Is Rizal for you, the National Hero?

 

Credits to the original owner, found it in Jose Rizal: The Filipinos’ Bayani – P.Jacinto (wordpress.com) 

                                          Is Rizal for you, the National Hero?

        We are not unbeknownst about the fact that Jose Rizal is very popular and has been in every part of a Filipino college student’s voyage of learning, especially that the Republic Act 1425 or the mandatory Rizal Course was included and imposed in all of the Filipino Universities Curricula. Rizal’s heroic acts, life, and works are demonstrated in the school’s history textbooks. Filipinos and non-Filipinos alike recognized him as a figure of goodness because of how he displayed his love for his country and battled for its freedom in a nonviolent manner- which is through writing. Most of his works, especially the El Filibusterismo and Noli Me Tangere were seen as the inspiration for other patriots to unite in support of the country's freedom. Of all the remarkable writings and teachings Rizal has imparted, there are still some historians who do not acknowledge Rizal as the national hero. They are discontented on what he did and questioned his significant participation in the “revolution” and his fight for the country’s liberty. When it comes to the actual involvement of Jose Rizal in the Philippine Revolution, it remains an issue and a controversy. 

        The notion that Rizal was an American-sponsored hero gave rise because he was being recognized as the National hero of the Philippines through the proposal of Governor William Howard Taft and as a result of assistance and sponsorship of the Americans. In the pamphlet published by Constantino entitled “Veneration Without Understanding” it was being stated there that the American colonizers showed great efforts to declare and emphasized Jose Rizal to the whole Philippines as a national hero by placing his face in the currency and postage stamps and by implementing the Philippine Commission Acts such as Act No. 137 which designated the district of Morong to be named the province of Rizal, Act No.243 which authorized a monument in honor of Rizal at Luneta, and Act No. 346 declaring the death anniversary of Rizal in December 30, “the day of observance”. Based on the book “Between Two Empires'', the Americans rejected Aguinaldo for the reason that he was “too militant”, Bonifacio regarded as “too radical” and Mabini being “unregenerate”. Of all of those other notable heroes mentioned, why did the Americans choose to sponsor only Rizal and elevate his status as the national hero? They wanted Rizal because he was appropriate for what they wanted to promote, a hero who does not advocate for eager independence and is not into using violence and resistance to the government. The American colonizers think that if they sponsor Rizal, they will get the sympathy of Filipino people for giving them a patriotic hero who was being oppressed and executed by the Spaniards. By this, they will evoke the feelings of hatred of Filipinos towards Spanish Colonization and the praises will be granted to them. They saw RIzal as the ideal "fit" for their plan to make American rule stronger. Making Rizal a national hero would help the Filipino people understand the good intentions of the Americans and, of course, persuade a few resistance groups still engaged in armed resistance to halt their hostilities. Rizal was already a hero before the Americans arrived in the Philippines. He was named our national hero not because an American pronounced him so, but because of his extraordinary heroic deeds. He used pen and paper over swords. His battle was the most subtle yet effective. He used his insight and knowledge to create amazing writing masterpieces. These works reawakened Filipino nationalism, because it depicts themes like social class oppression, religion use as a weapon and hypocrisy of the church which is why many people fought for freedom. For me, he was important in shaping who we are now. 

        Personally, I acknowledge Rizal as a national hero, it doesn’t matter if he was funded by Americans or not, I unquestionably still continue to honor him as a national hero because of what he did based on his narratives that I have read. In the heart of the Filipinos, he was a long great hero even before the American Colonizers conquered the Philippines. No law can be imposed or sponsorship can be used to define heroism. If the people of the country don’t recognize someone as a hero, but the law encourages and dictates to follow it (the proposed hero didn’t do remarkable heroic deeds and only acts based on his self interest), then that’s unacceptable and he is not a true hero. The force of the law cannot automatically transform someone into a hero. Rizal's ultimate deed—giving his life in defense of his nation—is what truly distinguishes him as a hero. Everybody who gives their life to protect their countrymen's freedom should be hailed as a hero. That was what Rizal did, being executed for doing something that would make the Filipino People be awakened of what’s happening in their society. In the readings provided, it was said there that Rizal did not participate with the revolution and in fact was even against the thought of it. But Rizal was just thinking critically and hesitant because he knew that the Filipinos are still not prepared and most must need education. I believe that though he refused to lead the revolution and did not use sharp weapons to defend the Philippines against Spain, he did fuel the Katipuneros to fight the oppressors for freedom and independence. 

        A critical understanding of our history is very crucial because it will show how a misinterpretation of the past can affect the present. Trying to unravel the past forces us to acknowledge that the present is also the future. We should review the past in order to critically grasp the history and to be able to pass the evaluation to the next generation, where they will also do their own re-evaluation based on the information that we passed to them. Just like reviewing the historical heroes, this re-evaluation may result in the downgrading of some heroes and perhaps the elimination of others. It cannot even spare Rizal. Since he has to some extent integrated himself into the superstructure that upholds current consciousness, the re-evaluation of his flaws and limitations will also signify our liberation. Because of this, analyzing Rizal critically must result in a revision of our perceptions of history and the place of the individual in it.