Made in China? Identity, DNA, and the danger of simple narratives

Recently, our relationship with China has clearly deteriorated. The Department of Foreign Affairs and legislators emphasized sovereignty and resistance to foreign pressure. A word war in social media has erupted between the Chinese Embassy and Commodore Jay Tarriela. Geopolitical tension now intersects with economics, tourism, and public sentiment. Tourism data shows the evolving dynamics of Philippine–China relations. Under Arroyo, Chinese arrivals stayed generally below 200,000 annually, despite strong diplomatic ties. Aquino III’s term presented a contrast: even amid heightened maritime tensions, visitors rose steadily, nearing half a million by 2015. The most dramatic growth occurred during Duterte’s administration. His pivot to Beijing aligned with expanded air connectivity and a sharp rise in arrivals, peaking at 1.74 million in 2019, making China a major visitor source before the pandemic. Under Marcos Jr., arrivals have remained significantly reduced, indicating that rising tensions continue to shape recovery patterns.

We have filed protests or notes verbale beginning in the Aquino administration, defined not by the volume of daily protests, but by the landmark 2013 Arbitration Case. Interestingly, while Duterte was considered “pro-China”, his administration filed the highest number of notes verbales, 388 total, over six years. Despite the president’s friendly public rhetoric, the DFA quietly documented and protested incidents like the 2019 Gem-Ver sinking and the 2021 swarming of Julian Felipe Reef. More recently, the Marcos Jr. administration has been filing protests at the most rapid pace, accumulating 245 as of October 2025. The administration filed 133 protests in 2023 alone, ensuring that every incident --from laser-pointing to water-cannoning-- is met with an immediate formal challenge.

Present-day tensions are merely the newest phase of a centuries-old relationship. Before colonial rule, Sino-Philippine ties centered on commerce and mutual recognition, with Chinese dynastic records portraying “Ma-i” and “Puan” as trusted trading partners, with exchanges of silk and ceramics for local goods. Butuan’s missions to China reflect a system where diplomacy was rooted in trade, not territorial rivalry. A pre-Islamic ruler of Sulu even visited and was buried in China.

Spanish rule disrupted earlier trade-based relations. While Chinese merchants were vital to colonial economy, they faced strict controls, segregation in the Parian, and periodic violence, including the massacres of 1603 and 1639. Still, intermarriage continued, giving rise to the Chinese Mestizo class, which later became influential in Philippine economic, social, and nationalist developments.

By the 1990’s and 2000’s, maritime disputes became central, with incidents like Scarborough Shoal turning territorial issues into visible national concerns. Different administrations shifted policies, yet confrontations and diplomatic protests persisted, revealing a gap between political rhetoric and events at sea. Amid these tensions, public sentiment steadily grew.

Geopolitical tensions often seep into everyday social perception. Criticism of a foreign government can gradually blur into unease toward language, culture, businesses, and even individuals who merely appear connected to that nation. History reminds us that such conflations are neither new nor benign.

For many Filipinos of mixed heritage, identity has always operated on multiple levels. One may be Filipino by birth, citizenship, and lived experience, yet still be interpreted through physical features. DNA testing challenges social assumptions by measuring inheritance rather than ideology. My results, for instance, show significant Chinese ancestry (22.1%), illustrating how Filipino identities often reflect centuries of migration and intermarriage. Such genetic links signify historical mobility, not political allegiance, underscoring the layered nature of ancestry long before modern conflicts.

This distinction is crucial in times of heightened nationalism. Governments and populations are not the same, just as Filipinos resist being judged by their leaders’ actions. History and genetics both show that identity is layered and fluid, with what appears “foreign” often reflecting long-standing connections. DNA testing clarifies perspective, emphasizing continuity over division --a stabilizing reminder in an age of rigid binaries.

For neither history nor biology has ever supported the comfort of simple stories.