Understanding with Veneration
According to Constantino, revolution is the zenith of success for a nation because it is when the people of a nation are most united. Hence, he believed the national hero should be the leader of the country’s revolution. By this criteria, Bonifacio would be more deserving of the national hero title than Rizal. Not only was Rizal not the leader of the Philippine revolution, but he was also against it. Constantino also argues that our American Colonizers, to some extent, were responsible for making Rizal our national hero. He states that they chose Rizal as the national hero because it enabled them to control the Filipinos conveniently. It gave them a reason to prevent Filipinos from fighting for their independence because the Americans could always utilize the fact that Rizal was a reformist. Other reasons also include Rizal not being alive to oppose the Americans conceivably and to shift the focus to our former oppressors instead of our American colonizers. Constantino believed that Rizal was replaceable, meaning that even if he did not exist, someone else would exist to fulfill his role. Although it would be slightly different, the course of history will remain the same. Therefore, he viewed Rizal as a product of historical forces that helped articulate the series of events in Philippine history. Nonetheless, Constantino claims that Rizal was not an advocate for independence but equality. Thus, despite significantly contributing to developing the Philippines’ national consciousness, he was an ilustrado who barely understood the masses and wanted to prove how equally Spanish they were to the Peninsulares. Constantino also thought that Rizal’s ideal form of government was elitist and doubtful of the capabilities of the masses. Lastly, Constantino believed we should be critical of Rizal and not blindly worship him like a cult. As a result, we should respect his achievements while acknowledging his flaws.
Malay argues that Constantino was mistaken about the number of national heroes who were revolution leaders. Most national heroes in different countries were not leaders of a revolution. Moreover, Constantino’s examples contradict his requirements for a national hero since some were not even people of the masses, like Washington. For that reason, Malay believes that revolution leaders were not a good criterion for identifying the national hero of a nation. He believes nations should choose a national hero based on whom their citizens deeply respect the most due to the hero’s achievements. As a result, Rizal deserved the title because of his countless accomplishments, which many Filipinos admire. Malay also denies that Rizal was less qualified for the national hero title because he studied outside of the Philippines instead of in his own country. Malay argued that if someone could maximize their potential by leaving their home country, they should. Additionally, he thought it was an unnecessary requirement by Constantino for Rizal to only work within the Philippines. Furthermore, Malay claims that Rizal was not an American-sponsored national hero because he was already honored by the Katipuneros before his death. Lastly, Malay claims that Rizal did not only focus on contributing to the ilustrado class. He played a part in helping the masses by fighting for the farmers of Calamba, opening a modern school for boys in Dapitan, and giving free medical services in Dapitan. Thus, it is incorrect for Constantino to say that Rizal was only helping those in the same class as him.
Similar to Malay, I also cannot entirely agree with Constantino’s standards for a national hero. Many consider Jose Rizal the national hero of the Philippines because his works were instrumental in the emergence of the Filipino nationality and also because he was a crucial figure in the Propaganda Movement (de Ocampo 1960, 11-13). As Senator Recto stated, Rizal produced some literature works that promoted civic consciousness, personal pride, and patriotism among Filipinos (Laurel n.d., 132). Accordingly, like Constantino claims, Rizal significantly contributed to developing the national consciousness of a large number of Filipinos. Although he downplays the importance of this contribution by saying that it is just consciousness without movement, the contribution is still much more important than it seems because of its impact on the events that followed. Patriotism and awareness of one’s nationality help ensure national integration and promotes the advancement of national development (Oppong 2019). As a result of the development of our nation, Rizal’s contributions led to the actualization of the revolution. Rizal was even the symbol of inspiration for the Katipuneros (Quibuyen 1997, 225-257). Despite Rizal being impelled to action by historical forces during his period, this is not a good argument to say that he is less deserving of the national hero title since this also applies to any national hero. Therefore, Constantino was being disingenuous when criticizing Rizal for this specific reason. Although I mostly agree with Malay’s points and disagree with many of Constantino’s points, I can understand how Constantino feels that some of Rizal’s intentions might not reflect the majority of Filipinos, especially since he is an ilustrado. Hence, he prefers equality over independence. In addition, Rizal believed that Filipinos should not lead their country yet because they were not educated enough. I agree with Constantino that Rizal’s opinion on Philippine independence was unfair since a nation’s people should have every right to lead their own nation, regardless of their education level. Also, I did not particularly appreciate how Malay made it seem immoral to criticize Rizal. Constructive criticisms about our heroes should not be discouraged; instead, we should discuss them. Therefore, I agree with Constantino in his ideas about being critical and open to the flaws of our heroes.
References
- de Ocampo, Esteban A. Who Made Jose Rizal Our Foremost National Hero, and Why?, 1960.
- Laurel, Jose, Jr. “The Trials of the Rizal Bill.” Historical Bulletin 4, no. 2 (n.d.): 130–39.
- Oppong, Charles Adabo. “The History Curriculum and Inculcation of National Consciousness in History Students in Ghana.” The Councilor: A Journal of the Social Studies 80, no. 2 (October 2019). https://thekeep.eiu.edu/the_councilor/vol80/iss2/5.
- Quibuyen, Floro. “Rizal and the Revolution.” Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints 45, no. 2 (January 1, 1997): 225–57. https://www.philippinestudies.net/ojs/index.php/ps/article/download/548/551.