|
Veneration
Without Understanding
by
Renato Constantino
(chapter 9 of his book, Dissent and Counter-Consciousness)
In
the histories of many nations, the national revolution represents a
peak of achievement to which the minds of man return time and again
in reverence and for a renewal of faith in freedom. For the national
revolution is invariably the one period in a nation's history when
the people were most united, most involved, and most decisively
active in the fight for freedom. It is not to be wondered at,
therefore, that almost always the leader of that revolution becomes
the principal hero of his people. There is Washington for the United
States, Lenin for the Soviet Union, Bolivar for Latin America, Sun
Yat Sen, then Mao Tse-Tung for China and Ho Chi Minh for Vietnam.
The unity between the venerated mass action and the honored single
individual enhances the influence of both. In our case, our national
hero was not the leader of our Revolution. In fact, he repudiated
that Revolution. In no uncertain terms he placed himself against
Bonifacio and those Filipinos who were fighting for the country's
liberty. In fact, when he was arrested he was on his way to Cuba to
use his med- [p. 125] ical skills in the service of Spain. And in
the manifesto of December 15, 1896 which he addressed to the
Filipino people, he declared: From the very beginning, when I first
had notice of what was being planned, I opposed it, fought it, and
demonstrated its absolute impossibility. I did even more. When
later, against my advice, the movement materialized, of my own
accord I offered my good offices, but my very life, and even my
name, to be used in whatever way might seem best, toward stifling
the rebellion; for convinced of the ills which it would bring, I
considered myself fortunate if, at any sacrifice, I could prevent
such useless misfortune…. I have written also (and I repeat my
words) that reforms, to be beneficial, must come from above, and
those which comes from below are irregularly gained and uncertain.
Holding these ideas, I cannot do less than condemn, and I do condemn
this uprising-which dishonors us Filipinos and discredits those that
could plead our cause. I abhor its criminal methods and disclaim all
part in it, pitying from the bottom of my heart the unwary that have
been deceived into taking part in it. [1]
Rizal and The Revolution
Rizal's refusal to align himself with the revolutionary forces and
his vehement condemnation of the mass movement and of its leaders
have placed Filipinos in a dilemma. Either the Revolution was wrong,
yet we cannot disown it, or Rizal was wrong, yet we cannot disown
him either. By and large, we have chosen to ignore this apparent
contradiction. Rizalists, especially, have taken the easy way out,
which is to gloss over the matter. They have treated Rizal's
condemnation of the Katipunan as a skeleton in his closet and have
been responsible for the "silent treatment" on his
unequivocal position against the Revolution. To my knowledge, there
has been no extensive analysis of the question. For some Rizalists,
this aspect of Rizal has been a source of embarrassment inasmuch as
they picture him as the supreme symbol of our struggle for freedom.
Other in fact [p. 126] privately agree with his stand as evidenced
by their emphasis on the gradualism of Rizal's teachings
particularly his insistence on the primacy of education. They would
probably praise Rizal's stand against the Revolution, if they dared.
Since they do not dare for themselves, the are also prudently silent
for Rizal's sake. Others, careless and superficial in their approach
to history and perhaps afraid to stir a hornet's nest of
controversy, do not think it important to dwell on this
contradiction between our Revolution and our national hero and elect
to leave well enough alone. Perhaps they do not perceive the adverse
consequences of our refusal to analyze and resolve this
contradiction. Yet the consequences are manifest in our regard for
our Revolution and in our understanding of Rizal. The Philippine
Revolution has always been overshadowed by the omnipresent figure
and the towering reputation of Rizal. Because Rizal took no part in
that Revolution and in fact repudiated it, the general regard for
our Revolution is not as high as it otherwise would be. On the other
hand, because we refuse to analyze the significance of his
repudiation, our understanding of Rizal and of his role in our
national development remains superficial. This is a disservice to
the event, to the man, and to ourselves. Viewed superficially,
Rizal's reaction toward the Revolution is unexpected, coming as it
did from a man whose life and labors were supposed to have been
dedicated to the cause of his country's freedom. Had someone of
lesser stature uttered those words of condemnation, he would have
been considered a traitor to the cause. As a matter of fact, those
words were treasonous in the light of the Filipinos' struggle
against Spain. Rizal repudiated the one act which really synthesized
our nationalist aspiration, and yet we consider him a nationalist
leader. Such an appraisal has dangerous implications because it can
be used to exculpate those who actively betrayed the Revolution and
may serve to diminish the ardor of those who today may be called
upon to support another great nationalist undertaking to complete
the anti-colonial movement.
An American-Sponsored Hero
We have magnified Rizal's role to such an extent that we have lost
our sense of proportion and relegated to a subordinate position our
other great men and the historic events in [p.127] which they took
part. Although Rizal was already a revered figure and became more so
after his martyrdom, it cannot be denied that his pre-eminence among
our heroes was partly the result of American sponsorship. This
sponsorship took two forms: on one hand, that of encouraging a Rizal
cult, on the other, that of minimizing the importance of other
heroes or even of vilifying them. There is no question that Rizal
had the qualities of greatness. History cannot deny his patriotism.
He was a martyr to oppression, obscurantism and bigotry. His
dramatic death captured the imagination of our people. Still, we
must accept the fact that his formal designation as our national
hero, his elevation to his present eminence so far above all our
other heroes was abetted and encouraged by the Americans.
It was Governor William Howard Taft who in 1901 suggested that the
Philippine Commission that the Filipinos be given a national hero.
The Free Press of December 28, 1946 gives this account of a meeting
of the Philippine Commission: 'And now, gentlemen, you must have a
national hero.' In these fateful words, addressed by then Civil
Governor W. H. Taft to the Filipino members of the civil commission,
Pardo de Tavera, Legarda, and Luzuriaga, lay the genesis of Rizal
Day….. 'In the subsequent discussion in which the rival merits of
the revolutionary heroes were considered, the final choice-now
universally acclaimed as a wise one-was Rizal. And so was history
made.' Theodore Friend in his book, Between Two Empires, says that
Taft "with other American colonial officials and some
conservative Filipinos, chose him (Rizal) as a model hero over other
contestants - Aguinaldo too militant, Bonifacio too radical, Mabini
unregenerate." [2] This decision to sponsor Rizal was
implemented with the passage of the following Acts of the Philippine
Commission: (1) Act No. 137 which organized the politico-military
district of Morong and named it the province of Rizal "in honor
of the most illustrious Filipino and the most illustrious Tagalog
the islands had ever known, " (2) Act No.243 which authorized a
public subscription for the erection of a monument in honor or Rizal
at the Luneta, and (3) Act No. 346 [p.128] which set aside the
anniversary of his death as a day of observance. This early example
of American "aid" is summarized by Governor W. Cameron
Forbes who wrote in his book, The Philippine Islands: It is
eminently proper that Rizal should have become the acknowledged
national hero of the Philippine people. The American administration
has lent every assistance to this recognition, setting aside the
anniversary of his death to be a day of observance, placing his
picture on the postage stamp most commonly used in the islands, and
on the currency …. And throughout the islands the public schools
tech the young Filipinos to revere his memory as the greatest of
Filipino patriots. (Underscoring supplied) [3] The reason for the
enthusiastic American attitude becomes clear in the following
appraisal of Rizal by Forbes: Rizal never advocated independence,
nor did he advocate armed resistance to the government. He urged
reform from within by publicity, by public education, and appeal to
the public conscience. (Underscoring supplied) [4]
Taft's appreciation for Rizal has much the same basis, as evidenced
by his calling Rizal "the greatest Filipino, a physician, a
novelist and a poet (who) because of his struggle for a betterment
of conditions under Spanish rule was unjustly convicted and shot….
" The public image that the American desired for a Filipino
national hero was quite clear. They favored a hero who would not run
against the grain of American colonial policy. We must take these
acts of the Americans in furtherance of a Rizal cult in the light of
their initial policies which required the passage of the Sedition
Law prohibiting the display of the Filipino flag. The heroes who
advocated independence were therefore ignored. For to have
encouraged a movement to revere Bonifacio or Mabini would not have
been consistent with American colonial policy. Several factors
contributed to Rizal's acceptability to the [p.129] Americans as the
official hero of the Filipinos. In the first place, he was safely
dead by the time the American began their aggression. No
embarrassing anti-American quotations could ever be attributed to
him. Moreover, Rizal's dramatic martyrdom had already made him the
symbol of Spanish oppression. To focus attention on him would serve
not only to concentrate Filipino hatred against the erstwhile
oppressors, it would also blunt their feelings of animosity toward
the new conquerors against whom there was still organized resistance
at that time. His choice was a master stroke by the Americans. The
honors bestowed on Rizal were naturally appreciated by the Filipinos
who were proud of him. At the same time, the attention lavished on
Rizal relegated other heroes to the background-heroes whose
revolutionary example and anti-American pronouncements might have
stiffened Filipino resistance to the new conquerors. The Americans
especially emphasized the fact that Rizal was a reformer, not a
separatist. He could therefore not be invoked on the question of
Philippine independence. He could not be a rallying point in the
resistance against the invaders. It must also be remembered that the
Filipino members of the Philippine Commission were conservative
ilustrados. The Americans regarded Rizal as belonging to this class.
This was, therefore, one more point in his favor. Rizal belonged to
the right social class — the class that they were cultivating and
building up for leadership. It may be argued that, faced with the
humiliation of a second colonization, we as a people felt the need
for a super-hero to bolster the national ego and we therefore
allowed ourselves to be propagandized in favor of one acceptable to
the colonizer. Be that as it may, certainly it is now time for us to
view Rizal with more rationality and with more historicity. This
need not alarm anyone but the blind worshipper. Rizal will still
occupy a good position in our national pantheon even if we discard
hagiolatry and subject him to a more mature historical evaluation. A
proper understanding of our history is very important to us because
it will serve to demonstrate how our present has been distorted by a
faulty knowledge of our past. By unraveling the past we become
confronted with the present already as [p.130] future. Such a
re-evaluation may result in a down-grading of some heroes and even a
discarding of others. It cannot spare even Rizal. The exposure of
his weaknesses and limitations will also mean our liberation, for he
has, to a certain extent become part of the superstructure that
supports present consciousness. That is why a critical evaluation of
Rizal cannot but lead to a revision of our understanding of history
and of the role of the individual in history. Orthodox historians
have presented history as a succession of exploits of eminent
personalities, leading many of us to regard history as the product
of gifted individuals. This tendency is strongly noticeable in those
who have tried of late to manufacture new heroes through press
releases, by the creation of foundations, or by the proclamation of
centennial celebrations. Though such tactics may succeed for a
limited period, they cannot insure immortality where there exists no
solid basis for it. In the case of Rizal, while he was favored by
colonial support and became good copy for propagandists, he had the
qualifications to assume immortality. It must be admitted however,
that the study of his life and works has developed into a cult
distorting the role and the place of Rizal in our history. The
uncritical attitude of his cultists has been greatly responsible for
transforming biographers into hagiographers. His weaknesses and
errors have been subtly underplayed and his virtues grossly
exaggerated. In this connection, one might ask the question, wht
would have happened if Rizal had not been executed in December of
1896? Would the course of the Philippine Revolution have been
different? This poses the question of the role of the individual in
history. Was this historical phase of our libertarian struggle due
to Rizal? Did the propagandists of the 19th century create the
period or were they created by the period.
The Role of Heroes
With or without these specific individuals the social relations
engendered by Spanish colonialism and the subsequent economic
development of the country would have produced the nationalist
movement. Without Rizal there would have developed other talents.
Without Del Pilar another propagandist would have emerged. That
Rizal possessed a particular talent which influenced the style of
the period was accidental. That [p. 131] he was executed on December
30 only added more drama to the events of the period. If there had
been no Rizal, another type of talent would have appeared who might
have given a different style to the historic struggle; but the
general trend engendered by the particular social relations would
have remained the same. Without Rizal there may have been a delay in
the maturation of our libertarian struggle, but the economic
development of the period would have insured the same result. Rizal
maybe accelerated it. Rizal may have given form and articulation and
color to the aspirations of the people. But even without him, the
nationalist struggle would have ensued. This is likewise true in the
case of present-day national liberation movements. The fundamental
cause of mass action is not the utterances of a leader; rather,
these leaders have been impelled to action by historical forces
unleashed by social development. We must therefore not fall into the
error of projecting the role of the individual to the extent of
denying the play of these forces as well as the creative energies of
the people who are the true makers of their own history. Because
Rizal had certain qualities, he was able to serve the pressing
social needs of the period, needs that arose out of general and
particular historical forces. He is a hero in the sense that he was
able to see the problems generated by historical forces, discern the
new social needs created by the historical development of new social
relationships, and take an active part in meeting these needs. But
he is not a hero in the sense that he could have stopped and altered
the course of events. The truth of this statement is demonstrated by
the fact that the Revolution broke out despite his refusal to lead
it and continued despite his condemnation of it. Rizal served his
people by consciously articulating the unconscious course of events.
He saw more clearly than his contemporaries and felt with more
intensity the problems of his country, though his viewpoint was
delimited by his particular status and upbringing. He was the first
Filipino but he was only a limited Filipino, the ilustrado Filipino
who fought for national unity but feared the Revolution and loved
his mother country, yes, but in his own ilustrado way. Though we
assert that the general course of history is not directed by the
desires or ideas of particular men, we must not [p. 132] fall into
the error of thinking that because history can proceed independently
of individuals it can proceed independently of men. The fact is that
history is made by men who confront the problems of social progress
and try to solve them in accordance with the historical conditions
of their epoch. They set their tasks in conformity with the given
conditions of their times. The closer the correspondence between a
man's perception of reality and reality itself, the greater the man.
The deeper his commitment to the people's cause in his own time as
evidence by his life and deeds. Hence, for a deeper understanding
and a more precise evaluation of Rizal as Filipino and as hero, we
must examine at some length the period during which Rizal lived.
Innovation and Change
Rizal lived in a period of great economic changes. These were
inevitably accompanied by cultural and political ferment. The
country was undergoing grave and deep alterations which resulted in
a national awakening. The English occupation of the country, the end
of the galleon trade, and the Latin-American revolutions of that
time were all factors which led to an economic re-thinking by
liberal Spanish officials. The establishment of non-Hispanic
commercial houses broke the insular belt that had circumscribed
Philippine life for almost two centuries and a half. The middle of
the 19th century saw 51 shipping and commercial houses in Manila, 12
of which were American and non-Hispanic European. These non-Spanish
houses practically monopolized the import-export trade. The opening
of the ports of Sual, Cebu, Zamboanga, Legaspi and Tacloban, all
during the second half of the 19th century, enabled these
non-Spanish interests to establish branches beyond the capital city,
thus further increasing cosmopolitan penetration. [5] European and
American financing were vital agents in the emerging export economy.
Merchants gave crop advances to indio and Chinese-mestizo
cultivators, resulting in increased surpluses of agricultural export
products. The Chinese received loans for the distribution of
European goods and the collection of Philippine produce for shipment
abroad. Abaca and sugar became prime exports during this period as a
result of these European and American entrepreneurial activities.
The Transformation of the sugar industry due to financing and the
in- [p.133] troduction of steam-powered milling equipment increased
sugar production from 3,000 piculs in mid-19th century to nearly
2,000,000 piculs in four decades. [6] These economic developments
inevitably led to improvement in communications. The infra-structure
program of the Spanish government resulted in a moderately
functional road system. The third quarter of the century saw the
opening of railroad lines. The steamship effected both internal and
external linkages, postal services improved, the telegraph was
inaugurated in 1873, and by 1880, we were connected with the world
by a submarine cable to Hong Kong. Manila's water system was
modernized in 1870; we had street cars in 1881 and telephone and
electric lights in the metropolitan region during the same period.
Material progress set the stage for cultural and social changes,
among them the cultivation of cosmopolitan attitudes and heightened
opposition to clerical control. Liberalism had invaded the country
as a result of the reduction of the Spain-Manila voyage to thirty
days after the opening of the Suez canal. The mestizo that developed
became the crude ideological framework of the ferment among the
affluent indios and mestizos. [7]
The Ideological Framework
Economic prosperity spawned discontent when the native beneficiaries
saw a new world of affluence opening for themselves and their class.
They attained a new consciousness and hence, a new goal - that of
equality with the peninsulares - not in the abstract, but in
practical economic and political terms. Hispanization became the
conscious manifestation of economic struggle, of the desire to
realize the potentialities offered by the period of expansion and
progress. Hispanization and assimilation constituted the ideological
expression of the economic motivations of affluent indios and
mestizos. Equality with the Spaniard meant equality of opportunity.
But they did not realize as yet that real equality must be based on
national freedom and independence. The were still in the initial
phases of nationalist consciousness - a consciousness made possible
by the market situation of the time. The lordly friar who had been
partly responsible for the isolation of the islands became the
target of attacks. Anti-clericalism became the ideological style of
the period. [p. 134] These then were the salient economic and
ideological features of Rizal's time. A true historical review would
prove that great men are those who read the time and have a deeper
understanding of reality. It is their insights that make them
conversant with their periods and which enable them to articulate
the needs of the people. To a large extent, Rizal, the ilustrado,
fulfilled this function, for in voicing the goals of his class he
had to include the aspirations of the entire people. Though the aims
of this class were limited to reformist measures, he expressed its
demands in terms of human liberty and human dignity and thus
encompassed the wider aspirations of all the people. This is not to
say that he was conscious that these were class goals; rather, that
typical of his class, he equated class interest with people's
welfare. He did this in good faith, unaware of any basic
contradictions between the two. He was the product of his society
and as such could be expected to voice only those aims that were
within the competence of his class. Moreover, social contradictions
had not ripened sufficiently in his time to reveal clearly the
essential disparateness between class and national goals. Neither
could he have transcended his class limitations, for his cultural
upbringing was such that affection for Spain and Spanish
civilization precluded the idea of breaking the chains of
colonialism. He had to become a Spaniard first before becoming a
Filipino. [8] As a social commentator, as the exposer of oppression,
he performed a remarkable task. His writings were part of the
tradition of protest which blossomed into revolution, into a
separatist movement. His original aim of elevating the indio to the
level of Hispanization of the peninsular so that the country could
be assimilated, could become a province of Spain, was transformed
into its opposite. Instead of making the Filipinos closer to Spain,
the propaganda gave root to separation. The drive for Hispanization
was transformed into the development of a distinct national
consciousness. Rizal contributed much to the growth of this national
consciousness. It was a contribution not only in terms of propaganda
but in something positive that the present generation of Filipinos
will owe to him and for which they will honor him by completing the
task which he so nobly began. He may have had a different and
limited goal at the time, a goal that for us is already passe,
something we take for granted. However, for [p.135] his time this
limited goal was already a big step in the right direction. This
contribution was in the realm of Filipino nationhood - the winning
of our name as a race, the recognition of our people as one, and the
elevation of the indio into Filipino.
The Concept of Filipino Nationhood
This was a victory in the realm of consciousness, a victory in a
racial sense. However, it was only a partial gain, for Rizal
repudiated real de-colonization. Beguiled by the new colonizer, most
Filipinos followed the example of Rizal. As a consequence, the
development of the concept of national consciousness stopped short
of real de-colonization and we have not yet distinguished the true
Filipino from the incipient Filipino. The concept of Filipino
nationhood is an important tool of analysis as well as a conceptual
weapon of struggle. There are many Filipinos who do not realize they
are Fiipinos only in the old cultural, racial sense. They are not
aware of the term Filipino as a developing concept. Much less are
they aware that today social conditions demand that the true
Filipino be one who is consciously striving for de-colonization and
independence. Perhaps it would be useful at this point to discuss in
some detail the metamorphosis of the term Filipino not just as a
matter of historical information but so that we may realize the
importance of Rizal's contribution in this regard. Even more
valuable are the insights we may gain into the inter-dependence
between material conditions and consciousness as manifested in the
evolution of the word Filipino in terms of its widening
applicability and deeper significance through succeeding periods of
our history. It is important to bear in mind that the term Filipino
originally referred to the creoles - the Spaniards born in the
Philippines - the Españoles-Filipinos or Filipinos, for short. The
natives were called indios. Spanish mestizos who could pass off for
white claimed to be creoles and therefore Filipinos. Towards the
last quarter of the 19th century, Hispanized and urbanized indios
along with Spanish mestizos and sangley [Chinese - rly] mestizos
began to call themselves Filipinos, especially after the abolition
of the tribute lists in the 1880s and the economic [p. 136] growth
of the period. We must also correct the common impression that the
Filipinos who were in Spain during the Propaganda Period were all
indios. In fact, the original Circulo Hispano-Filipino was dominated
by creoles and peninsulares. The Filipino community in Spain during
the 1880's was a conglomerate of creoles, Spanish mestizos and sons
of urbanized indios and Chinese mestizos. [9] This community came
out with an organ called España en Filipinas which sought to take
the place of th earlier Revista Circulo Hispano Filipino founded by
another creole Juan Atayde. España en Filipinas was mainly an
undertaking of Spanish and Spanish mestizos. The only non-Spaniard
in the staff was Baldomero Roxas. Its first issue came out in 1887.
It was "moderate" in tone and failed to win the sympathy
of the native elements. In a letter to Rizal, Lopez-Jaena criticized
it in these words: From day to day I am becoming convinced that our
countrymen, the mestizos, far from working for the common welfare,
follow the policy of their predecessors, the Azcarragas. [10] Lopez-Jaena
was referring to the Azcarraga brothers who had held important
positions in the Philippines and in Spain, but who, though they had
been born here, showed more sympathy for the peninsulares. It is
fortunate that a street wich was once named for one of them has
become Claro M. Recto today. Differences between the creoles and the
"genuine" Filipinos as they called themselves, soon set
in. It was at this time that Rizal and other indios in Paris began
to use the term indios bravos, thus "transforming an epithet
into a badge of honor." The cleavage in the Filipino colony
abroad ushered in a new period of the Propaganda which may be said
to have had its formal beginning with the birth of La Solidaridad.
Its leaders were indios. The editor was not a creole like Lete or a
Spanish mestizo like Llorente but Lopez-Jaena and later Marcelo H.
del Pilar. La Solidaridad espoused the cause of liberalism and
fought for democratic solutions to the problems that beset the
Spanish colonies. From the declaration of aims and policies the
class basis of the Propaganda is quite obvious. The reformists could
not [p. 137] shake off their Spanish orientation. They wanted
accommodation within the ruling system. Rizal's own reformism is
evident in this excerpt from his letter to Blumentritt: ….under
the present circumstances, we do not want separation from Spain. All
that we ask is greater attention, better education, better
government employees, one or two representatives and greater
security for our persons and property. Spain could always win the
appreciation of the Filipinos if she were only reasonable! [11] The
indios led by Rizal gained acceptability as Filipinos because they
proved their equality with the Spaniards in terms of both culture
and property. This was an important stage in our appropriation of
the term Filipino. Rizal's intellectual excellence paved the way for
the winning of the name for the natives of the land. It was an
unconscious struggle which led to a conscious recognition of the
pejorative meaning of indio. Thus, the winning of the term Filipino
was an anti-colonial victory for it signified the recognition of
racial equality between Spaniards and Filipinos.
The "Limited" Filipinos
But the appropriation of this term was not the end of the historic
struggle for national identity. While for Rizal's time this was a
signal victory, it was in truth a limited victory for us. For the
users of the term were themselves limited Filipinos based on
education and property. Since this term was applied to those who
spoke in the name of the people but were not really of the people,
the next stage for this growing concept should be the recognition of
the masses as the real nation and their transformation into real
Filipinos. However, the Filipino of today must undergo a process of
de-colonization before he can become a true Filipino. The
de-colonized Filipino is the real goal for our time just as the
Hispanized Filipino was once the goal of the reformists. Though
Rizal was able to win for his countrymen the name Filipino, it was
still as ilustrado that he conceived of this term. As ilustrado he
was speaking in behalf of all the indios though he was separated by
culture and even by property from the masses. His ilustrado
orientation manifests itself in his novels. [p. 138] Though they are
supposed to represent 19th century Philippine society in microcosm,
all the principal characters belonged to the principalia. His hero,
Ibarra, was a Spanish mestizo. The Spaniards, the creole, the
mestizo, and the wealthy Chinese - these were characters he could
portray with mastery because they were within his milieu and class.
But there are only very hazy description of characters who belonged
to the masses. His class position, his upbringing, and his foreign
education were profound influences which constituted a limitation on
his understanding of his countrymen. Rizal, therefore, was an
ilustrado hero whose life's mission corresponded in a general way to
the wishes and aspirations of the people. He died for his people,
yet his repudiation of the Revolution was an act against the people.
There seems to be a contradiction between the two acts; there is
actually none. Both acts were in character; Rizal was acting from
patriotic motives in both instances. He condemned the Revolution
because as an ilustrado he instinctively underestimated the power
and the talents of the people. He believed in freedom not so much as
a national right but as something to be deserved, like a medal for
good behavior. Moreover, he did not equate liberty with
independence. Since his idea of liberty was essentially the demand
for those rights which the elite needed in order to prosper
economically. Rizal did not consider political independence as a
prerequisite to freedom. Fearful of the violence of people's action,
he did not want us to fight for our independence. Rather, he wanted
us to wait for the time when Spain, acting in her own best
interests, would abandon us. He expressed himself clearly on these
points in the following passage from a letter which he wrote in his
cell on December 12, 1896, for the use of his defense counsel. …..
many have have interpreted my phrase to have liberties as to have
independence, which are two different things. A people can be free
without being independent, and a people can be independent without
being free. I have always desired liberties for the Philippines and
I have said so. Others who testify that I said independence either
have put the cart before the horse or they lie. [12] He had
expressed much the same opinion earlier in his El Fili- [p.139]
busterismo when Father Florentino said: I do not mean to say that
our liberty will be secured at the sword's point, for the sword
plays but little part in modern affairs, but that we must secure it
by making ourselves worthy of it, by exalting the intelligence and
the dignity of the individual, by loving justice, right and
greatness, even to the extent of dying for them - and when a people
reaches that height God will provide a weapon, the idols will be
shattered, the tyranny will crumble like a house of cards and
liberty will shine out like the first dawn. 13 Yet the people
revered him because, though he was not with them, he died for
certain principles which they believed in. He was their martyr; they
recognized his labors although they knew that he was already behind
them in their forward march. In line with their avowed policy of
preparing us for eventual self-government, the Americans projected
Rizal as the model of an educated citizen. His name was invoked
whenever the incapacity of the masses for self-government was
pointed out as a justification for American tutelage. Rizal's
preoccupation with education served to further the impression that
the majority of the Filipinos were unlettered and therefore needed
tutelage before they could be ready for independence. A book, Rizal,
Educator and Economist, used in certain Philippine schools, supports
this thesis by quoting a portion of Rizal's manifesto of December
15, 1896 which states: …..I am one most anxious for liberties in
our country and I am still desirous of them. But I placed as a prior
condition the education of the people that by means of instruction
and industry our country may have an individuality of its own and
make itself worthy of these liberties. [14]
The authors of this book then make the following comment:
Rizal intentionally avoided the use of the term independence,
perhaps because he honestly believed that independence in its true,
real, and strict sense should not be granted us until we were
educated enough to appreciate its importance, and its blessings, and
until we were economically self-reliant. [15] [p. 140] This
statement not only supports the American line but is also an example
of how our admiration for Rizal may be used to beguile us into
accepting reactionary beliefs, the products of colonial mentality. A
people have every right to be free. Tutelage in the art of
government as an excuse for colonialism is a discredited alibi.
People learn and educate themselves in the process of struggling for
freedom and liberty. They attain their highest potential only when
they are masters of their own destiny. Colonialism is the only
agency still trying to sell the idea that freedom is a diploma to be
granted by a superior people to an inferior one after years of
apprenticeship.
The Precursors of Mendicancy
In a way, Rizal's generation is no different from the generation
that was engaged in our independence campaigns. Neither was his
generation much different from those who today say they stand for
independence but do not want to hurt the feelings of the Americans.
In a way, Rizal and his generation were the precursors of the
present-day mendicants. It may be shocking to say that Rizal was one
of the practitioners of a mendicant policy, but the fact is that the
propagandists, in working for certain reforms, chose Spain as the
arena of their struggle instead of working among their own people,
educating them and learning from them, helping them to realize their
own condition and articulating their aspirations. This reflects the
bifurcation between the educated and the masses. The elite had a
sub-conscious disrespect for the ability of the people to articulate
their own demands and to move on their own. They felt that education
gave them the right to speak for the people. They proposed an
elitist form of leadership, all the while believing that what the
elite leadership decided was what the people would and should
follow. They failed to realize that at critical moments of history
the people decide on their own, what they want and what they want to
do. Today, the ilustrados are shocked by the spate of rallies and
demonstrations. They cannot seem to accept the fact that peasants
and workers and the youth have moved without waiting for their word.
They are not accustomed to the people moving on their own. [p. 141]
The ilustrados were the Hispanized sector of our population, hence
they tried to prove that they were as Spanish as the peninsulares.
They wanted to be called Filipinos in the creole sense:
Filipino-Spaniards as Rizal called Ibarra. They are no different
from the modern-day mendicants who try to prove that they are
Americanized, meaning that they are Filipino-Americans. As a matter
of fact, the ilustrados of the first propaganda movement utilized
the same techniques and adopted the same general attitude as the
modern-day mendicants and pseudo-nationalists, in so far as the
colonizing power was concerned.
Ilustrados And Indios
The contrast to the ilustrado approach was the Katipunan of
Bonifacio. Bonifacio, not as Hispanized as the ilustrados, saw in
people's action the only road to liberation. The Katipunan, though
of masonic and of European inspiration, was people's movement based
on confidence in the people's capacity to act in its own behalf. The
early rebellions, spontaneous and sporadic, could be termed
movements, without consciousness. Rizal and the propagandists were
the embodiment of a consciousness without a movement. It was
Bonifacio and the Katipunan that embodied the unity of revolutionary
consciousness and revolutionary practice. The indio as Filipino rose
in arms while the ilustrado was still waiting for Spain to dispense
justice and reforms. The ilustrado Filipino was now being surpassed
by the indio in revolutionary ardor. The indio had a more legitimate
claim to the title of Filipino because he was truly liberating
himself. The revolutionary masses proclaimed their separatist goal
through the Katipunan. Faced with the popular determination, the
ilustrados joined the Revolution where, despite their revolutionary
rhetoric, they revealed by their behavior their own limited goals.
Though their fight was reformist and may be regarded as tame today,
the historic role of the ilustrados cannot be denied for they were
purveyors of ideas which when seized upon by the masses became real
weapons. Today their ideas are orthodox and safe. However, the same
concepts when made relevant to present society again make their
partisans the objects of persecution by contemporary reactionaries.
The role and the contribution of Rizal, like that of the ilus-
[p.142] trado class, must be evaluated in the context of his
particular reality within the general reality of his time. Rizal was
a necessary moment in our evolution. But he was only a moment, and
while his validity for his time amounted to a heroism that is valid
for all time, we cannot say that Rizal himself will be valid for all
time and that Rizal's ideas should be the yardstick for all our
aspirations. He provided the model of a form of heroism that
culminated in martyrdom. He was a Filipino we can be proud of, a
monument to the race despite all his limitations. But we cannot make
him out to be the infallible determinant of our national goals, as
his blind idolators have been trying to do. We must see Rizal
historically. Rizal should occupy his proper place in our pantheon
of great Filipinos. Though he is secure to be in our hearts and
memories as a hero, we must now realize that he has no monopoly of
patriotism; he is not the zenith of our greatness; neither are all
his teachings of universal and contemporary relevance and
application. Just as a given social system inevitably yields to new
and higher forms of social organization, so the individual hero in
history gives way to new and higher forms of heroism. Each hero's
contribution, however, are not nullified thereby but assume their
correct place in a particular stage of the people's development.
Every nation is always discovering or rediscovering heroes in the
past or its present.
Blind Adoration
Hero-worship, therefore, must be both historical and critical. We
must always be conscious of the historical conditions and
circumstances that made an individual a hero, and we must always be
ready to admit at what point that hero's applicability ceases to be
of current value. To allow hero-worship to be uncritical and
unhistorical is to distort the meaning of the heroic individual's
life, and to encourage a cult bereft of historical meaning - a cult
of the individual shorn of his historical significance. It is form
without content, a fad that can be used for almost anything, because
it is really nothing. We must view Rizal as an evolving personality
within an evolving historical period. That his martyrdom was tainted
by his attacks on our independist struggle is not a ground for
condemning him entirely. We must determine the factors - economic
and cul- [p. 143] tural - that made Rizal what he was. We must see
in his life and in his works the evolution of the Filipino and must
realize that the period crowned by his death is only a moment in the
totality of our history. It is a reflection of our lack of creative
thinking that we continue to invoke Rizal when we discuss specific
problems and present-day society. This is also a reflection of our
intellectual timidity, our reluctance to espouse new causes unless
we can find sanctions, however remote, in Rizal. This tendency is
fraught with dangers.
Limitations of Rizal
We are living in an age of anti-colonial revolutions different in
content from those of Rizal's period. Rizal could not have
anticipated the problems of today. He was not conversant with
economic tools of analysis that would unravel the intricate
techniques that today are being used by outside forces to consign us
to a state of continued poverty. The revolutions of today would be
beyond the understanding of Rizal whose Castilian orientation
necessarily limited his horizon even for that period. He was capable
of unraveling the myths that were woven by the oppressors of his
time, but he would have been at a loss to see through the more
sophisticated myths and to recognize the subtle techniques of
present-day colonialists, given the state of his knowledge and
experience at that time. This is not to say that were he alive today
and subject to modern experiences, he would not understand the means
of our times. But it is useless speculation to try to divine what he
would now advocate. Unless we have an ulterior motive, there is
really no need to extend Rizal's meaning so that he may have
contemporary value. Many of his social criticisms are still valid
today because certain aspects of our life are still carry-overs of
the feudal and colonial society of his time. A true appreciation of
Rizal would require that we study these social criticisms and take
steps to eradicate the evils he decried. Part and parcel of the
attempt to use Rizal as an authority to defend the status quo is the
desire of some quarters to expunge from the Rizalist legacy the
so-called controversial aspects of his writings, particularly his
views on the friars and on religion. We have but to recall the
resistance to the Rizal bill, [p. 144] the use of expurgated
versions of the Noli Me Tangere and the El Filibusterismo, and
objections to the readings of his other writings to realize that
while many would have us venerate Rizal, they would want us to
venerate a homogenized version. In his time, the reformist Rizal was
undoubtedly a progressive force. In many areas of our life today,
his ideas could still be a force for salutary change. Yet the nature
of the Rizal cult is such that he is being transformed into an
authority to sanction the status quo by a confluence of blind
adoration and widespread ignorance of his most telling ideas. We
have magnified Rizal's significance for too long. It is time to
examine his limitations and profit from his weaknesses just as we
have learned from the strength of his character and his virtues. His
weaknesses were the weaknesses of his society. His wavering and his
repudiation of mass action should be studied as a product of the
society that nurtured him.
The Negation of Rizal
Today, we need new heroes who can help us solve our pressing
problems. We cannot rely on Rizal alone. We must discard the belief
that we are incapable of producing the heroes of our epoch, that
heroes are exceptional beings, accidents of history who stand above
the masses and apart from them. The true hero is one with the
masses: he does not exist above them. In fact, a whole people can be
heroes given the proper motivation and articulation of their dreams.
Today we see the unfolding of the creative energies of a people who
are beginning to grasp the possibilities of human development and
who are trying to formulate a theoretical framework upon which they
may base their practice. The inarticulate are now making history
while the the articulate may be headed for historical anonymity, if
not ignominy. When the goals of the people are finally achieved,
Rizal the first Filipino, will be negated by the true Filipino by
whom he will be remembered as a great catalyzer in the metamorphosis
of the de-colonized indio. [p. 145]
|
