0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
38 Ansichten11 Seiten
The leader of a national revolution is almost always the principal hero of his people, says Renato. He says he repudiated the revolution and offered his life to stiflebellion. Rennato says he was not a hero of the revolution but of the people.
The leader of a national revolution is almost always the principal hero of his people, says Renato. He says he repudiated the revolution and offered his life to stiflebellion. Rennato says he was not a hero of the revolution but of the people.
The leader of a national revolution is almost always the principal hero of his people, says Renato. He says he repudiated the revolution and offered his life to stiflebellion. Rennato says he was not a hero of the revolution but of the people.
(Quezon City: Malaya Books,Inc., 1970). Veneration Without Understanding In the histories of many nations, thenational revolution represents a peak of achievement to which the minds of man returntime and again in reverence and for a renewal of faith in freedom. For the national revolution isinvariably the one period in a nation's historywhen the people were most united, mostinvolved, and most decisively active in the fightfor freedom. It is not to be wondered at,therefore, that almost always the leader of thatrevolution becomes the principal hero of hispeople. There is Washington for the UnitedStates, Lenin for the Soviet Union, Bolivar forLatin America, Sun Yat Sen, then Mao Tse-Tungfor China and Ho Chi Minh for Vietnam. The unitybetween the venerated mass action and thehonored single individual enhances the influenceof both.In our case, our national hero was not theleader of our Revolution. In fact, he repudiatedthat Revolution. In no uncertain terms he placedhimself against Bonifacio and those Filipinos whowere fighting for the country's liberty. In fact,when he was arrested he was on his way to Cubato use his med-[p. 125]ical skills in the serviceof Spain. And in the manifesto of December 15,1896 which he addressed to the Filipino people,he declared:From the very beginning, when I firsthad notice of what was being planned, Iopposed it, fought it, and demonstrated itsabsolute impossibility.I did even more. When later, against myadvice, the movement materialized, of my ownaccord I offered my good offices, but my verylife, and even my name, to be used in whateverway might seem best, toward stifling therebellion; for convinced of the ills which it wouldbring, I considered myself fortunate if, at anysacrifice, I could prevent such uselessmisfortune. I have written also (and I repeatmy words) that reforms, to be beneficial, mustcome from above, and those which comes frombelow are irregularly gained and uncertain.Holding these ideas, I cannot do lessthan condemn, and I do condemn this uprisingwhich dishonors us Filipinos and discredits thosethat could plead our cause. I abhor its criminalmethods and disclaim all part in it, pitying fromthe bottom of my heart the unwary that havebeen deceived into taking part in it. [1] Rizal and The Revolution Rizal's refusal to align himself with therevolutionary forces and his vehementcondemnation of the mass movement and of itsleaders have placed Filipinos in a dilemma. Eitherthe Revolution was wrong, yet
we cannot disownit, or Rizal was wrong, yet we
cannot disown himeither. By and large, we have chosen to ignorethis apparent contradiction. Rizalists, especially,have taken the easy way out, which is to glossover the matter. They have treated Rizal'scondemnation of the Katipunan as a skeleton inhis closet and have been responsible for the"silent treatment" on his unequivocal positionagainst the Revolution.To my knowledge, there has been noextensive analysis of the question. For someRizalists, this aspect of Rizal has been a source of embarrassment inasmuch as they picture him asthe supreme symbol of our struggle for freedom.Other in fact[p. 126]privately agree with hisstand as evidenced by their emphasis on thegradualism of Rizal's teachings particularly hisinsistence on the primacy of education. Theywould probably praise Rizal's stand against theRevolution, if they dared. Since they do not darefor themselves, the are also prudently silent forRizal's sake. Others, careless and superficial intheir approach to history and perhaps afraid tostir a hornet's nest of controversy, do not think itimportant to dwell on this contradiction betweenour Revolution and our national hero and elect toleave well enough alone. Perhaps they do notperceive the adverse consequences of our refusalto analyze and resolve this contradiction. Yet theconsequences are manifest in our regard for ourRevolution and in our understanding of Rizal.The Philippine Revolution has always beenovershadowed by the omnipresent figure and thetowering reputation of Rizal. Because Rizal tookno part in that Revolution and in fact repudiatedit, the general regard for our Revolution is not ashigh as it otherwise would be. On the other hand,because we refuse to analyze the significance of his repudiation, our understanding of Rizal and of his role in our national development remains
superficial. This is a disservice to the event, tothe
man, and to ourselves.Viewed superficially, Rizal's reactiontoward the Revolution is unexpected, coming asit did from a man whose life and labors weresupposed to have been dedicated to the cause of his country's freedom. Had someone of lesserstature uttered those words of condemnation, hewould have been considered a traitor to thecause. As a matter of fact, those words weretreasonous in the light of the Filipinos' struggleagainst Spain. Rizal repudiated the one act whichreally synthesized our nationalist aspiration, andyet we consider him a nationalist leader. Such anappraisal has dangerous implications because itcan be used to exculpate those who activelybetrayed the Revolution and may serve todiminish the ardor of those who today may becalled upon to support another great nationalistundertaking to complete the anti-colonialmovement. An American-Sponsored Hero We have magnified Rizal's role to such anextent that we have lost our sense of proportionand relegated to a subordinate position our othergreat men and the historic events in[p.127]which they took part. Although Rizal was alreadya revered figure and became more so after hismartyrdom, it cannot be denied that his pre-eminence among our heroes was partly the resultof American sponsorship. This sponsorship tooktwo forms: on one hand, that of encouraging aRizal cult, on the other, that of minimizing theimportance of other heroes or even of vilifyingthem. There is no question that Rizal had thequalities of greatness. History cannot deny hispatriotism. He was a martyr to oppression,obscurantism and bigotry. His dramatic deathcaptured the imagination of our people. Still, wemust accept the fact that his formal designationas our national hero, his elevation to his presenteminence so far above all our other heroes wasabetted and encouraged by the Americans. It was Governor William Howard Taft whoin 1901 suggested that the PhilippineCommission that the Filipinos be given a nationalhero. The Free Press of December 28, 1946gives this account of a meeting of the PhilippineCommission:'And now, gentlemen, you must have anational hero.' In these fateful words,addressed by then Civil Governor W. H. Taft tothe Filipino members of the civil commission,Pardo de Tavera, Legarda, and Luzuriaga, laythe genesis of Rizal Day..'In the subsequent discussion in whichthe rival merits of the revolutionary heroeswere considered, the final choice-nowuniversally acclaimed as a wise one-was Rizal.And so was history made.'Theodore Friend in his book, BetweenTwo Empires
, says that Taft "with otherAmerican colonial officials
and some conservativeFilipinos, chose him (Rizal) as a model hero overother contestants - Aguinaldo too militant,Bonifacio too radical, Mabini unregenerate." [2]This decision to sponsor Rizal was implementedwith the passage of the following Acts of thePhilippine Commission: (1) Act No. 137 whichorganized the politico-military district of Morongand named it the province of Rizal "in honor of the most illustrious Filipino and the mostillustrious Tagalog the islands had ever known, "(2) Act No.243 which authorized a publicsubscription for the erection of a monument inhonor or Rizal at the Luneta, and (3) Act No. 346[p.128]which set aside the anniversary of hisdeath as a day of observance.This early example of American "aid" issummarized by Governor W. Cameron Forbeswho wrote in his book, The Philippine Islands :It is eminently proper that Rizal shouldhave become the acknowledged national hero of the Philippine people. The Americanadministration has lent every assistance tothis recognition, setting aside the anniversaryof his death to be a day of observance, placinghis picture on the postage stamp mostcommonly used in the islands, and on thecurrency . And throughout the islands thepublic schools tech the young Filipinos to reverehis memory as the greatest of Filipino patriots.(Underscoring supplied) [3]The reason for the enthusiastic Americanattitude becomes clear in the following appraisalof Rizal by Forbes: Rizal never advocatedindependence, nor did he advocate armedresistance to the government. He urgedreform from within by publicity, by public 2
education, and appeal to the public conscience.
(Underscoring supplied) [4]Taft's appreciation for Rizal has much the samebasis, as evidenced by his calling Rizal "thegreatest Filipino, a physician, a novelist and apoet (who) because of his struggle for abetterment of conditions under Spanish rulewas unjustly convicted and shot. "The public image that the Americandesired for a Filipino national hero was quiteclear. They favored a hero who would not runagainst the grain of American colonial policy. Wemust take these acts of the Americans infurtherance of a Rizal cult in the light of theirinitial policies which required the passage of theSedition Law prohibiting the display of the Filipinoflag. The heroes who advocated independencewere therefore ignored. For to have encouraged amovement to revere Bonifacio or Mabini wouldnot have been consistent with American colonialpolicy.Several factors contributed to Rizal'sacceptability to the[p.129]Americans as theofficial hero of the Filipinos. In the first place, hewas safely dead by the time the American begantheir aggression. No embarrassing anti-Americanquotations could ever be attributed to him.Moreover, Rizal's dramatic martyrdom hadalready made him the symbol of Spanishoppression. To focus attention on him wouldserve not only to concentrate Filipino hatredagainst the erstwhile oppressors, it would alsoblunt their feelings of animosity toward the newconquerors against whom there was stillorganized resistance at that time. His choice wasa master stroke by the Americans. The honorsbestowed on Rizal were naturally appreciated bythe Filipinos who were proud of him.At the same time, the attention lavishedon Rizal relegated other heroes to thebackground-heroes whose revolutionary exampleand anti-American pronouncements might havestiffened Filipino resistance to the newconquerors. The Americans especiallyemphasized the fact that Rizal was a reformer,not a separatist. He could therefore not beinvoked on the question of Philippineindependence. He could not be a rallying point inthe resistance against the invaders.It must also be remembered that theFilipino members of the Philippine Commissionwere conservative ilustrados . The Americansregarded Rizal as belonging to this class. Thiswas, therefore, one more point in his favor. Rizalbelonged to the right social class -- the class thatthey were cultivating and building up forleadership.It may be argued that, faced with thehumiliation of a second colonization, we as apeople felt the need for a super-hero to bolsterthe
national ego and we therefore allowedourselves to be
propagandized in favor of oneacceptable to the colonizer. Be that as it may,certainly it is now time for us to view Rizal withmore rationality and with more historicity. Thisneed not alarm anyone but the blind worshipper.Rizal will still occupy a good position in ournational pantheon even if we discard hagiolatryand subject him to a more mature historicalevaluation.A proper understanding of our history isvery important to us because it will serve todemonstrate how our present has been distortedby a faulty knowledge of our past. By unravelingthe past we become confronted with the presentalready as[p.130]future. Such a re-evaluationmay result in a down-grading of some heroes andeven a discarding of others. It cannot spare evenRizal. The exposure of his weaknesses andlimitations will also mean our liberation, for hehas, to a certain extent become part of thesuperstructure that supports presentconsciousness. That is why a critical evaluation of Rizal cannot but lead to a revision of ourunderstanding of history and of the role of theindividual in history.Orthodox historians have presentedhistory as a succession of exploits of eminentpersonalities, leading many of us to regardhistory as the product of gifted individuals. Thistendency is strongly noticeable in those who havetried of late to manufacture new heroes throughpress releases, by the creation of foundations, orby the proclamation of centennial celebrations.Though such tactics may succeed for a limitedperiod, they cannot insure immortality wherethere exists no solid basis for it. In the case of Rizal, while he was favored by colonial supportand became good copy for propagandists, he hadthe qualifications to assume immortality. It mustbe admitted however, that the study of his lifeand works has developed into a cult distortingthe role and the place of Rizal in our history. 3
The uncritical attitude of his cultists hasbeen greatly
responsible for transformingbiographers into hagiographers. His weaknessesand errors have been subtly underplayed and hisvirtues grossly exaggerated. In this connection,one might ask the question, wht would havehappened if Rizal had not been executed inDecember of 1896? Would the course of thePhilippine Revolution have been different? Thisposes the question of the role of the individual inhistory. Was this historical phase of ourlibertarian struggle due to Rizal? Did thepropagandists of the 19 th century create theperiod or were they created by the period. The Role of Heroes With or without these specific individualsthe social relations engendered by Spanishcolonialism and the subsequent economicdevelopment of the country would have producedthe nationalist movement. Without Rizal therewould have developed other talents. Without DelPilar another propagandist would have emerged.That Rizal possessed a particular talent whichinfluenced the style of the period was accidental.That[p. 131]he was executed on December 30only added more drama to the events of theperiod. If there had been no Rizal, another typeof talent would have appeared who might havegiven a different style to the historic struggle;but the general trend engendered by theparticular social relations would have remainedthe same.Without Rizal there may have been adelay in the maturation of our libertarianstruggle, but the economic development of theperiod would have insured the same result. Rizalmaybe accelerated it. Rizal may have given formand articulation and color to the aspirations of the people. But even without him, the nationaliststruggle would have ensued. This is likewise truein the case of present-day national liberationmovements. The fundamental cause of massaction is not the utterances of a leader; rather,these leaders have been impelled to action byhistorical forces unleashed by socialdevelopment. We must therefore not fall into theerror of projecting the role of the individual to theextent of denying the play of these forces as wellas the creative energies of the people who arethe true makers of their own history.Because Rizal had certain qualities, hewas able to serve the pressing social needs of theperiod, needs that arose out of general andparticular historical forces. He is a hero in thesense that he was able to see the problemsgenerated by historical forces, discern the newsocial needs created by the historicaldevelopment of new social relationships, and takean active part in meeting these needs. But he isnot a hero in the sense that he could havestopped
and altered the course of events. Thetruth of this
statement is demonstrated by thefact that the Revolution broke out despite hisrefusal to lead it and continued despite hiscondemnation of it. Rizal served his people byconsciously articulating the unconscious course of events. He saw more clearly than hiscontemporaries and felt with more intensity theproblems of his country, though his viewpointwas delimited by his particular status andupbringing. He was the first Filipino but he wasonly a limited Filipino, the ilustrado Filipino whofought for national unity but feared theRevolution and loved his mother country, yes,but in his own ilustrado way.Though we assert that the general courseof history is not directed by the desires or ideasof particular men, we must not[p. 132]fall intothe error of thinking that because history canproceed independently of individuals it canproceed independently of men. The fact is thathistory is made by men who confront theproblems of social progress and try to solve themin accordance with the historical conditions of their epoch. They set their tasks in conformitywith the given conditions of their times. Thecloser the correspondence between a man'sperception of reality and reality itself, the greaterthe man. The deeper his commitment to thepeople's cause in his own time as evidence by hislife and deeds. Hence, for a deeperunderstanding and a more precise evaluation of Rizal as Filipino and as hero, we must examine atsome length the period during which Rizal lived. Innovation and Change Rizal lived in a period of great economicchanges. These were inevitably accompanied bycultural and political ferment. The country wasundergoing grave and deep alterations whichresulted in a national awakening. The Englishoccupation of the country, the end of the galleontrade, and the LatinAmerican revolutions of thattime were all factors which led to an economicre-thinking by liberal Spanish officials. Theestablishment of non-Hispanic commercial houses 4
broke the insular belt that had
circumscribedPhilippine life for almost two centuries and a half.The middle of the 19 thcentury saw 51 shippingand commercial houses in Manila, 12 of whichwere American and non-Hispanic European.These non-Spanish houses practicallymonopolized the import-export trade. Theopening of the ports of Sual, Cebu, Zamboanga,Legaspi and Tacloban, all during the second half of the 19th century, enabled these nonSpanishinterests to establish branches beyond the capitalcity, thus further increasing cosmopolitanpenetration. [5]European and American financing werevital agents in the emerging export economy.Merchants gave crop advances to indioandChinese-mestizocultivators, resulting inincreased surpluses of agricultural exportproducts. The Chinese received loans for thedistribution of European goods and the collectionof Philippine produce for shipment abroad. Abacaand sugar became prime exports during thisperiod as a result of these European andAmerican entrepreneurial activities. TheTransformation of the sugar industry due tofinancing and the in-[p.133]troduction of steam-powered milling equipment increasedsugar production from 3,000 piculs in mid-19 th century to nearly 2,000,000 piculs in fourdecades. [6]These economic developments inevitablyled to improvement in communications. Theinfra-structure program of the Spanishgovernment resulted in a moderately functionalroad system. The third quarter of the centurysaw the opening of railroad lines. The steamshipeffected both internal and external linkages,postal services improved, the telegraph wasinaugurated in 1873, and by 1880, we wereconnected with the world by a submarine cable toHong Kong. Manila's water system wasmodernized in 1870; we had street cars in 1881and telephone and electric lights in themetropolitan region during the same period.Material progress set the stage for cultural andsocial changes, among them the cultivation of cosmopolitan attitudes and heightened oppositionto clerical control. Liberalism had invaded thecountry as a result of the reduction of the Spain-Manila voyage to thirty days after the opening of the Suez canal. The mestizo that developedbecame the crude ideological framework of theferment among the affluent indios and mestizos .[7] The Ideological Framework
Economic prosperity spawned discontentwhen the
native beneficiaries saw a new world of affluence opening for themselves and their class.They attained a new consciousness and hence, anew goal - that of equality with the peninsulares - not in the abstract, but in practical economicand political terms. Hispanization became theconscious manifestation of economic struggle, of the desire to realize the potentialities offered bythe period of expansion and progress.Hispanization and assimilation constituted theideological expression of the economicmotivations of affluent indiosandmestizos .Equality with the Spaniard meant equality of opportunity. But they did not realize as yet thatreal equality must be based on national freedomand independence. The were still in the initialphases of nationalist consciousness - aconsciousness made possible by the marketsituation of the time. The lordly friar who hadbeen partly responsible for the isolation of theislands became the target of attacks. Anti-clericalism became the ideological style of theperiod.[p. 134]These then were the salient economic andideological features of Rizal's time. A truehistorical review would prove that great men arethose who read the time and have a deeperunderstanding of reality. It is their insights thatmake them conversant with their periods andwhich enable them to articulate the needs of thepeople. To a large extent, Rizal, the ilustrado ,fulfilled this function, for in voicing the goals of his class he had to include the aspirations of theentire people. Though the aims of this class werelimited to reformist measures, he expressed itsdemands in terms of human liberty and humandignity and thus encompassed the wideraspirations of all the people. This is not to saythat he was conscious that these were classgoals; rather, that typical of his class, he equatedclass interest with people's welfare. He did this ingood faith, unaware of any basic contradictionsbetween the two. He was the product of hissociety and as such could be expected to voiceonly those aims that were within the competenceof his class. Moreover, social contradictions hadnot ripened sufficiently in his time to revealclearly the essential disparateness between classand national goals. Neither could he havetranscended his class limitations, for his culturalupbringing was such that affection for Spain andSpanish civilization precluded the idea of 5
breaking the chains of colonialism. He had tobecome
a Spaniard first before becoming aFilipino. [8]As a social commentator, as the exposerof oppression, he performed a remarkable task.His writings were part of the tradition of protestwhich blossomed into revolution, into a separatistmovement. His original aim of elevating the indio to the level of Hispanization of the peninsular sothat the country could be assimilated, couldbecome a province of Spain, was transformedinto its opposite. Instead of making the Filipinoscloser to Spain, the propaganda gave root toseparation. The drive for Hispanization wastransformed into the development of a distinctnational consciousness.Rizal contributed much to the growth of this national consciousness. It was a contributionnot only in terms of propaganda but in somethingpositive that the present generation of Filipinoswill owe to him and for which they will honor himby completing the task which he so nobly began.He may have had a different and limited goal atthe time, a goal that for us is already passe,something we take for granted. However, for[p.135]his time this limited goal was already abig step in the right direction. This contributionwas in the realm of Filipino nationhood - thewinning of our name as a race, the recognition of our people as one, and the elevation of the indio into Filipino . The Concept of Filipino Nationhood This was a victory in the realm of consciousness, a victory in a racial sense.However, it was only a partial gain, for Rizalrepudiated real de-colonization. Beguiled by thenew colonizer, most Filipinos followed theexample of Rizal. As a consequence, thedevelopment of the concept of nationalconsciousness stopped short of real decolonization and we have not yet distinguishedthe true Filipino from the incipient Filipino.The concept of Filipino nationhood is animportant tool of analysis as well as a conceptualweapon of struggle. There are many Filipinos whodo not realize they are Fiipinos only in the oldcultural, racial sense. They are not aware of theterm Filipino as a developing concept. Much lessare they aware that today social conditionsdemand that the true Filipino be one who isconsciously striving for de-colonization andindependence.Perhaps it would be useful at this point todiscuss in some detail the metamorphosis of theterm Filipino not just as a matter of historicalinformation but so that we may realize theimportance of Rizal's contribution in this
regard.Even more valuable are the insights we may
gaininto the inter-dependence between materialconditions and consciousness as manifested inthe evolution of the word Filipino in terms of itswidening applicability and deeper significancethrough succeeding periods of our history.It is important to bear in mind that theterm Filipino originally referred to the creoles -the Spaniards born in the Philippines - theEspaolesFilipinos or Filipinos, for short. Thenatives were called indios . Spanish mestizos whocould pass off for white claimed to be creoles andtherefore Filipinos. Towards the last quarter of the 19th century, Hispanized and urbanizedindios along with Spanish mestizos and sangley [Chinese - rly] mestizos began to call themselvesFilipinos, especially after the abolition of thetribute lists in the 1880s and the economic[p.136]growth of the period.We must also correct the commonimpression that the Filipinos who were in Spainduring the Propaganda Period were all indios . Infact, the original Circulo Hispano-Filipino wasdominated by creoles and peninsulares . TheFilipino community in Spain during the 1880'swas a conglomerate of creoles, Spanish mestizos and sons of urbanized indios and Chinese mestizos . [9]This community came out with an organcalled Espaa en Filipinas which sought to takethe place of th earlier Revista Circulo HispanoFilipino founded by anothercreoleJuan Atayde.Espaa en Filipinaswas mainly an undertaking of Spanish and SpanishmestizosThe only non-Spaniard in the staff was Baldomero Roxas. Itsfirst issue came out in 1887. It was "moderate"in tone and failed to win the sympathy of thenative elements. In a letter to Rizal, Lopez-Jaenacriticized it in these words:From day to day I am becomingconvinced that our countrymen, the mestizos,far from working for the common
welfare,follow the policy of their predecessors,
theAzcarragas. [10] 6 Lopez-Jaena was referring to theAzcarraga brothers who had held importantpositions in the Philippines and in Spain, but who,though they had been born here, showed moresympathy for the peninsulares . It is fortunatethat a street wich was once named for one of them has become Claro M. Recto today.Differences between the creoles and the"genuine" Filipinos as they called themselves,soon set in. It was at this time that Rizal andother indios in Paris began to use the term indiosbravos , thus "transforming an epithet into abadge of honor." The cleavage in the Filipinocolony abroad ushered in a new period of thePropaganda which may be said to have had itsformal beginning with the birth of La Solidaridad .Its leaders were indios . The editor was not acreole like Lete or a Spanish mestizo like Llorentebut Lopez-Jaena and later Marcelo H. del Pilar. LaSolidaridad espoused the cause of liberalism andfought for democratic solutions to the problemsthat beset the Spanish colonies.From the declaration of aims and policiesthe class basis of the Propaganda is quiteobvious. The reformists could not[p. 137]shakeoff their Spanish orientation. They wantedaccommodation within the ruling system. Rizal'sown reformism is evident in this excerpt from hisletter to Blumentritt:.under the present circumstances, wedo not want separation from Spain. All that weask is greater attention, better education,better government employees, one or tworepresentatives and greater security for ourpersons and property. Spain could always winthe appreciation of the Filipinos if she were onlyreasonable! [11]The indios led by Rizal gainedacceptability as Filipinos because the proved theirequality with the Spaniards in terms of bothculture and property. This was an importantstage in our appropriation of the term Filipino.Rizal's intellectual excellence paved the way forthe winning of the name for the natives of theland.
It was an unconscious struggle which led toa
conscious recognition of the pejorative meaningof indio . Thus, the winning of the term Filipinowas an anticolonial victory for it signified therecognition of racial equality between Spaniardsand Filipinos. The "Limited" Filipinos But the appropriation of this term was notthe end of the historic struggle for nationalidentity. While for Rizal's time this was a signalvictory, it was in truth a limited victory for us.For the users of the term were themselveslimited Filipinos based on education and property.Since this term was applied to those who spokein the name of the people but were not really of the people, the next stage for this growingconcept should be the recognition of the massesas the real nation and their transformation intoreal Filipinos. However, the Filipino of today mustundergo a process of de-colonization before hecan become a true Filipino. The de-colonizedFilipino is the real goal for our time just as theHispanized Filipino was once the goal of thereformists.Though Rizal was able to win for hiscountrymen the name Filipino, it was still as ilustrado that he conceived of this term. As ilustrado he was speaking in behalf of all the indios though he was separated by culture andeven by property from the masses. His ilustrado orientation manifests itself in his novels.[p. 138]Though they are supposed to represent 19 th century Philippine society in microcosm, all theprincipal characters belonged to the principalia .His hero, Ibarra, was a Spanish mestizo . TheSpaniards, the creole , the mestizo , and thewealthy Chinese - these were characters he couldportray with mastery because they were withinhis milieu and class. But there are only very hazydescription of characters who belonged to themasses. His class position, his upbringing, andhis foreign education were profound influenceswhich constituted a limitation on hisunderstanding of his countrymen.Rizal, therefore, was an ilustrado herowhose life's mission corresponded in a generalway to the wishes and aspirations of the people.He died for his people, yet his repudiation of
theRevolution was an act against the people.
Thereseems to be a contradiction between the twoacts; there is actually none. Both acts were incharacter; Rizal was acting from patriotic motivesin both instances.He condemned the Revolution because asan ilustrado he instinctively underestimated thepower and the talents of the people. He believedin freedom not so much as a national right but assomething to be deserved, like a medal for goodbehavior. Moreover, he did not equate libertywith independence. Since his idea of liberty wasessentially the demand for those rights which the 7 elite needed in order to prosper economically.Rizal did not consider political independence as aprerequisite to freedom. Fearful of the violence of people's action, he did not want us to fight forour independence. Rather, he wanted us to waitfor the time when Spain, acting in her own bestinterests, would abandon us. He expressedhimself clearly on these points in the followingpassage from a letter which he wrote in his cellon December 12, 1896, for the use of his defensecounsel... many have have interpreted myphrase to have liberties as to haveindependence , which are two different things.A people can be free without beingindependent, and a people can be independentwithout being free. I have always desiredliberties for the Philippines and I have said so.Others who testify that I said independenceeither have put the cart before the horse orthey lie. [12]He had expressed much the same opinionearlier in his El Fili[p.139] busterismo whenFather Florentino said:I do not mean to say that our liberty willbe secured at the sword's point, for the swordplays but little part in modern affairs, but thatwe must secure it by making ourselves worthyof it, by exalting the intelligence and the dignityof the individual, by loving justice, right andgreatness, even to the extent of dying for them- and when a people reaches that height Godwill provide a weapon, the idols will beshattered, the tyranny will crumble like a houseof cards and liberty will shine out like the firstdawn. 13Yet the people revered him because,though he was not with them, he died for certainprinciples which they believed in. He
was theirmartyr; they recognized his labors although
theyknew that he was already behind them in theirforward march.In line with their avowed policy of preparing us for eventual self-government, theAmericans projected Rizal as the model of aneducated citizen. His name was invokedwhenever the incapacity of the masses for self-government was pointed out as a justification forAmerican tutelage. Rizal's preoccupation witheducation served to further the impression thatthe majority of the Filipinos were unlettered andtherefore needed tutelage before they could beready for independence. A book, Rizal, Educatorand Economist , used in certain Philippineschools, supports this thesis by quoting a portionof Rizal's manifesto of December 15, 1896 whichstates:..I am one most anxious for liberties inour country and I am still desirous of them. ButI placed as a prior condition the education of the people that by means of instruction andindustry our country may have an individualityof its own and make itself worthy of theseliberties. [14]The authors of this book then make thefollowing comment:Rizal intentionally avoided the use of theterm independence, perhaps because hehonestly believed that independence in its true,real, and strict sense should not be granted usuntil we were educated enough to appreciate itsimportance, and its blessings, and until we wereeconomically self-reliant. [15][p. 140]This statement not only supports theAmerican line but is also an example of how ouradmiration for Rizal may be used to beguile usinto accepting reactionary beliefs, the products of colonial mentality.A people have every right to be free.Tutelage in the art of government as an excusefor colonialism is a discredited alibi. People learnand educate themselves in the process of struggling for freedom and liberty. They attaintheir highest potential only when they aremasters of their own destiny. Colonialism is theonly agency still trying to sell the idea thatfreedom is a diploma to be granted by a superiorpeople to an inferior one after years of apprenticeship. The Precursors of Mendicancy In a way, Rizal's generation is no differentfrom the generation that was engaged in ourindependence campaigns. Neither was hisgeneration much different from those who todaysay they stand for independence but do not wantto hurt the feelings of the Americans. In a way,Rizal and his generation were the precursors of the present-day mendicants. It may be shockingto say that Rizal was one of the practitioners of amendicant policy, but the fact is that thepropagandists, in working for certain reforms,
chose Spain as the arena of their struggle insteadof
working among their own people, educatingthem and learning from them, helping them torealize their own condition and articulating theiraspirations. This reflects the bifurcation betweenthe educated and the masses.The elite had a sub-conscious disrespectfor the ability of the people to articulate theirown demands and to move on their own. Theyfelt that education gave them the right to speakfor the people. They proposed an elitist form of leadership, all the while believing that what theelite leadership decided was what the peoplewould and should follow. They failed to realizethat at critical moments of history the peopledecide on their own, what they want and whatthey want to do. Today, the ilustrados areshocked by the spate of rallies anddemonstrations. They cannot seem to accept thefact that peasants and workers and the youthhave moved without waiting for their word. Theyare not accustomed to the people moving ontheir own.[p. 141]The ilustrados were the Hispanized sectorof our population, hence they tried to prove thatthey were as Spanish as the peninsulares . Theywanted to be called Filipinos in the creole sense:Filipino-Spaniards as Rizal called Ibarra. They areno different from the modern-day mendicantswho try to prove that they are Americanized,meaning that they are Filipino-Americans. As amatter of fact, the ilustrados of the firstpropaganda movement utilized the sametechniques and adopted the same generalattitude as the modern-day mendicants andpseudonationalists, in so far as the colonizingpower was concerned. Ilustrados And Indios The contrast to the ilustrado approachwas the Katipunan of Bonifacio. Bonifacio, not asHispanized as the ilustrados , saw in people'saction the only road to liberation. The Katipunan,though of masonic and of European inspiration,was people's movement based on confidence inthe people's capacity to act in its own behalf. Theearly rebellions, spontaneous and sporadic, couldbe termed movements, without consciousness.Rizal and the propagandists were theembodiment of a consciousness without amovement. It was Bonifacio and the Katipunanthat embodied the unity of revolutionaryconsciousness and revolutionary practice.The indio
as Filipino rose in arms whilethe
ilustrado was still waiting for Spain todispense justice and reforms. The ilustrado Filipino was now being surpassed by the indio inrevolutionary ardor. The indio had a morelegitimate claim to the title of Filipino because hewas truly liberating himself. The revolutionarymasses proclaimed their separatist goal throughthe Katipunan. Faced with the populardetermination, the ilustrados joined theRevolution where, despite their revolutionaryrhetoric, they revealed by their behavior theirown limited goals.Though their fight was reformist and maybe regarded as tame today, the historic role of the ilustrados cannot be denied for they werepurveyors of ideas which when seized upon bythe masses became real weapons. Today theirideas are orthodox and safe. However, the sameconcepts when made relevant to present societyagain make their partisans the objects of persecution by contemporary reactionaries.The role and the contribution of Rizal, likethat of the ilus[p.142] trado class, must beevaluated in the context of his particular realitywithin the general reality of his time. Rizal was anecessary moment in our evolution. But he wasonly a moment, and while his validity for his timeamounted to a heroism that is valid for all time,we cannot say that Rizal himself will be valid forall time and that Rizal's ideas should be theyardstick for all our aspirations. He provided themodel of a form of heroism that culminated inmartyrdom. He was a Filipino we can be proud of,a monument to the race despite all hislimitations. But we cannot make him out to bethe infallible determinant of our national goals, ashis blind idolators have been trying to do.We must see Rizal historically. Rizalshould occupy his proper place in our pantheon of great Filipinos. Though he is secure to be in ourhearts and memories as a hero, we must nowrealize that he has no monopoly of patriotism; heis not the zenith of our greatness; neither are allhis teachings of universal and contemporaryrelevance and application. Just as a given socialsystem inevitably yields to new and higher formsof social organization, so the individual hero inhistory gives way to new and higher forms of heroism. Each hero's contribution, however, arenot nullified thereby but assume their correctplace in a
particular stage of the people'sdevelopment. Every
nation is always discoveringor rediscovering heroes in the past or its present. 9 Blind Adoration Hero-worship, therefore, must be bothhistorical and critical. We must always beconscious of the historical conditions andcircumstances that made an individual a hero,and we must always be ready to admit at whatpoint that hero's applicability ceases to be of current value. To allow hero-worship to beuncritical and unhistorical is to distort themeaning of the heroic individual's life, and toencourage a cult bereft of historical meaning - acult of the individual shorn of his historicalsignificance. It is form without content, a fad thatcan be used for almost anything, because it isreally nothing. We must view Rizal as an evolvingpersonality within an evolving historical period.That his martyrdom was tainted by his attacks onour independist struggle is not a ground forcondemning him entirely. We must determine thefactors - economic and cul[p. 143]tural - thatmade Rizal what he was. We must see in his lifeand in his works the evolution of the Filipino andmust realize that the period crowned by his deathis only a moment in the totality of our history.It is a reflection of our lack of creativethinking that we continue to invoke Rizal whenwe discuss specific problems and present-daysociety. This is also a reflection of our intellectualtimidity, our reluctance to espouse new causesunless we can find sanctions, however remote, inRizal. This tendency is fraught with dangers. Limitations of Rizal We are living in an age of anticolonialrevolutions different in content from those of Rizal's period. Rizal could not have anticipatedthe problems of today. He was not conversantwith economic tools of analysis that wouldunravel the intricate techniques that today arebeing used by outside forces to consign us to astate of continued poverty. The revolutions of today would be beyond the understanding of Rizal whose
Castilian orientation necessarilylimited his
horizon even for that period. He wascapable of unraveling the myths that were wovenby the oppressors of his time, but he would havebeen at a loss to see through the moresophisticated myths and to recognize the subtletechniques of present-day colonialists, given thestate of his knowledge and experience at thattime. This is not to say that were he alive todayand subject to modern experiences, he would notunderstand the means of our times. But it isuseless speculation to try to divine what he wouldnow advocate.Unless we have an ulterior motive, thereis really no need to extend Rizal's meaning sothat he may have contemporary value. Many of his social criticisms are still valid today becausecertain aspects of our life are still carry-overs of the feudal and colonial society of his time. A trueappreciation of Rizal would require that we studythese social criticisms and take steps to eradicatethe evils he decried.Part and parcel of the attempt to use Rizalas an authority to defend the status quo is thedesire of some quarters to expunge from theRizalist legacy the so-called controversial aspectsof his writings, particularly his views on the friarsand on religion. We have but to recall theresistance to the Rizal bill,[p. 144]the use of expurgated versions of the Noli Me Tangere andthe El Filibusterismo , and objections to thereadings of his other writings to realize that whilemany would have us venerate Rizal, they wouldwant us to venerate a homogenized version.In his time, the reformist Rizal wasundoubtedly a progressive force. In many areasof our life today, his ideas could still be a forcefor salutary change. Yet the nature of the Rizalcult is such that he is being transformed into anauthority to sanction the status quo by aconfluence of blind adoration and widespreadignorance of his most telling ideas.We have magnified Rizal's significance fortoo long. It is time to
examine his limitations andprofit from his
weaknesses just as we havelearned from the strength of his character and hisvirtues. His weaknesses were the weaknesses of his society. His wavering and his repudiation of mass action should be studied as a product of thesociety that nurtured him. The Negation of Rizal Today, we need new heroes who can helpus solve our pressing problems. We cannot relyon Rizal alone. We must discard the belief thatwe are incapable of producing the heroes of ourepoch, that heroes are exceptional beings,accidents of history who stand above the massesand apart from them. The true hero is one withthe masses: he does not exist above them. Infact, a whole people can be heroes given the 10
proper motivation and articulation of
theirdreams.Today we see the unfolding of thecreative energies of a people who are beginningto grasp the possibilities of human developmentand who are trying to formulate a theoreticalframework upon which they may base theirpractice. The inarticulate are now making historywhile the the articulate may be headed forhistorical anonymity, if not ignominy. When thegoals of the people are finally achieved, Rizal thefirst Filipino, will be negated by the true Filipinoby whom he will be remembered as a greatcatalyzer in the metamorphosis of the de-colonized indio .