José Rizal: A Third-World Hero
Note: This post is based on my take-home examination in PI100: The Life and Works of Jose Rizal, a legislated course in UP. The class I was in was under Mr. Jessie G. Varquez Jr.
Jose Rizal is regarded as the liberator of the Philippines, regarded as the proprietor of the Philippine Revolution, and revered as the Philippine's National Hero. However, as the world views the country as part of the “Third World” - countries that do not move at all with either capitalism or communism, countries that are regarded as “developing” due to social, economic and political problems - how could one Malayan man such as Rizal remove the bondage that the Spanish had took hold of them for three centuries? Did he truly heed to set the archipelago free? Could the Filipinos of today be discarding Rizal, revering another personality, serving him as their “hero”? Is he worthy to be a “National Hero”? The discussion in this writing takes insights mainly from two sources: the independent film, Bayaning Third World, directed and produced by Mike de Leon, and the article, Veneration without Understanding, written by Renato Constantino.
Bayaning Third World, roughly translated as “Third World Hero”, is an independent documentary-film of Mike de Leon, released in 2000, that presents the omnipresence of Jose Rizal in Philippine culture. It presents how Rizal, together with the other personalities that shared their lives with him, was viewed and still viewed by the Filipinos of today. The plot circulates between two people, a director and a scriptwriter, who wanted to produce a film that presents the life of the National Hero. However, as they explore the numerous views that relate to him, questions were then formulated on how the numerous personalities closely related to Rizal affected the general view of him in the present age. As planned, they conducted an intensive brainstorming and a massive investigative research about Pepe (his nickname), scouring through the artifacts, skimming through numerous documents and paraphernalia, just to formulate more questions on why Rizal should be regarded as a hero.
Every cross-over of the filmmaker characters to the key figures gave them a wider insight of the different views of Rizal. Each individual presented a different perspective of Rizal such as the motherly, compassionate perspective for his mother, Doña Teodora, and the enduring and ardent perspective of Josephine Bracken. Each presents their onlook of Rizal, their stories while with him, their sentiments towards Rizal's actions, and their rants against problems arising on Rizal in their own opinions. In the end, as Rizal was questioned, a great opposition to the ideas of Filipinos towards him arises – that they had not explored him more, that they exaggerated his deeds, that they made him a different person every time his story is being told. While the filmmakers' queries to them are all imaginary, this style of Mike de Leon made each observance of Rizal's life reach a point of questioning everything he had done for the countrymen.
Controversial topics arise on this film, such as Rizal's Retraction Document towards the Roman Catholic church. The central part of Bayaning Third World tells all on Rizal's abjuration statements which has questionable content and origins. As they plan over the biographical film of Rizal, the main characters wanted to question over the letters that Rizal “made up”. The movie presented the controversy as if the letters were photocopied and Rizal's signature reproduced by forgery. The outcome of the film, after much questions of the primary characters to Rizal, with the urge of the main characters to dig through the sources, concluded that Rizal did not retract all his works. It appeared later that the Catholic Church fabricated the Retraction Document.
In this light nevertheless, the views of Rizal throughout the characters proved one thing: Rizal was nothing but a mediocre, low-class revolutionary, a hero that is undesirable, a man who made the Philippines to what it is now – a Third World nation. As the main characters portrayed their ideas on what title should be applied to their movie, they came up with the idea of making Pepe a Bayaning Third World. For them, together with de Leon's concepts, Rizal is not worthy to be praised, for he is nothing to be praised of. They tell Rizal as “marupok, mababa, third-class”, a sentiment that makes the “National Hero” so fragile enough to be easily discarded if a paradigm shift occurs with the Filipino society and culture. The title was named as such as to suggest the people that Pepe was nothing but a man part of a country that will soon not be greatly affected of the planets' greatest leadership powers of the present time. He will be a figure of the nation's fragile, questionable foundational symbols, which has seen as below the international expectation of being “endemic” and “nationalistic”. He will be the symbol of the country's presently unstable state.
Through the film, a different view to Rizal is wanting to be revealed.
Moving on, rebutting every worship of Rizal as a liberator and as a National Hero is the key concept that Renato Constantino wanted to present. Veneration Without Understanding is an article written to present the problematic personality of Rizal, the questionable reverence as a National Hero, and the factors that can prove to deny the existence of the title being held by him.
The article begins with a definition of a national revolution: a representation of the pinnacle of achievement of citizens of any nation to go against the rule. It is a time when their minds return to their origins and renew their minds in order to gain freedom. It is a period when people are most united, most involved and most decisively active in the fight for freedom. Here, Constantino cites people who led in the fight for freedom in their individual nations, to name a few: George Washington, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Hồ Chí Minh. As with this definition, he further cited José Rizal, who was never a part of the pack of great world revolutionaries.
An argument that claimed Rizal as undeserving for a National Hero is the fact that he repudiated against the Revolution. He refused to align with the revolutionary forces of the masses. He condemned the mass movement to fight the Spanish government. Yet, many peasants of that time have not yet known these facts on Rizal's life, which led themselves to revert to the thought of making him a central figure of the Revolution through his writings. He was revered as a key to freedom through direct attacks to the Spaniards, which Rizal is not supportive of. This evident contradictions of Rizal's take towards the revolt was ignored and sugarcoated into an exaggerated revolutionary figure now taken over by the Rizalists of today, which unfortunately constitute many ordinary Filipino citizens.
With that reason of magnifying Rizal is the fact that he was labeled as a National Hero due to America's encouragement to be made as such. The United States had put such a great role to further observe the deeds the supposed “hero” had done for the nation through numerous statements and acts to choose Rizal as a National Symbol. Making Pepe to be the key figure of heroism to this nation was their way to encourage a Rizal cult (prominent to the appearance of Rizalist religious cults in the Tagalog region), and to minimize the importance of other heroes, even making them villains – Emilio Aguinaldo being too militant, Andres Bonifacio being too radical, Apolinario Mabini being too unreformed. This supposed Americanized “aid” to educate Filipinos to revere Rizal was only for the cause to favor their self-interest – to make someone who does not run against the ways of American colonial policy be a model for the nation.
Being an ilustrado, a part of the educated elite, Rizal had the greatest support from the United States and for the United States. He, in fact, predicted the American rule of the archipelago through a manifesto on what nation could conquer the Philippines given the loss of Spanish rule. He never embarrassed America with his statements. Moreover, America applauded his supposed “dramatic martyrdom”, leaving the indio a blind witness to their distorting mindsets brought up by foreign powers.
Being an ilustrado, Rizal had an immature national view to the indio. He had a problematic perspective towards his fellow people given his educated elite upbringing. The masses have been urging him to support the revolution but his elite attributes led him to deny it – he never thought his name would be used in the Revolution. It can be agreed upon the Rizal was patriotic; however, because of his seemingly foreign education limited him to be patriotic. He was regarded as the First Malayan, the First Filipino. Unfortunately, he was a limited Filipino, an ilustrado who fought for freedom and unity but feared bloodshed and war to be instruments of this fight. He loved his nation, but in his own elite-raised way.
Being an ilustrado, he had underestimated the masses. He underestimated their power, their talents. His life's mission coincided with the general outlook of his own desires together with his fellow elite, not the desires of the masses who constitute the greater number of those who fight for freedom in the nation. He believed that freedom is something earned for good behavior, an award for something worthwhile, not as a right for living. He did not believe that freedom needs an independence from the oppression of the colonizers; he rather believes in freedom that will benefit the elite in their economic prosperity that needs the demands for self-sufficiency. He feared the violent mass action the peasants wanted to pursue, and he therefore resorted himself to encourage them to wait for the time of abandonment of the Spanish colonizers, which depends on their own best interests.
Being an ilustrado, as Floro Quibuyen states in his book, A Nation Aborted, Rizal created a dichotomy between the elite and the masses through his novels: through the comparison of Ibarra versus Elias. It is a comparison between him and Bonifacio, the ilustrado versus the masa, Reform versus Revolution. Through the two opposing figures lies a paradigm of the “survival of the fittest”, a battle between what ideal will stand stable for the “freedom” of the nation. Through this symbolic resemblance towards Rizal and Bonifacio, propositions arise. For one, the failure of Simoun to destroy the oppressors was a clear indication of Rizal's fragile stance towards an anti-revolutionary, pro-reformist force.
Being an ilustrado, Quibuyen also stated that “with a bourgeois consciousness, Rizal's goal, in direct contrast with that of Bonifacio, was an assimilation of the Philippines into the Spanish nation.” Also, the Reform movement only served to “delay the inevitable Revolution,” as Rizal's tactics were to buffer it in lieu of his support to his fellow elite. However, his “characteristically opportunistic” fellows betrayed his move.
He lost his life for them, but his condemnation towards the Revolution was an insult for them.
Why, then, should we give importance to the life of Rizal, when he himself lacked the qualifications of being a “hero”, an “icon” for the Philippine islands? Was it coincidental for this figure to be put as one of the National Symbols along with the mango, the carabao, the sampaguita, and many others which have questionable origins as well? Is it necessary to study the history of a personality as if we dissect him through cutting him open and exploring every organ system he has?
Constantino states in his article that there is much importance to us to have a proper understanding of our history, as to what we do to explore the history along Jose Rizal. The reason, he states, is that “it will serve to demonstrate how our present has been distorted by a faulty knowledge of our past. By unraveling the past we become confronted with the present already as the future.” He adds that “such a re-evaluation may result in a down-grading of some heroes and even a discarding of others.” This will inevitably include Rizal. Limitations and weaknesses will always be part of an individual, and will always be part of his learning process and on the search for the truth for others.
Rizal opened up the conscience of every indio, labeled today as the Filipino. The nationalism that Rizal empowered has made them, the individuals, care about loving this nation. However, with today's further investigations of Philippine history, the people must understand that every foundation of a national symbol may not last. Everything must be scrutinized. Everything must be dissected. Everything must be known.
As the indios led by Rizal gained the equal rights to be a Filipino, equated with the Spaniards with both culture and property, they are led into a thought of national pride. However, the citizen title they hold now was limited. Rizal's life sacrifice was a signal of victory for the indios to give birth to the makabayan spirit, but it had limits. The indio-Filipinos of that time referred to the learned ones, the ones who have property, therefore losing the importance of the masses to include into the set the concept has brought. This is therefore a realization of what has to come – a confusion within our national identity.
At one point, Rizal is an icon which we enjoy now. He is an image of liberty and solidarity. At my own claims, he is one which can be adored historically and critically. If I were to favor these things, I would have no doubt exploring the results of his living in this country, although in his own limited ilustrado way. No makabayan spirit in this place could not be complete without him – he is already a favored man. In today's critically-minded society, I am of great interest to open myself to the critiques of the life of Pepe, through the numerous literatures and media that further gives me an individual perspective of Rizal, according to the author's point of view. This will give me insights that Rizal can be our hero, maybe not, either way. The choice of Rizal to be one of our National Symbols is never to just edify our glorification of our nation, it is for the gaining of knowledge of our building of national identity. I favor Rizal to be our National Hero; he has gained support from people who had influenced us for decades.
National identity is built up by growth, and it is done by a dynamic process of investigations. Through Rizal we are identified as such in the world view.
However, I favor as well if our nation discards Pepe, when there will come a time that a radical, revolutionary school of thought shall be established within our society. As what the movie Bayaning Third World has presented, Pepe's stand as a hero is marupok, fragile, and therefore subject to the social changes of this nation. If radicalism shall prevail in this country, I would rather choose Andres Bonifacio. If militarism shall prevail, I'll choose Emilio Aguinaldo. This is because I believe we have a freedom of choice; we can go against the status quo to edify the true state of the people. We are men and women who are driven to inevitable, constant change. If we were manipulated by such deceitful support from others, we are needed to renounce it, renew our mindsets, and see a different point of view of our national heritage.
We are free to chose; Rizal was free to do so. We are free to choose our nation's path so that we will achieve what it deserves to have.
KENNETH
