Worst Enemy:

Arguments in Statements
Neil B. Matu-og

This critique paper examines the aspects of Dr. Jose Rizal and Filipino nationalism as the

imagination, or creation, of the self as a part of larger group, garnered and spread through various

sources including relations with individuals, print sources, and personal reflection. We all know

that Dr. Jose Rizal is also one of the national heroes here in the Philippines. Often, considered as

the “Father of Filipino Nationalism”, is the main focus of this examination. The article entitled

“Rizal and Filipino Nationalism: Critical Issues”, by Floro Quibayen focusses on Schumachers

arguments to the sources of Quibayen and how they share each other their ideas and information

to be compared. The ideas and information that was being addressed could be related to the reality

whether it is true or not. Through an investigation of Dr. Jose Rizal's life and writings, the

following historical analysis will demonstrate a story of Dr. Jose Rizal and Filipino nationalism.

A majority of the topics that being argued were analyzed accordingly to give insights into the

thoughts of the students and also to the individuals out there to know what truly happens during

the lifetime of Rizal. In particular, this relationship between Rizal and Filipino nationalism can be

attributed to Quibuyen’s article. The article has been well-examined by Schumachers that he gave

concrete ideas and became one of the sources that can be used in studying this area. Therefore, it

is necessary examine and evaluate the ideas of this article alongside this work.

The analysis pointed out by Schumachers are mostly liberating and informative.

Recounting the problems that Jose Rizal encountered and the Filipino nationalism before, this time
have suffered calls to mind to understand well because there is many information regarding the

situation at that time where people must study and learn today. Also, this study argues the Filipino

nationalism and also to the contribution of Dr. Jose Rizal was due in part to the history, and the

concept and definitions available to Rizal during his lifetime.

In exploration, I find new ideas and knowledge that can help me but also to other students

to sharpen their wisdom during the lifetime of Dr. Jose Rizal. This will help us in familiarizing

information that are relevant and similar to the present study.

According to Hobee, an assistat professor in University of the Philippines Diliman (2016),

the reason why Schumacher and Quibuyen debate over “Rizal and Filipino Nationalism” is that

both of the insights they share and provided are reliable. Both parties imply agreement the history

involves both reliable data (or facts) and interpretations (or theory), even the two parties seem to

give primacy to opposite ends of the research process. The majority of their claims are allegations

of neglect, such as a lack of context or verification, which leads to a misinterpretation of the text,

rather than arguments based on contrasting information about what it means to be a historian.

The major, and most fascinating, point of contention is over the usage of "semi-reliable

sources," which it was classify to both Pio Valenzuela and John Foreman as referenced by

Quibuyen. The first source appears to be contradictory. The latter source may be misleading.

Schumacher tends to dismiss them both. Quibuyen tends to accept them. In other word, Quibuyen’s

assertion using the contradictory sources is technically correct, but in the other hand, Schumacher

is also correct to critique him. On the one hand, it is true that just because someone lies once does

not guarantee he will continue to lie in the future. More or less, it is true that the article of the two
parties can readily be used as evidence also as a guide for future researches because both of them

provide a well-explained information.

In order to sharpen our knowledge regarding this issue, the most important thing we should

do is read and understand carefully. We must evaluate properly because every detail we read is

very important. In my case, the journal entitled “Rizal and Filipino Nationalism: Critical Issues”

by Floro Quibuyen and the review of related literature I’ve gathered intitled “Rizal and Filipino

Nationalism: A New Approach” by John N. Schumacher helps me to sharpen my knowledge about

the Filipino nationalism, life, works and writings of Dr. Jose Rizal but also to the other readers,

because the author gives their insights and provided reliable information regarding to the issue.

Now, the question is who among the two parties, Floro Quibuyen and John N. Schumacher

provided unique insights, reliable, and stating facts statements? The two parties are both accurate

who are provided reliable data but in different sources. Both of them are different with each other.

John N. Schumacher is a historian that is primarily interested in facts, empirically established and

uses the empirical method or so-called as a “empiricist”. While, Floro Quibuyen is a political

philosopher who is primarily interested in theories and using the method of “critical

hermeneutics”. That even the non-historian applies the so-called “critical hermeneutics” to fully

understand what would be the written behind on that text. Because, for Schumacher he verified his

hermeneutical findings critically to see if his gather information is compatible with the empirical

evidence.

Even, these two authors are exchanging their ideas or arguments regarding on the situations

that they’re being argued. For example, The Calamba Hacienda Case, according to Schumacher

he did not see this problem or let’s just be specific “The Calamba Hacienda Case” of 1887-1888

was the turning point instead he would rather see Rizal as a separatist at least from the time that
he wrote the Noli. While, for Quibuyen, The Calamba tragedy led Rizal to assume to a more radical

separatist position in the second phase of his political career. Basically, it is hard to choose which

one of them are exactly telling the truth because both of them provides facts and reliable

information and sources. By this, the two authors gave their very best in sharing their insights.

Also, their works is a very big help to the other students who are trying or planning to conduct

research or making a critique paper about the life, works, and writings of Dr. Jose Rizal and the

Filipino nationalism, because both of them provided reliable and stating facts where it can easily

be learned by evaluating properly.

The book intitled “A Nation Aborted: Rizal, American Hegemony”, and “Philippine

Nationalism” by Floro Quibuyen, was being published. In response to Quibuyen’s article where it

tackles about criticism, Schumacher produced or published a book review at the Philippine Studies

(2000), pointing out pointing out the errors in Quibuyen's usage of historical materials and books

in his building of Rizal imagery, and creating another disagreement between the two authors in

this article.

Quibuyen's book, A Nation Aborted: Rizal, American Hegemony, and Philippine

Nationalism, was initially published. In response to Quibuyen's criticism, Schumacher published

a book review in the journal Philippine Studies (Schumacher 2000), pointing out the errors in

Quibuyen's usage of historical materials and books in his building of Rizal imagery, and creating

another disagreement between the two authors in this article. Nothing is wrong on the two authors

both of them are correct. It’s just that there are different with each other on the sources they use

on gathering information. We all know that the ideas of Dr. Jose Rizal cannot be successfully

written immediately because it should be read accordingly all his writings and the historical

context during that time.

 But to ensure that they will provide facts statement about Rizal and Filipino nationalism

they should evaluate correctly the information that they have gathered and compare it if that

information truly happened during the lifetime of Dr. Jose Rizal and also to avoid any

misinterpretation that causes conflicts and arguments. Because once an author immediately wrote

or make any research about the writings of Rizal and Filipino nationalism without reading and

understanding it appropriately it causes panic and misunderstanding to the people who wants to

read it and use it as a review of related literature on their future researches.

REFERENCES

Schumacher, John N. 2000. Rizal and Filipino Nationalism: A New Approach. Quezon City:

Ateneo de Manila University.

Ateneo de Manila University. 2002. Reply of John N. Schumacher to Floro Quibuyen’s Response

to the Review of His A Nation Aborted. Philippine Studies.

Hobee. 2016. Distilled Debates: Quibuyen vs. Schumacher. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila

University Press.