Awts
Reflections on the Veneration Without Understanding
Rizal should not be the national hero of the Philippines. This was Renato Constantino’s thesis in his 1969 work. He reasons out that though Rizal’s greatness is unquestionable, but his nationalistic interests are doubtful. According to Constantino, Rizal’s repudiation of the revolution has been glossed over in the history books and should therefore constitute as unnationationalist behaviour by the national hero. He further points out that Rizal’s elevation to a national hero was a product of the American intervention. During the American Philippine Commission of the 1900’s, the Commission was in search of a Philippine personality who abhors the idea of revolution and instead, someone who embraces governmental reforms in the form of peaceful means. Rizal fits perfectly this description of passiveness and was elevated to his status of prestige and reverence. This measure assured the American colonizers an unmitigated colonization of the archipelago since the Filipinos would emulate Rizal’s passiveness and be focused on bringing down the Spanish colonizers. Aside from being called an American-sponsored hero, Constantino also labelled Rizal a limited hero. He reasons out that Rizal’s elitist and upper class upbringing has inevitably shaped his ideology and limited his grasp of the social reality that the lower classes face. According to Constantino, it was because of this limitation that consequently fashioned Rizal’s aspiration for the Philippines to formally be recognized as a Spanish province rather than a colony. He treated this as another repudiation of the separatist movement that fuelled that Katipunan revolt.
Constantino’s arguments, at the time and even in the present, are controversial and radical. I very much appreciated the coherency of the flow of today’s discussion for it clarified much of my questions and objections I had on this article. Historians, in their writing of history, should be
Rizal should not be the national hero of the Philippines. This was Renato Constantino’s thesis in his 1969 work. He reasons out that though Rizal’s greatness is unquestionable, but his nationalistic interests are doubtful. According to Constantino, Rizal’s repudiation of the revolution has been glossed over in the history books and should therefore constitute as unnationationalist behaviour by the national hero. He further points out that Rizal’s elevation to a national hero was a product of the American intervention. During the American Philippine Commission of the 1900’s, the Commission was in search of a Philippine personality who abhors the idea of revolution and instead, someone who embraces governmental reforms in the form of peaceful means. Rizal fits perfectly this description of passiveness and was elevated to his status of prestige and reverence. This measure assured the American colonizers an unmitigated colonization of the archipelago since the Filipinos would emulate Rizal’s passiveness and be focused on bringing down the Spanish colonizers. Aside from being called an American-sponsored hero, Constantino also labelled Rizal a limited hero. He reasons out that Rizal’s elitist and upper class upbringing has inevitably shaped his ideology and limited his grasp of the social reality that the lower classes face. According to Constantino, it was because of this limitation that consequently fashioned Rizal’s aspiration for the Philippines to formally be recognized as a Spanish province rather than a colony. He treated this as another repudiation of the separatist movement that fuelled that Katipunan revolt.
Constantino’s arguments, at the time and even in the present, are controversial and radical. I very much appreciated the coherency of the flow of today’s discussion for it clarified much of my questions and objections I had on this article. Historians, in their writing of history, should be