Do you agree with Rizal's presentation of our pre-colonial history?

Why or why
not?

Yes, I agree. Rizal's opinions on pre-colonial history are wholly grounded in reality. In Rizal's
view, the bloated Spanish colonial bureaucracy oppressed the Filipinos on a regular basis while
attributing their underdevelopment on presumptive laziness. Rizal refuted this idea using reason
and historical data. Rizal looked to pre-colonial history to refute the colonialist perception of the
laziness of the Filipino people. The data suggested that pre-colonial Filipino culture was
relatively advanced, suggesting that colonization was to blame for the culture's apparent
backwardness. Obviously, the colonial policy was oppressive, notwithstanding the claims made
by the authoritarian colonial administration and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
These are the facts of our pre-colonial history; Filipinos are not to blame for their misfortunes
because they are not masters of their fate. Rizal referred to the friars and propagators of light as
"boasted ministers of God." The neighboring trades have been stopped, and Filipinos are being
forced to work. They are nonetheless branded as clones and indolent. These arguments were
ignored by Rizal's critics, who insisted that the way he was portrayed was inaccurate and
unimportant.

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

Through his observations and research, Rizal was able to envision the pre-colonial
Filipinos. Syed Hussein Alatas considered Rizal's highly insightful views to be the first
sociological examination of the subject. According to Rizal, the rulers of a country
without rights should be held responsible for their citizens' suffering rather than the
citizens themselves. Rizal looked to pre-colonial history to refute the European
perception of the laziness of the Filipinos. Rizal was aware that the indolence of the
Filipinos was cited as the cause of their backwardness in Spanish colonial discourse.
The Spaniards claimed that Filipinos disdained work. However, the refusal of Filipinos to
work the land under the control of feudal overseers was considered to be the result of
their inherent sloth. Filipinos, according to Rizal, are not inherently indolent. Additionally,
laziness was not to be considered a factor in determining backwardness. Instead, the
exploitative conditions of colonial civilization led to indolence.