RAYMOND JIB REVEREZA

BSIT

1. Do you agree with Rizal’s presentation of our pre-colonial history? Why or why not?

Rizal was much too impulsive, too committed to portray the past, as he himself said "cold-
bloodedly and as an impartial judge." Rizal wanted to point out, above all, three things with
the publication: firstly, that the Filipinos possessed an independent culture before the
arrival of the Spaniards; secondly, that the Filipinos were decimated, demoralized,
exploited and ruined by the Spanish civilization; and thirdly, the condition achieved, the
importation of Spanish civilization did not necessarily, and certainly not in all spheres of
interest, bring to the Philippines an improvement or a higher niveau. Indeed as earlier said,
Blumentritt could not approve the work of his friend completely. "My profound
appreciation of your work cannot stop me from confessing that more than once I have
discovered your mistake, which many modern historians commit: interpreting events in the
past in the light of contemporary ideas. This is not correct. The historian must not expect
the broad horizon of ideas which move the l9th century from the men of the l6th century."

2. How did Rizal envision the pre-colonial Filipinos? Why?

According to Rizal's logic, the corrupt Spanish colonial bureaucracy relentlessly exploited the
Filipinos, but blamed the underdevelopment of the people on their presumed indolence. Rizal's
aim was to show that this view was erroneous through recourse to both logic and historical fact.
Rizal went into pre-colonial history to address the colonialist view of Filipino indolence. The facts
proved that pre-colonial Filipino society was relatively advanced, suggesting that the presumed
backwardness was due to colonialism. And, of course, despite the claims of the heavy-handed
colonial government and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, colonial policy was
oppressive. Rizal referred to the "boasted ministers of God [the friars] and propagators of light(!)
[who] have not sowed nor do they sow Christian moral, they have not taught religion, but rituals
and superstitions."• (Rizal, 1963b: 38) The sentiment is not without merit even today.