See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356717445

‘Oh, gulat ka ‘no?’: An Alternative Perspective on Jose Rizal

Article · December 2021

CITATIONS READS
0 699

1 author:

Jasper Abraham Gondong

Polytechnic University of the Philippines
8 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Compilation of Academic Papers in Life and Works of Rizal (GEED 10013) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jasper Abraham Gondong on 02 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 REFLECTION / POSITION PAPER - The Life and Works of Rizal
Jacinto R. Valila Jr., Associate Professor IV
GEED 10013
Jasper Abraham S. Gondong
2020-05897-MN-0
BS Mechanical Engineering 2-2

‘Oh, gulat ka ‘no?’: An Alternative Perspective on Jose Rizal

“Admiring Rizal without understanding him is a kind

of empty nationalism and blind devotion.”
- Jorge Mojarro

Jose Rizal can be found everywhere. The one-peso coin bears his image. His name can
be found on products and places. Students in high school are required to study his novels Noli
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, and in college, a course on his life and legacy is legally
obligated. On December 30, a regular holiday in the Philippines, Filipinos commemorate his 1896
execution. Everyone will mention Jose Rizal when asked to name a Filipino hero. His (unofficial)
national heroism and 157-year-old ubiquity in our lives are obviously to blame for this.

No law declares Rizal an official national hero, though he is mentioned in some laws as
such. National hero status has never been conferred on any historical figure in the Philippines by
way of legislation, executive order, or proclamation, as stated by the National Commission on
Culture and the Arts (NCCA). A national hero was not even declared as the greatest Filipino hero
of all time, Rizal.

Rizal is a word we associate with the person who gave his life for us, the exceptional
human being we aspire to be, or the Filipino Christ. People continue to revere or laud him for his
contribution to our country’s significant social transformation, and his position in Philippine history
reflects this. To understand why this is happening, one must look at what is taught in Philippine
textbooks, used in secondary and even tertiary schools. The adoration of the said hero’s
greatness has clouded the vision of the Filipino people. This has resulted in society’s misguided
belief in sainthood and perfection, which is shrouded in mystery. However, Renato Constantino’s
essay, Veneration Without Understanding, isn’t one of those articles we see in our elementary
school history books. It’s a much more in-depth look at the life of Rizal and his hero status, the
factors that led him to oppose the idea of the revolution, his recognition, and all the other aspects
 An Alternative Perspective on Jose Rizal

of his life that have been overlooked in history books. There was an identity crisis among the
Filipinos, and to this day, the Filipino people are unable to distinguish themselves as a developing
concept rather than a product of their past adversaries, which has resulted in stagnation in their
development. Rizal, however, is more than what we already know about him. We know who he
is, what he did, and how he died—but how well do we know the man behind the myth?

Reading Veneration Without Understanding made me question my adoration of Jose Rizal

and led me to some surprising conclusions. Are we so fixated on Rizal’s accomplishments that
we’ve forgotten about his flaws in the struggle for Philippine independence? Is he still relevant in
resolving contemporary problems, or is he merely an exaggerated hero? Do we exaggerate our
admiration for his life and works to the point of negating the contributions of other heroes? Is his
rejection of revolution sufficient to disqualify him as a national hero in our country? Do we
genuinely value Rizal’s contributions, or are we simply infatuated with him? And to sum up all of
those questions, does Rizal deserve to be our national hero?

To begin this paper, and to be clear with you, readers, based on some secondary and
tertiary sources I have read, I believe that Jose Rizal is not entirely the hero we often think
he is. Thus, not deserving to be considered as our national hero. Follow me throughout this
paper as I address the issues that have arisen that resulted from this realization.

Constantino’s essay appears to have recurring themes of learning, unlearning, and

relearning history. His way of sustaining the nationalist framework was to debunk the myths
surrounding Rizal’s selection as our “national hero” and his excessive “veneration” in relation to
the role of Spanish and American colonial rule. He uncovered critical arguments that elaborated
on the justifications for Rizal’s undeserving national recognition. This is particularly evident in
several historical instances cited by Constantino in the text.

First, while Rizal is widely regarded as the hero of the Philippines’ 1896 revolution,
Constantino argued that this great image of Rizal overshadowed the early revolutionaries who
were fighting for independence from Spanish colonial rule (which will continue to exist throughout
American rule). As Constantino stated, Rizal had another goal in mind when he refused to join
the revolutionary forces. Rizal sought reform rather than independence. His goal was not to sever
ties with Spain but rather to maintain them, as reform meant equal opportunity for the indigenous
peoples and the Spanish. Rizal was only interested in reforms because his family was a
haciendero who benefited from the system. As Constantino emphasized, he loved the people in
his own ilustrado way. That is why he is just a moment in our history.

2|Page
 An Alternative Perspective on Jose Rizal

Revolution and revenge are not effective ways to abolish Spanish Colonialism, as depicted
by Rizal in Chapter 35 of El Filibusterismo. The lamp, a symbol of revolution, was thrown into a
river, putting an end to the anticipated explosion. After reading the previous chapter, I was
perplexed and irritated by the novel’s plot. “Why did Rizal alter the novel’s plot rather than allowing
the explosion to occur?” I wondered. If the revolution and explosion had taken place, it would
have made for a fantastic novel. Until now, I had no idea it was a symbol of his disapproval of the
Philippine revolutionary masses and movements of his time. He steadfastly refused to join the
revolution and demonstrated its impossibility.

Rizal’s refusal to join revolutionary movements and his desire to have the Philippines
recognized as a Spanish province put Filipinos in a predicament. How many newborns are killed
every day as a result of Colonialism? How many families are losing a father as a result of
Colonialism’s unjust and harsh teeth? How many farmers are deprived of land daily as a result of
Colonialism? Colonialism is responsible for the deaths of an estimated number of Filipinos every
day and Rizal was never able to comprehend Colonialism’s structural violence. And that is why it
is a weak argument (or invalid should I say) to say that Rizal’s opposition to the idea of revolution
is simply because it is bloody, and even though he opposed it, at least he did something by
advocating for equality for Filipinos in the same way that Spaniards are treated. This kind of
reasoning is quite what the Marcos apologists are spreading on social media today. “At least
maraming nagawa!” or “Sus, gawa gawa lang ng mga dilawan ‘yan kasi ‘di naman ganyan ang
naranasan ko noon.” Yes, according to Alvin Campomanes, a history professor at the University
of the Philippines Manila, Marcos did well in the first term of his 20-year administration because
you can see the vision in him. But, in comparison, what has he and his family done to our country
over the last 20 years, and even to this day? That would not make a difference. That does not
change the fact that he remains a dictator, murderer, and thief. The same as, yes, Rizal went on
a “peaceful” way of resistance through his writings, emphasizing the importance of education to
save the country from domination, but it was inequitable to the victims of Spanish Colonialism’s
systematic abuse.

Rizal’s rejection of revolution was a betrayal of the Filipino people. There were many
expectations of him, yet he was not convinced that the solution to the problem of Spanish
Colonialism could be revolution. He did not strive for our independence and decolonization, as
was the goal of the revolution. He wanted nothing more than to see the Spaniards abandon the
Filipinos in their own country once they had achieved equality with them. Due to his inability to
end Colonialism, Rizal failed to achieve real decolonization. He, as a reformer, only demonstrated

3|Page
 An Alternative Perspective on Jose Rizal

our equal status with the Spaniards and gained the right to use the term “Filipino” to describe
ourselves. It was a significant anti-colonial victory because it represented racial equality between
Spaniards and Filipinos. He had lofty goals, but they were out of reach for those who had suffered
under Spanish Colonialism, which he ironically exposed in his works. There were many social
injustices in his time, but Rizal didn’t do anything about them. Even though Filipinos had only one
option at the time, he didn’t speak up for a revolution against the Spanish government. He was
awake and aware but had no guts for movement. He viewed liberty as a privilege for the educated
rather than a fundamental right for all citizens. With regard to Spain, he also held that equality
meant equal opportunity. True equality, on the other hand, necessitates liberty and independence.

Second, In relation to the Philippine revolution, Constantino focused on Rizal’s status as

an ilustrado. Constantino emphasized the ramifications of Rizal’s social class in this passage. As
an ilustrado, Rizal was convinced that education could have a transformative effect. Originally,
education aimed to make Filipinos aware of their social realities to gain certain freedoms, but in
the end, it was restricted to reforms. He was skeptical of the collective action of the Filipino
masses in pursuit of genuine independence. What we see here is a chasm between the views of
the elite and those of the general public. Education itself was a symbol of elitism at the time. As
a result, one is superior to the other. According to Constantino, this is precisely how Rizal (and
other ilustrados) came to be.

Rizal’s approach to the revolution was elitist. He argued that reform, rather than revolution,
is a better option. That is to say; he desired “a silent revolution” or a movement that was free of
bloodshed. Nevertheless, Rizal’s lack of faith in the Filipino people’s movements was evident in
this. That’s what Rizal was saying, and it was a damning indictment of the Filipino people’s
abilities. Rizal’s outlook on life differs from that of a typical peasant or laborer seeking freedom
from oppression. How can a reform have an impact on changing our society’s system if
Colonialism was built through violence? In addition, he held the view that the only way to achieve
freedom was through education. He and the ilustrados believed that education gave them the
authority to speak and lead the society, which invalidated the plans and movements of the majority
of the population. It instilled in them a sense of entitlement, such that they could not accept that
ordinary peasants and workers could move without their orders. Rizal’s status as an ilustrado also
meant that he was upholding the other members of his social class—the elite class—who taught
that they were capable of voicing the aspirations of the Filipino masses. Constantino referred to
Rizal and other ilustrados as “limited Filipinos” because they spoke on behalf of the people but
did not share their culture or ideology. This meant that Rizal did not fully comprehend the

4|Page
 An Alternative Perspective on Jose Rizal

sentiments of the people because the constraints imposed by his upbringing prevented him from
doing so.

“Pen is mightier than the sword” and “Silent movement” mantras influenced by Rizal’s
novels and stand in the revolution have been pathetically adhered to by Filipinos for decades.
These concepts have always been linked to “nationalism.” It is said that Rizal is revered because
he instilled in us the values of non-violence and patriotism without harming anyone. When applied
to nineteenth-century colonization, however, the idea was ill-fitting. The concept did not reflect
Colonialism’s political and economic realities, which were characterized by violence, abuse, and
exploitation. These mantras may be relevant today, but they showed the Filipinos’ adoration for
the country without understanding its colonial history.

Third, after Rizal’s tragic death, we came under American colonial rule, but the interests
of the colonial powers continued to trump those of the Filipino people. This can be seen in the
selection of Rizal as our “national hero” by the Americans, who had lobbied for it. An American-
Philippine commission had been given the task, but it cannot be denied that the Americans
artificially chose this process. Additionally, the majority of the members of the Philippine
Commission were ilustrados. With all of Rizal’s qualifications working in favor of the Americans,
as well as the ilustrados, there was a clear bias towards him.

In 1901, US President William McKinley used a political strategy to sway Filipinos’ anti-
American sentiments in exchange for occupying the Philippine Islands. They reasoned that by
doing so, more Filipinos would express their outrage and resentment toward the Spaniards who
executed Rizal while appreciating the benevolent act of the American colonial officials in providing
them with a great Filipino hero in the person of Rizal. During the presidency of William McKinley,
he established a Philippine Commission that sought to establish a national hero for the Filipinos.
A role model hero revered and emulated by the Filipino people. William Howard Taft, who later
became President of the United States, presided over the Commission. As a result, for various
reasons, the Taft Commission chose Rizal over five other contestants, including Emilio Aguinaldo,
Andres Bonifacio, Apolinario Mabini, Juan, and Marcelo H. del Pilar, whose names are immortal
in Philippine history. Only Marcelo H. del Pilar and Jose Rizal were left in contention after the
Commission decided to drop the other candidates. What are the reasons? Emilio Aguinaldo was
too militant, Andres Bonifacio was too radical, and Apolinario Mabini was too unregenerate. There
had been a great deal of deliberation before Marcelo H del Pilar was selected. But they changed
their minds and chose Rizal as the Filipinos’ national hero.

5|Page
 An Alternative Perspective on Jose Rizal

Now, why did the Americans choose Rizal? Rizal’s status as a “national hero” was
bestowed for two primary reasons. One is that he was a reformist who opposed the goal of the
Philippine revolution to gain independence. The Americans viewed this as a benefit because they
avoided dealing with a series of revolts against the Filipino masses. This could also be because
Rizal was a staunch supporter of the importance of education, which is also very American in
nature. Thus, even in selecting our national hero, the Americans retained power and control, and
the elite class (albeit with pseudo-power and control) continued to predominate even under
American colonial rule–completely obliterating the voice of the Filipino masses.

Although these issues have haunted some pro-Rizal historians, Rizal’s exalted position
remains unshaken. As Constantino stated, Rizal’s significance will not be diminished by lessening
the reverence accorded to his image. His stance on education, for example, is pertinent to the
current state of education, which promotes students’ critical thinking abilities and the practice of
knowledge acquisition and expression, even more so given the continued infiltration of colonial
mentality into studies and concepts. While I agree with Constantino that Rizal is only a moment in
our history, I do not believe that his contributions to the past or present are any less significant
because of this. Even in different stages or reasonings, his historical actions have had the same
impact on the people’s minds as those of other heroic figures like Andres Bonifacio or Emilio
Jacinto.

It’s not necessary to deny Rizal, but rather to demote him from the pedestal’s most
prominent figure to merely one of the many statues on the pedestal. Although the past influences
the present, many other factors influence the present, and the past is only one of them. The
tendency of relying on an individual image to spell out national identity and current national goals
must be eradicated entirely by considering our history’s heroic figures and the incoming ones on
an equal footing and whose representations are appropriated within the context of their time and
the context of themselves, in parallel with current happenings even if not necessarily national
experiences as a whole. Instead, we should focus on creating a group of national heroes whose
works and historical significance are studied in equal measure as part of mass action and mass
representation for their time, rather than having a single national hero. After all, these heroes
would be nothing if not for the millions of people who are actively engaged in the fight for their
liberty because power lies on the people and not on any outstanding individual.

Constantino did not give Rizal the credit he deserved; instead, he critiqued Rizal as a
product of his time. He stated unequivocally that even if Rizal died, the Filipino patriotic movement
would continue with another figure to take his place, because Rizal did not shape the outcome.

6|Page
 An Alternative Perspective on Jose Rizal

History needs to be viewed with fresh eyes and with the truth in mind, and Constantino’s
essay is an excellent reminder of this. These myths in Philippine history were broken using a
nationalist framework, and he discovered the inequalities and specific frameworks of thinking
that these myths engendered. I understand how difficult and shocking it is to be confronted with
a new idea that contradicts our beliefs. Still, we cannot deny that Constantino provided a
compelling alternate perspective on a well-known figure of the country’s history, that he is not
entirely the hero we often think he is. Constantino’s title refers to us, people who adored Rizal
until they realized the true meaning of national heroism. The more we learn about the past and
the patterns that have emerged over time, the more we can appreciate what is happening now.
Especially today, with Americans and Chinese governments meddling in our national affairs, we
need a de-colonized Indio to represent the masses, be with the masses, and speak for the
masses.

7|Page
 An Alternative Perspective on Jose Rizal

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Apostol, J. (2020, December 30). Rizal: The American Sponsored Hero in Question?

JooThemes.Net News One Joomla! 3 Template with Premium Quickstart. Retrieved

November 30, 2021, from https://www.fil-mis.org/index.php/blog-top-menu/j-apostol

Constantino, R. (1969). Veneration without understanding. Manila: National Historical

Commission.

News5Everywhere. (2017, March 24). Martial Law Myths Busted | History [Video]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUfeatNvseI&t=262s

8|Page

View publication stats