Education and Nationalism: The Modern Relevance of Rizal

Looking back at my journey as a student, I can vividly remember one late

afternoon. I was in 6th grade, attending History class where we were having a
discussion on the national heroes and historical figures of the Philippines. This
particular afternoon is engraved into my memory for two reasons: I coincidentally
share the same name with one of the figures discussed, Fernando Amorsolo; and,
more relevant to this essay, my teacher at the time was very passionate about Rizal.
At one moment he would be talking about the feats of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio
Aguinaldo, and the Katipunan. Then, as if it were absolutely necessary, he would
make an interjection on how the Revolution, and ultimately Philippine independence,
was only possible through Rizal’s intervention via the Noli Me Tángere and El
Filibusterismo. To be fair, the Noli Me Tángere did function as a step towards what
would ultimately become the Philippine Revolution (Schumacher, 1991).

As one might expect, this greatly influenced my perspective on Philippine

history and nationalism, reflecting some of what I believe to be flaws in the education
sector’s efforts to instill nationalism in the newer generations. One of which is the
oversimplification of Rizal’s contributions. A common argument that is raised in
debates regarding the status of national hero is that, complementary to Bonifacio’s
practical efforts in rallying together the Revolutionaries, Rizal fought with pen and
paper; and opened the eyes of the masses with his literary works. While I do not
necessarily think of it as a fallacious argument, I find it to be too “shallow” and not
broadly encompassing enough to capture the entirety of the significance of Rizal’s
contributions.

Rizal’s contributions do not end with him spending hours on end studying and
writing. Although Rizal did not actively participate in the Revolution through armed
resistance, it would be an insult to overlook the patriotism he exuded and instilled in
others via La Solidaridad, the establishment of the La Liga Filipina and the
redefinition of the “Filipino” (Constantino, 1969), and how he could have remained
safe by staying in exile but chose to return to the Philippines to serve his countrymen
not only once in 1887, but even a second time in 1892 (Ravin, 2001). Imagine being
so dedicated to your countrymen and beliefs that you would go as far as to establish
a school in which you would be the sole educator and even do it for free (Soliven,
2019).

In addition, another “flaw” I see in the education sector’s efforts towards

imbuing nationalism is the proliferation of a Luzon-centric history. To be more
specific, so much of an emphasis has been placed on Luzon and Rizal during the
Revolution to the point that other national heroes are overshadowed, sometimes
even erased from the bigger picture of Philippine history. Nationalism involves being
able to identify with one’s nation and devote one’s loyalty to it. However, what kind of
Philippine nationalism is it that the education sector wants to instill when there is
hardly any representation for Visayas and Mindanao in education about the
Philippine Revolution? I would even go as far as to say that this disproportion in
representation serves as a wedge dividing the principal islands of the Philippines.
Representation should not end with Lapu-Lapu and Sultan Kudarat but extend to
Pantaleón Villegas, Nicolas Capistrano, Apolinar Velez, and other overlooked heroes
(Rufus Rodriguez, 2002). This is part of a greater effort towards “the formation of a
society that provides justice and participation not only to the elites of power but every
Filipino” (Ocampo, 1998).

This is not to say Rizal is undeserving of the credit he is given, however. His
nationalist ideas, the cornerstone of his contributions, were so far ahead of his time
that many of them remain relevant to this day. After having been privileged enough
to experience a Rizal course at Ateneo, I have come to realize this further. His
significance as our national hero does not directly stem from the Revolution, but
rather his efforts toward shaping and developing the Filipino’s national identity.

This leads to my final point, in that, alongside the Noli Me Tángere and El
Filibusterismo, the education sector should integrate historical works like Rizal’s
annotation of Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de Las Islas Filipinas into Philippine
education as part of the Rizal Law. As Ocampo (1998) points out, there are, without
a doubt, flaws in Rizal’s construction of pre-colonial Philippine history. For this
reason, rather than as historical facts, the education sector would do well in utilizing
this work as a foundation leading up to the Noli Me Tángere and El Filibusterismo.
Rizal, as evidenced by the effort he put into annotating the Sucesos, believed that a
crucial step toward practicing our nationalism was to establish our origin and develop
an understanding of our past. This was to give justification to our struggles, and give
us a valid claim to our sovereignty; eventually allowing for the cultivation of our
national identity and becoming the masters of our destiny (Schumacher, n.d.).

With the retrogression of historical thinking in our country as evidenced in

public history and the reemergence of historical myths and political conspiracies, it
has become more pertinent than ever before to retrace our roots, locate its
significance in today’s society, and reevaluate our nationalism through Rizal. Without
a primer for historical thinking in our education system, are we really able to paint the
future generations with nationalism? In order to avoid “nationalism” borne from the
politician’s philosophy grounded on loose history, the newer generations of Filipinos
must be taught to embody Rizal’s temperament. This entails seeing him not as
someone who knew all the right answers to every social dilemma, but as a Filipino
who knew the right questions to ask during the most turbulent times in our history.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Constantino R. (1969). Veneration without understanding. National Historical

Commission.

Ocampo, A. (1998). Rizal’s Morga and Views of Philippine History. Philippine

Studies, 46(2), 184-214.
Oaminal, C. P. (2017, April 6). The assassination of Pantaleon Villegas, a.k.a. Gen.

Leon Kilat. Philstar.com.

https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/opinion/2017/04/07/1685018/assassinati

on-pantaleon-villegas-aka-gen-leon-kilat

Ravin, T. (2001). José Rizal: Philippine national hero and ophthalmologist. Arch

Ophthalmol, 119(2), 280–284.

doi:10-1001/pubs.Ophthalmol.-ISSN-0003-9950-119-2-esa00001

Rodriguez, R. (2002). The Philippine revolution in Mindanao. Dialnet.

Schumacher, J. (n.d.) The historian’s task in the Philippines.
Schumacher, J. (1991). The Noli Me Tangere as Catalyst of Revolution.
Soliven, P. S. (2019, July 10). Rediscovering Dr. Jose P. Rizal as a teacher.

Philstar.com.

https://www.philstar.com/other-sections/education-and-home/2019/07/11/1933

856/rediscovering-dr-jose-p-rizal-teacher