Para sa HIST 104

Veneration without Understanding Reaction paper The pre-eminence of a towering and untainted reputation of Rizal has to some extent overshadowed and biased our attitudes on how to deal with this particular work of Constantino. It wouldn't be of a surprise if most of us fall unresponsive and defensive to the critical and sensitive arguments presented in the article. But personally I'd rather lunge into this matter in line with how Constantino perceive it because his work as I have seen, has been serving many historians and scholars to the point where in his works becomes the basis, (the bible actually) with regards to the study of Philippine History. With my limited given knowledge, I would not dare underplay his works or even argue in any case as I write this reaction paper, especially after being blessed with such enlightening realizations. Quoting Rizal: "From the very beginning, when I first had notice of what was being planned, I opposed it, fought it, and demonstrated its absolute impossibility. I did even more. When later, against my advice, the movement materialized, of my own accord I offered my good offices, but my very life, and even my name, to be used in whatever way might seem best, toward stifling the rebellion; for convinced of the ills which it would bring, I considered myself fortunate if, at any sacrifice, I could prevent such useless misfortune…. I have written also (and I repeat my words) that reforms, to be beneficial, must come from above, and those which comes from below are irregularly gained and uncertain. Holding these ideas, I cannot do less than condemn, and I do condemn this uprising-which dishonors us Filipinos and discredits those that could plead our cause. I abhor its criminal methods and disclaim all part in it, pitying from the bottom of my heart the unwary that have been deceived into taking part in it. [1]" Rizal was against the revolution, no questions about it. Rizal's condemnation of the revolution is what struck me most. I was deeply troubled on the gravity of his detestation against the revolution, especially with the use of the words, "absolute impossibility" and "useless misfortune" was for me entirely not in character of a true ideal national hero. A true national hero represents or stands for his people, the masses, and is as stated in the article, most of the time: the leader of the revolution. The true goal of the people was for liberation, and for freedom under a collective nationalistic consciousness. And we achieved this so "renowned victory" through revolution, not in any other way. The success of the Revolution, this is what we are celebrating, this is what we are grateful for, our so-called "independence day," which we fondly celebrate annually. And to think that our national hero condemned this act of liberation is just not logical at all. It does not attest to an idyllic representation of the struggle of the people. And not to mention the fact that he underestimated his own people. The implications he made just showed how untrusting he was during the time of the appraisals. He had no trust in the capabilities and potentials of the Filipinos for true independence. It is clear Rizal never believed the people to be worthy for true independence. For him, we were not ready for true liberation from Spain and are still incapable of true independent governance. For him, true independence means equality with the Spaniards, reforms, equal rights and security of property and human rights, in short: to be a legitimate province of Spain, as Spanish educated Filipinos, a Hispanized Filipino. But I believe this is not the true meaning of Independence, to achieve true liberation means to evolve into a true nation by its own, by its own people, without foreign influence whatsoever. Without prejudice, without outside help, molding our true Filipino culture on its own course, its destiny. Not as subordinates of another country. Just as how we are today captive of colonial mentality, with the so-called “Americanization” of the Filipinos. This matter for me is of the greatest importance, we cannot fully appreciate and understand ourselves if we see our history, our country, our national hero, as superficial as how we see it today. We cannot justify the success of the revolution as a people if we have not yet realized and thoroughly understood its essence and value. If we are truly a responsible and growing Filipino, we must at least try to understand this very important matter in an analytical sense, in its objectivity, in its applicability, in relevance to our present state, not just as part of our History books. Not just to gloss over it and neglect the issue because we grew up getting used to these accustomed manners and prejudice perceptions that we have. Rizal as an American-sponsored hero: does not necessarily mean it was a direct initiative of the Americans. Filipinos formed the commission responsible for the declaration of Rizal as our national hero. But I firmly believe that the intrusion of the Americans, through sponsorship and recommendation of Rizal was a very significant factor and a great influence to Rizal's declaration. There is no difficulty in understanding this, because this phenomenon still exists up to now: "Americanization" of the Filipino. The reputation of the Americans was so much admired and revered by the Filipinos due to its humane and modest methods of colonization. Unlike feudal Spain and the imperialist Japan, who were greatly despised by the people due to their barbaric and hostile ways.The Americans projected an image of greatness and superiority different from that of Spain and Japan, not to mention the fact that America was one of the superpowers and the most developed country during that time. Constantino says it all, that it was a logical choice for the Americans to prefer Rizal as our national hero because he was a reformist, who fought for equality, not for true liberation. And Rizal was an illustrado (never an Indio), who were during that time, being molded in preparation for leadership for independent governance. Rizal condemned the revolution, unlike Bonifacio and Mabini who were established katipuneros, who has in themselves the qualities and virtues of the revolution, of appraisals and nationalistic aspirations (different from Rizal), in which the Americans wisely, didn't want us to possess or be reminded of during their time of stay. That is why they preferred Rizal. The involvement of the Americans to Rizal's declaration was made even more evident due to the enforcement of a “Cult of Rizal,” and the undermining and overshadowing of the other Filipino heroes who were candidates for the position (Bonifacio, Mabini etc). The influence and the involvement of the Americans with this declaration are clear; I find no reason to not believe this is so. This was the beginning of the Americanization of the Filipinos.