentioned earlier re-examination of the document on the declaration of independence can reveal
some often overloaded historical truths about this important event in Philippine history.

Aside from this, the document reflects the general revolutionary sentiment of that period.

For example: the abuses specifically mentioned in the proclamation like friar abuse, racial discrimination
and inequality before the law reflect the most compelling sentiments represented by the revolutionary
leadership.

However, no mention was made about the more serious problem that affected the masses more
profoundly.

For example: the land and agrarian crisis felt by the numerous Filipino peasants in the nineteenth
century.

This is ironic especially when renowned Philippine Revolution historian, Teodoro Agoncillo, stated that
the Philippine Revolution was an agrarian revolution.

The common revolutionary soldiers fought in the revolution for the hope of owning the lands that they
were filling once the friar estates in different provinces like Isatangas,and Laguna dissolve, if and when
the revolution succeeded.

Such aspects and realities of the revolutionary struggle were either unfamiliar to the middle class
revolutionary leaders like Emilio Aguinald , Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, and Felipe Buencamino, or
were intentionally left out because they were landholders themselves.

THE TREATY OF PARIS

Was an agreement signed between Spain and the United States of America regarding the ownership of
the Philippine Islands and other Spanish colonies in South America.

The treaty was signed on 10 December 1898, six months after the revolutionary government declared
the Philippine Independence.

The Philippines was sold to the United States at $20 million and effectively undermined the sovereignty
of the Filipino after their revolutionary victory.
The Americans occupied the Philippine immediately which resulted in the Philippine American war that
lasted until the earliest years of the twentieth century.

The proclamation also gives us the impression on how the victorious revolutionary government of
Aguinaldo historized the struggle for independence.

There were mentions of past events that were seen as important turning points of the movement
against Spain.

The execution of the GOMBURZA, for example, and the failed Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was narrated in
detail.

Jose Rizal’s legacy and martyrdom was also mentioned in the document.

However, the Katipunan as the pioneer of the revolutionary movement was only mentioned once
toward the end of the document.

There where no mention of the Katipunan’s foundation. Bonifacio and his co-founders were also left
out.

The enmity between Aguinaldo’s Magdalo and Bonifacio’s Magdiwang in the katipunan is no secret in
the pages of our history.

The point is, even official records and documents like the proclamation of independence, while truthful
most of the time, still exude the politics and biases of whoever is in power. This manifests in the
selectiveness of information that can be found in these records.

It ia the task of the historian to analyze the content of these documents in relation to the dominant
politics and the content of people and institutions surrounding it.

Thus, studying one historical subject entails looking at multiple primary sources and pieces of historical
evidences in order to have a more nuanced and contextual analysis of our past.