In the early 1990’s a survey was held asking who should be the national hero: Dr. Jose Rizal or Andres Bonifacio? The survey was in relation to the moves not only to rename the Philippines but also to replace some important symbols of the country. The pro-Rizals won and the idea of renaming Philippines lost. For these, the proposals vanished even before a bill was submitted to the Congress.
My response then was in favor of Rizal as we share some common traits (or so I thought) and these included a broad forehead, a love for peace, a fondness for traveling, and an interest in learning more and more things. The only attributes I didn’t acquire are his genius, his being a linguist, and his charm for girls. But a few years later, this adulation for the national hero crumbled when I happened to read an intriguing passage in one of the editions of Gregorio Zaide’s books “Jose Rizal: His Life and Works”. The passage reads: Why is it that on June 19, 1861 there is only one Filipino who rose to become a hero in fighting against the Spaniards?
Whether Zaide was just emphatic or not, his statement lead to some reflections. First, what can be said then of the people in the Muslim Mindanao who sacrificed their lives just to drive away the colonizers? Surely, there must also be some individuals born on June 19, 1861 in that area only that they were unrecognized because almost of the Filipino historians are Catholics and are located either in Luzon or in Visayas. Well, that does not even include the other Filipinos who were also born on that date but also fought the Spaniards in their own might. The only difference is that like our Muslim brothers, their heroic acts were unrecorded because of historical bias. In the very first place, history is what the historians write of a given event in a given period.
Second, is Rizal a Filipino? Filipinos in those days were called as “indios”. If one belongs in the upper echelon of the society, he is an “illustrado” or a member of the “principalia” and not a Filipino. So simple logic says Rizal cannot be a Filipino unless the declaration calling the residents of the Philippines as Filipinos has a retroactive effect. But if that is the case, the title given to Rizal as “The First Filipino” is not applicable to him for Lapu-lapu could be a Filipino, or Princess Urduja, or Datu Sulayman.
But more than this, one can also probe into Rizal’s “Filipino citizenship” by reading his writings between the lines. Ironically, the national hero doesn’t want to be a Filipino but a Spaniard. Even pro-Rizal biographies will attest to this as Rizal’s advocacy is to make the Philippines a province of Spain and not an independent country run solely by the locals. This then leads us to the third question: Is Rizal fighting against the Spaniards?
While almost all Rizal biographies say the national hero is fighting against the Spaniards, the truth is otherwise. Why did Rizal wanted the Philippines to become a province of Spain? Or why did Rizal preferred to spend most of his life in Madrid studying rather than in America or in other countries of Europe? Though it may be true that Rizal also studied in Paris and Berlin but still, a greater portion of his education is under the Spanish system. And why did Rizal chose to have a relation with a lady Spaniard named Consuelo Perez? And why did he befriended a number of Spaniards including Consuelo’s family? These are all because Rizal is not fighting against the Spaniards but against tyranny and oppression.
Next, it should also be noted that most of the writings of the national hero is in Spanish. The reason for this, according to the experts in the life of Rizal, is that the national hero would just like to awaken or arouse the hearts of the Filipinos that they may unite in fighting against the Spaniards. However, if this is Rizal’s real intention, the national hero should have written in the vernacular – either in Tagalog, Bisaya or Bikol. In this way, he could have been easily understood. Besides, isn’t Rizal the one who authored the most used and abused line “Ang hindi marunong magmahal sa sariling wika ay higit pa ang amoy sa malansang isda”? Or is Rizal thinking then that Spanish is the “sariling wika” of the Philippine Islands? If so, then he is not a Filipino but a Spanish which is also consistent with his advocacy on the full recognition of the Philippines as a province of Spain.
These, however, does not diminish Rizal’s heroism. Actually, Rizal can even be considered not just as a Philippine hero but also the hero of the world. In the times when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was still non-existent, in the times when colonialism was a “fad”, there is this individual whose height may be short but had the courage to stand among the giants to cry against oppression, tyranny and in-equality – at least of the races. That is something the family of Rizal, his descendants, and the Filipinos should be proud of.
But in remembering him, in idolizing him, and even in worshiping him (as there are those who consider him as a prophet of God), one should be cautious not to put words in his mouth or go beyond his real intentions. That distorts reality and that changes Jose Protacio Mercado Rizal from what he really is and what he really wants.###
(This article also appears in the column The Sidelines in the newspaper Albay Journal.)
nice article.
feel free to email me if you want to submit articles or guest blog post on joserizal.biz.
thanks.
daisy.
[...] to be our national hero, Rizal or Bonifacio? Well, as I have observed then and lately ( see Bik-Lish ) scholars and laymen alike have practically exhausted their minds in trying to answer this [...]
[...] Idolizing Jose Rizal; [...]
[...] 17, 2008 by J.A. Carizo One of the top posts in my blog the past few weeks is Idolizing Jose Rizal. It receives at least 20 hits a day and the number 1 in terms of keyword search. The past few [...]
maybe gregorio zaide was wrong in saying that “in June 19, 1861 there was only one Filipino who rose to become a hero in fighting against the Spaniards”, – that was JoseRizal.
madami rin naman ang lumaban para sa bansa, pero hindi nabigyan ng pagpapahalaga sa aklat ng kaysaysan ng pilipinas.
Hindi lahat ng totoo at aktwal na nangyari sa kasaysayan ng pilipinas ay naisulat o nailathala sa libro. Karamihan dito ay matatawag na “distorted facts” ng kasaysayan.
… like questions, and facts that were not written in the books of history, such as the ff:
1.) sino ba talaga ang taong pumatay kay magellan?
2.) ano ang dahilan kung bakit pinatay si magellan ng grupong pinamumunuan ni lapu-lapu?
3.) at bakit napatay o natalo ang grupo ni magellan nina lapu-lapu sa kabila ng galing at husay ng mga dayuhan na humawak ng sandatang pandigma?
sagot 1 – hindi si lapu-lapu ang nakapatay kay magellan, kungdi isa sa mga bodyguards ni lapu-lapu gamit ang isang matulis na itak at tinaga si magellan ng patalikod dahil inabuso o ginahasa ni magellan ang ka tribu ni lapu-lapu.
sagot 2 – pinatay si magellan hindi dahil sa sila ay isang mananakop o mga dayuhan sa ating bayan… pinatay si magellan sampu ng kanilang mga kasama dahil ginahasa ni magellan ang isa sa mga pinakamagandang babae sa tribu. kaya gumanti ang grupo ni lapu-lapu hanggang sa magkapatayan.
sagot 3 – ang totoo kahit anong gawin ng grupo ni lapu-lapu sa larangan ng pakikidigma o laban ay hindi ito uubra sa galing at talino ng mga dayuhan sa husay sa paghawak ng armas. Kaya napatay si magellan sampu ng kaniyang mga kasama dahil ng mga oras na iyon ay lango o lasing na lasing sina magellan sa alak. papaano ka makakalaban ng mahusay kung ikaw ay lasing.
….ito yung mga katotoohanan na hindi mo mababasa sa kasaysayan.
At hanggang sa kasalukuyang nangyayari rin ito maraming mali-mali na nakasulat sa kasaysayan…..
Tama ka diyan Atty. Benjie. Actually me claims nga na ang kauna-unahang nakapag-travel around the world ay isang Bisaya. He was taken as a slave to Portugal and was given as a gift to Magellan and help in the latter’s travel. Kaya lang, hindi siya na-recognized. Si Magellan na namatay naman sa Mactan ang binigyang parangal. Maybe it’s time to correct history and give due recognition to whom it is due.
If I am not mistaken, the man from Visayas was called as Enrique and this is written in the annals of the travels of Magellan.
ja carizo: hindi lang naman sa pilipinas, ang mali-mali ang paglalahad sa totoong kasaysayan, kahit sa bansang America ganun din.
some say that the Indians were the first to discover America.
Others say that Americo Vesputchi was the first to discover america… kaya nga hango sa ngalan niya ang pangalan ng america… pero sa kasaysayan ng america, ang nakasulat na unang tao na naka-discover ng america ay si Christopher Columbus..
The Truth: – Christopher Columbus didn’t even set foot on America. He was in Cuba when he ” thought he discovered new land”.
ang tatalino nio. bravo! pinoy na pinoy. san nio nlaman yan?
Rizal did nothing. He was one of the “traitors” in history who did not even lift a finger to support the revolution. He was among those “educated middle class” who were so skeptical about the revolution, and therefore betrayed the country and the Republic (Agoncillo). I do not idolize nor venerate him.
i have read your article, and something urged me to write something..i love the fact that someone writes one’s opinions about rizal but..i have some things in mind that sort of answer the questions you left hanging…
rizal was not solely a filipino but in his blood there runs a few culture..though that doesn’t necessarily eradicate him as a filipino..
another point, yes he did write not in the vernacular, but in spanish, just a thought, may be that is his forte, that that is the way were he can say that i a filipino inspite and despite the fact that i am a filipino, i could write something that could penetrate your core…just a thought…
i have to say that yes, he did fight for our country, he armed himself with same weapon that they have… if rizal did write in the vernacular do you think that the spaniards would even care or even bother? he armed himself with the same language, the language that the colonizers use…
just think of it this way..either way..rizal did his part..he might have been overly praised or even idolized, but the truth remains i think..that rizal made an impact..to us and beyond the waters of the pacific..:)
@ KR
thought-provoking ideas. thanks for sharing. but… what about the fact that he wanted the Philippines annexed to Spain as a province?
or maybe we need to accept the fact that in those days, there is no such concept as “filipino” and “filipinism”. if we go back to philippine history (never mind zaide’s book. there other non-college textbooks that are more factual, non-hagiographical, and non-fiction books), we will realize that the sporadic revolts during the Spanish period are based not on filipinism or nationalism but on oppression. otherwise, why would visayas establish its own federal system and write its own constitution to the exclusion of those in luzon and mindanao? even macario sacay’s or emilio aguinaldo’s governments do not even have representations from mindanao, or most of visayas in general. even aguinaldo’s katipunan, for a fact, is almost exclusive to tagalogs and those in luzon. not unless the concepts of “filipino” and “filipinism” are luzon-centric.
but i agree with you. rizal made an impact. such an impact, however, should be treated in its context — that rizal is a hero against oppression but not of filipino nationalism.
he thought so for he thought that we weren’t ready, as a matter of fact we weren’t even united as a whole country then, based from what you’ve said even the filipinos who reside among luzon, visayas and mindanao aren’t even at ease or united..
hero against oppression but not of filipino nationalism… interesting and i love your last line.. though why wouldn’t he be considered as someone who is nationalistic? he even wrote based form what is happening within the country, meaning what’s happening to the Filipino people, why wouldn’t he be nationalistic if he has the choice to stay away from the country rather he keeps on coming back here, in the Philippines? why couldn’t he be considered as nationalistic if what he thought of is the Philippines and its people?
just thoughts of an inquirer:)
i deeply appreciate your replies!:)
@ KR
Why couldn’t Rizal be considered nationalistic? What is nationalism, in the first place? According to Anthony Smith in his book “National Identity”, the term nationalism can signify:
1. The whole process of forming and maintaining nations and nation-states;
2. A consciousness of belonging to a nation, together with the sentiments and aspirations for its security and prosperity;
3. A language and symbolism of the ‘nation’ and its role;
4. An ideology, including a cultural doctrine of nations and the national will and prescriptions for the realization of national aspirations and the national will;
5. A social and political movement to achieve the goals of a nation and realize its national will.
I think it’s impossible to locate Rizal’s intention in any of the above especially considering his advocacy of making the Philippines a province of Spain.
Second, assuming that we strip off Rizal’s intention to annex the Philippines to Spain, there was no sense of “nation” during the late 19th century. And since there is no “nation”, how can there be “nationalism” then?
A quick thought on why Rizal keeps coming back: Rizal made a promise to cure his mother’s eyesight, that’s why.
you gave me things to think about then…it’s as if rizal isn’t then a good enough candidate to be a national hero for with what you’ve stated above are quite strong, then again who would be the best candidate for “position”?
though he did think of his people and of his country, then may be you are right he wasn’t nationalistic he was fighting against oppression…but what then is a nation?
i have this question and i would appreciate it if you’d reply… i have to have a position regarding rizal’s retraction, i would deeply appreciate it if you could say your opinion regarding this question “Did rizal retract?” either yes or no, could you support your position?
thank you!:)
@ KR
As I said in my second to the last paragraph:
Searching for the “best candidate for the position of national hero” requires us to go back to the definition of nationalism. If we use Smith’s “signification” of nationalism by looking at the Philippines to what it is now (i.e., that the Philippines is composed of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao), then nobody will qualify. But if we look at nationalism in the context of the 19th century, Andres Bonifacio could fit the requirements. Proofs: He wants a new nation that is independent of Spain, not just a mere province; He uses the vernacular as the official language. He has a political and social movement – the KKK; a prescription to attain their goals and for changing the system then — armed revolution. To add, KKK even has a code of ethics: The Kartilya ng Katipunan. I don’t think we can find this with Rizal and his fledgling organization, the La Liga Filipina.
As for the retraction, may I know which one is that — retraction from his writings/advocacies or retraction from his alleged membership in protestantism?
Actually, Rizal can even be considered not just as a Philippine hero but also the hero of the world. — is he worthy enough of such title?
i have to say both retraction, the retraction from his writings and the retraction regarding his faith…
thank you
Hero of world? Yes for the same reason that Nelson Mandela is considered as a hero for fighting racial discrimination. This I explained in the second to the last paragraph of the main article above.
As for the retraction, historians say it is not true. As a fact, he was even shot to death which could have resulted to commutation if he retracted. Or, his remains could have been buried in a Catholic cemetery if he retracted. The Catholic Church, meanwhile, says that there is a retraction document signed by Rizal before he died. Thus, whether there is truth in the claims or not, we cannot say.
thank you for answering my every question!deeply appreciate it!
it is my honor to be able to “converse” with you..
I was reading your article when I came across a line that made me stop.
It was your reference to Gregorio Zaide. As we all know, and as proven during our years together in High School, Zaide wrote books with a lot of errors. Errors which he purported to be fact, errors which were pointed out and proven false. Remember I had an issue with our history teacher (who was a big fan of Zaide since they attended college together) regarding one of these ‘facts’, I had to bring in several encyclopedias which had facts contrary to Zaide’s writings.
I got a low grade for discrediting her idol in front of the class.
We’ve always got to take every information we come across with a bit of sleuthing. After all, not everything you hear about is true, even if it seems apparent, not until we’ve exhausted all the other reliable sources of information to support it.
Bottom line here is while there may be truth to some of the information written, I wouldn’t bank my penny on Zaide -I’m already wary of his works.
‘
Great blog, though! Keep it up. I always knew you were on to something.
@ Erik A.
Thanks for dropping by. I met a professor who’s like the history teacher you were referring to. The professor said that I should not argue with him because: (1) I am just a student, (2) he is the professor and, (3) he studied under the author of the subject that we are discussing. I said I just wanted to be clarified on some issues as he (my professor) has claims contradictory to certain political science principles. He insisted again the three reasons mentioned so I said “Okay, your reasons cannot be denied. But have you read the books of your professor-author?”. The next thing I knew is that he walked out of the room and that I got the highest grade in class. lol!
But I agree with you that all information should not be taken as it is. With the varying interests and the biases hovering around, sometimes it is hard to distinguish what is true and what is false. This should be a guide for all of us. Thanks, Rik.
just wanna share some of the things that my professor in Rizal taught us.
issue: rizal “only” wrote things and did not engage himself in the revolution and he only wanted the Philippines to be recognized as one of the provinces of Spain.
(our prof’s) response:
Rizal wrote something that urged and persuaded Filipinos to rebel against Spaniards. Rizal opened the eyes of the Filipinos and he also exposed the situation of the Philippines during that time to the whole world. According to Rafael Palma, “…the revolution of Bonifacio is a consequence wrought by the writings of Rizal and that although the Bonifacio’s revolver produced an immediate outcome, the pen of Rizal generated a more lasting achievement.”
Also, he did not engage himself in the battles because he did not want the Philippines to be independent (YET) from the Spanish colonization because (according to our prof) he was thinking that the Filipinos are not yet ready to become independent. They (the Filipinos back then) cannot build a STRONG government (during the 333 years of Spanish colonization in the Philippines, Spaniards did not taught the Filipinos to govern our own land), cannot defend themselves in case of another invasion (like what had happened when the Americans colonized the Philippines), and should be unified first before creating a government.
that’s what he taught us. just want to share. feel free to reply..=D
(by the way, Bonifacio is the reason why Rizal was accused and was punished of death penalty, right?)
@ BSC:
Thanks for the visit and the thoughts. Just as the fire purifies the gold, so are ideas refined by tests.
On the first note: Maybe we could agree more with your professor if he/she can back the claims with proofs. First, we can look back at the literacy rates: How many can read Spanish during those period? And from those who can read (mostly the illustrados), how many are willing to associate with the indios — the primary actors in the revolution? This will support or disprove the idea that Rizal’s writing was the cause of rebellions. Second, Bonifacio is not the only leader of the revolution or rebellions. There is not even one revolutionary or rebellious activity but hundreds and even thousands mostly undocumented and barely mentioned in history books. These are not all influenced by Rizal. Examples are: The cimarrones in Bicol who were acting on their own; the Muslims in Mindanao who fought for reasons of freedom and religion; and the Visayans like the Negros farmers who fought for their freedom and for their land. Palma is just exaggerating the way Zaide did when he wrote about Rizal. Or it could also be that we are exaggerating Palma to think that Palma was referring to the “archipelagic-wide pockets of revolutions” when in fact he was only referring to the KKK.
On the second idea that the Filipinos are not yet ready for independence: If this is the case, why would he make the “Philippines” more dependent from Spain by making it a province? And why didn’t he wrote more on the subjects of “independence” and “governance” considering the facts that he had travelled more and had been exposed to various countries? Or, let us just simply read his thoughts in the Noli and Fili. He only wants reforms and fair treatment. Otherwise, he could have taken into consideration the nature of man and the pre-Spanish political history — that is, man is a political animal and whether we like it or not, the Spanish “Indios” will surely form associations and govern themselves; and that even without the Spaniards, the Spanish “indios” can govern themselves as what their fathers did before through the “barangay governments” and “barangay federations”. To note, the pre-Spanish Philippines (called Ma-i) even had a set of Ambassadors to China and trade relations were considered very good.
This blog just gave more questions than answers, hehehe. Anyway, I still loved the discussion, especially on the part that “is Rizal qualified as a national hero”. I guess he is a hero, though as what stated that he is not nationalistic by definition. Though his writings are read by a lot of individual here and abroad led to a lot of revolts against Spanish and other colonial occupation. Maybe he was too commercialize that he became our national hero.
I have a question, did Rizal wanted to be a hero? (Can you state why or why not?) — Have read some books, but most of them are talking about why did Rizal happened to be out National Hero.
Questions give birth to new ideas hehehe…
Did Rizal wanted to be a hero? I think becoming a hero is unplanned. (Si Mang Jose lang ata ang nagplano na maging hero kasi kailangan niyang kumita hehehe.) Though reading behind the lines, Rizal just wanted to be a principled man — the reason why he accepted death penalty by firing squad instead of begging for the mercy of the King of Spain. Eventually, his principle made him a hero. But as stated, I don’t think he planned this.
I really emulate and appreciate Jose Rizal because he’s a genius( painter, athlete, poet, etc.) and a peaceful advocate. I’m sorry I don’t read a lot about history now. Just encountered in college. But I do read about Jose Rizal. Well. if its true that he wanted the Phil. to be an annexed of Spain, maybe at that time it was just the best idea first that came to his mind, but I’m sure he was wise, there’s ,more plan after. He loved our country. He even sacrificed his life for the Filipino people. I’ll research more to know….