Renato Jr. K.

Baldeo
BSCpE 2-4

Pahina 77, Gawain 3

Magbigay pa ng ilang patunay na si Rizal ay may diwang separatist.

RIZAL AS A SEPARATIST

The last of the three well known articles in the La Solidaridad is the Philippines a
Century Hence, where in Rizal tried to predict the future of the Philippines. He noted that
eventually, the Philippines would separate itself from Spain, an event that will become
inevitable if the Philippines were not assimilated and made as a Spanish province.

Perhaps, prior to his death, Dr. Rizal should had been asked with the question, "Dr
Rizal are you a pacifist or a revolutionary? ". The fact remains. There is confusion among the
readers of Rizal. One group believes Rizal was for peaceful means and the other group
believes he was for radical means. A good point in the readings of his correspondences would
be that of taking into consideration the element of time-- the date they were written and the
circumstances surrounding them.

His writings reflected his thoughts. But his thoughts reflected his environment, his
relationships with a wide gamut of people and his feelings or emotions towards them.
Therefore, his writings reflected his feelings or emotions towards a wide range of people and
his environment- both here and abroad. As such, I came up with the idea of Rizal as a coin,
with both the sides of it -head and tail understood depending on the reference one is reading.

Rizal had both sides. Reformist on one side and Revolutionary on the other side.
Reformism is assimilism-- -reforms in all aspects under the present colonial system while
revolution is figthing for freedom---outright annihilation of the colonial system-a complete
change. The end justifies the means. So he said. The goal defines the methods.

If denouncing the radical means would avoid bloodshed and instead gradually achieve
the desired goal, (which is of course, freedom---- from slavery, to study, to believe whatever
one wanted to believe in,,,etc etc) through peaceful means, then why not denounce them? But
if absconding the propaganda (the peaceful means? and declaring the venue for the fight right
here in the islands---planning for shipment of armaments to support the revolution, writing
subversive ideas, writing poems and songs that ignite the fires and the love of country and of
one's own culture, exposing the sad plight of the people and the abuses of the friars and the
colonial government, declaring the intent to establish nationhood or a Filipino colony
as against the wishes or direct orders of the colonial government, establishing the Liga for
protection against these abuses, and gain economic cooperation, then why not abscond them?
 Rizal was caught in both conditions: as a pacifier and at the same time as a
provocateur. And the fact is clear: we could not separate one side from the other side of
Rizal. But he was shot BECAUSE of this: for in choosing both ways--- be it through peaceful
means or radical means only one thing is ever dreamed of: To achieve the betterment of the
conditions of life in the Philippines and to achieve moral and intellectual upliftment of her
inhabitants.