Does Rizal deserve to be our national hero?

: My take on Constantino’s “Veneration

Without Understanding” article
If you’ve ever taken up Rizal class, I suspect you  most probably encountered
this controversial and debatable article by Renato Constantino. Here’s my
opinion about it:

“There is subjectivity in the study of history.   Your persona matters when you make history.” As
what I have learned in my Rizal class, history itself at one point would always have biases.
Historians come from a certain position in their own lives and in turn also affects their own
reconstruction of history. And this is how I perceived Renato Constantino’s “Veneration Without
Understanding”, an essay pointing out the inconsistencies of Rizal’s title as our national hero.
Based on one of our readings in class “The Historian and his Facts”, to be able to understand
history you should investigate its origin and development; or to directly quote E.H Carr, “study
the historian first before you begin to study the facts”. So upon searching, I read that Constantino
wrote this article during Marcos’ first term where according to some historians, Americans had a
lot of influence when it comes to Philippine government that time. So there was a possibility that
Constantino was affected by that situation and in turn wrote this to raise Filipinos’ awareness
about the prevailing American impact even though technically we were already an independent
state at that time. But… enough about pre-assumptions, I’m now going to start to talk about my
stand on this article.

Upon reading the said paper, I was exposed for the first time to some issues concerning Rizal as
our national hero that weren’t taught to us, especially in our textbooks, during middle school.
Jose Rizal was always highly regarded and perceived by history books and history subjects as
this martyr & patriotic man who sacrificed his life for our own nation. However Constantino
bravely opposed this and rather ‘proved’ that Rizal was just an ‘accidental hero’. He stated
different arguments which supported this statement such as Rizal condemning the Revolution
himself, Rizal being a limited hero, and Rizal as an American-sponsored entity, etc. And for that
I pay respect to Constantino for opening our eyes and making us realize that we should not just
be contented on being passed upon information (in general) which we thought were undisputable
but rather he also challenges us to deeply understand them and analyse its roots or where it came
from. Although, I admit that Constantino’s statements were strong and convincing (to the point
that I almost considered all of it to be true at first), I still find most parts of it to be radical and
only preconceived notions by the said author. So to answer both question no. 1 & no. 4 at the
same time, I would say that I disagree on Constantino’s assertion about Rizal being our national
hero, and here are some of the reasons why:

From the very start of the article, Constantino stated numerous times how Rizal repudiated the
Revolution himself, and that is why for him, Rizal’s title is very questionable and ‘opposing’ in
some way. But with this statement of his, Constantino just proved that he already had a pre-
conceived notion of what a ‘real national hero’ should be and that is: one who joined/led a
revolution. And that for me is a little doubtful and limited because he’s already putting in his
own personal opinion regarding the matter, and also I believe that that’s not the real definition of
a national hero. Armand J. Malay, writer of ‘Veneration with Understanding’, opposed
Constantino’s statement saying that most of the national heroes in the world led or was a part of
their own revolutions. Malay said that Constantino could only name 7 when in fact there are also
a lot of heroes who were not a part of any revolution and one great example is Mahatma
Gandhi who needed no armies to be able to unite India. So back to my point, my own definition
of a hero is someone who respects his people, fights for his own principles, and is not affected
solely upon by his emotions but also acts with his mind. And Rizal showed all of these
characteristics during his time; yes, he may have condemned the Revolution but he had a reason
to do so. Rizal respected his countrymen in a way that he didn’t want them to shed their own
blood just by disputing only to find out at the end that they had not achieved any success at all
because they are driven only by their emotions. I also do not even see this as an act of
underestimating the masses’ capabilities at that time but rather I see this as an act of selflessness
of Rizal. He saw everyone, whether it was an ilustrado or indio as something worth fighting and
dying for, that’s why he wrote those provocative books which built the nation’s identity, and also
became the reason of his death. Until the very end, he stayed true to his belief that violence is not
necessary to be able to fight for your own independence.
Another part in the article that I disagree with and would like to point out is Constantino’s
negative view towards the ilustrados. I find it very discriminating that he always associates them
with situations where he thinks they were not being ‘nationalistic enough’. An example of this is
when he called them ‘limited Filipinos’ and said that they only joined the revolution to achieve
their own limited goals.  Just because they are not from the masses, doesn’t mean that they do
not sympathize with the indios, and that they are not true Filipinos. Constantino also made it
appear that only those who were from the masses can be considered revolutionary, and
that ilustrados weren’t. When in fact, the middle class also played a huge part in the successful
revolution, because Constantino completely forgets the importance of Filipinos having to work
together to be truly successful in defending their own nation.

The issue whether Rizal is an American-sponsored hero was very eminent on Constantino’s
article. Constantino justified his belief by citing the incident of Governor Taft & Philippine
Commission on choosing the right national hero for the Philippines. But according to some
historians like Esteban De Ocampo and Armand Malay, Jose Rizal was already honoured by the
Philippine revolutionary government even before the arrival of the Americans and the Filipinos
were already celebrating Rizal’s heroism before he was even declared to be the national hero.
Malay also added that KKK was said to have a high opinion/respect towards Rizal even though
he was not a part of the revolution. Up to this point, I’m still not quite sure who to believe on this
issue because both have few interesting points.

And lastly, Rizal, according to Constantino, being an ilustrado had affected Rizal’s view on what
being a true nationalist entails. It affected his belief wherein he assumed that equality with the
Spaniards also meant equality of opportunity so he had set goals that were ‘limited’ only to his
class but somehow still resonated with the masses afterwards. And being an ilustrado, again
according to Constantino, Rizal struggled to sympathize or connect to the masses, as it was very
apparent on his books La Solidaridad and El Filibusterismo where there were only a few
characters representing the masses whereas there are moreilustrados present in the story.
JOSE RIZAL AND THE REVOLUTION
Revisiting Renato Constantino’s “ Veneration without
Understanding”
By  Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay

      When we open the pages of history books in the Philippines, it is

not surprising to see texts about the martyrdom of our most
celebrated hero– Dr. Jose Rizal. In fact, it seems that his name already
occupied a permanent and prominent place in every publication that
has something to say about the Philippines.

      Truthfully, there is nothing wrong about immortalizing Rizal and

his heroism in books and literatures read by several generations of
Filipinos and non-Filipinos. Probably, most writers deemed that doing
such is a fitting way of paying respect and gratitude to his
contributions and sacrifices for the benefit of the Filipino people and of
our nation. It’s just unfortunate that in trying to present him as an icon
of heroism, he was placed in a pedestal that became too tough for
Juan dela Cruz to reach.

      The national revolution that we had in our country from 1896 to

1901 is one period when the Filipino people were most united, most
involved and most spirited to fight for a common cause—freedom. 
While all aspects of Jose Rizal’s short but meaningful life were already
explored and exhausted by history writers and biographers, his direct
involvement in the Philippine Revolution that broke out in 1896
remains to be a sensitive and unfamiliar topic.

       Historians cannot deny that Rizal played a major part in the

country’s struggle for reforms and independence.  His writings,
particularly the Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo were viewed as
the guiding force for other patriots to rally for the country’s cause.
While most of us believed that Rizal dedicated his life and labor for the
cause of the revolution and venerated him to a certain extent, a brave
historian rose up and went against the tide by making known to the
public his stand that Rizal was NOT an actual leader of the Philippine
Revolution.  While most of his biographers avoided this topic, it is
important to note that this greatest contradiction in Rizal made him
more significant than ever.
      In his Rizal Day lecture in 1969 entitled “Veneration without
Understanding,” Prof. Renato Constantino tried to disclose the real
Rizal and the truth of his heroism stripping off the superficial knick-
knacks adorned on him by hagiographers and hero-worshippers.

      The very striking fact that Constantino forwarded was the notion
that Rizal was not a leader of the Philippine Revolution, but a leading
opponent of it.  Accordingly, in the manifesto of 15 December 1896
written by Rizal himself which he addressed to the Filipino people, he
declared that when the plan of revolution came into his knowledge, he
opposed its absolute impossibility and state his utmost willingness to
offer anything he could to stifle the rebellion.  Rizal thought of it as
absurd, and abhorred its alleged criminal methods.

       Rizal in his manifesto put into premise the necessity of

education in the achievement of liberties.  Most importantly he
believed that reforms to be fruitful must come from above and that
those that come from below are shaky, irregular, and uncertain.

       Rizal’s weakness for this matter was his failure to fully

understand his people.  He was unsuccessful in empathizing with the
true sentiments of the people from below in launching the armed
rebellion.   He repudiated the revolution because he thought that
reforms to be successful should come from above.  It could be
understandable that the hero thought of such because it was the belief
of the prevailing class to which Rizal belonged.  It is also possible that
Rizal disproved the revolution due to his belief that violence should not
prevail.  In this case, Rizal unintentionally underestimated the
capacity of those from below to compel changes and reforms.

      This hesitation of Rizal against the revolution was supported by

Dr. Pio Valenzuela’s 1896 account of the revolution after he was sent
by Andres Bonifacio to Dapitan to seek Rizal’s opinion and approval in
launching an armed rebellion against the Spanish administration.  In
September 1896, Valenzuela before a military court testified that Rizal
was resolutely opposed to the idea of a premature armed rebellion and
used bad language in reference to it, the same statement was
extracted from him in October 1896, only that he overturned that it
was Bonifacio, not Rizal, who made use of foul words.
      However, Valenzuela after two decades reversed his story by
saying that Rizal was not actually against the revolution but advised
the Katipuneros to wait for the right timing, secure the needed
weapons and get the support of the rich and scholarly class. 
Valenzuela recounted that his 1896 statements were embellished due
to duress and torture and it was made to appear that in his desire “not
to implicate” or “save” Rizal, testified that the latter was opposed to
the rebellion. This turn of events put historians into a great confusion,
making Rizal’s stand over the Philippine Revolution, controversial and
debatable, making him both hero and anti-hero.

     Constantino, in reality did not disrobe Rizal the merit he deserves,

what he did was a critical evaluation of Rizal as a product of his time. 
He pointed out that even without Rizal, the nationalistic movement
would still advance with another figure to take his place because it
was not Rizal who shaped the turn of events but otherwise.  Historical
forces untied by social developments impelled and motivated Rizal to
rose up and articulate the people’s sentiments through his writings. 
In fact, the revolution ensued even Rizal disagreed with it.  Finally,
Constantino argued that to better understand the hero, we should also
take note of his weaknesses and learn from them
the other hand, he was not to be considered a hero because he opposed the revolution and he wanted
to change everything the Filipinos wanted to do.The essay also mentioned what Rizal said that we can
be free but we cannot be independent. We can be independent but we cannot be free. Before we can
reach that true freedom that we’re aspiring for, we need to have enough education to have
individuality.Renato Constantino is a Philippine historian. "Veneration Without Understanding" was
actually a stand-alone essay or article that later formed Chapter 9 of his book, "Dissent and Counter-
Consciousness." In the article, Renato Constantino talks about Rizal as an American-sponsored hero.

Unlike heroes in other countries who led their respective countries' fight for freedom, Rizal did not only
not take part in the Philippine revolution, but even did his best to stifle it. Renato Constantino cited
Rizal's manifesto addressed to the Filipino people (December 15, 1896) to prove this point. According to
Constantino, Rizal's unequivocal position against the Philippine Revolution was a glaring contradiction,
coming from a man who was believed to have dedicated his life for the freedom of his country and
countrymen. Constantino called Rizal an American-sponsored hero because it was Governor William
Howard Taft and some conservative Filipinos who named Rizal as the Philippine national hero, over
Aguinaldo, Bonifacio and Mabini. The rationale for the choice, as written later by Governor W. Cameron
Forbes in his book, "The Philippine Islands," was: "Rizal never advocated independence, nor did he
advocate armed resistance to the government." In the article, Constantino also talks about the concept
of Filipino nationhood.

Jose Rizal an American Sponsored National Hero?

Attempts to debunk legends surrounding Rizal, and the tug of war between free thinker and Catholic,
have kept his legacy controversial. 
 
 
The confusion over Rizal's real stance on the Philippine Revolution leads to the sometimes bitter
question of his ranking as the nation's premier hero.
 
But then again, according to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) Section
Chief Teodoro Atienza, and Filipino historian Ambeth Ocampo, there is no Filipino historical figure,
including Rizal, that was officially declared as national hero through law or executive order.
 
Although, there were laws and proclamations honoring Filipino heroes.Made National Hero by
colonial AmericansSome suggest that Jose Rizal was made a legislated national hero by the
American forces occupying Philippines. In 1901, the American Governor General William Howard
Taft suggested that the U.S. sponsored Philippine Commission name Rizal a national hero for
Filipinos. 
 
Jose Rizal was an ideal candidate, favourable to the American occupiers since he was dead, and
non-violent - both favourable qualities which, if emulated by Filipinos, would not threaten the
American rule or change the status quo of the occuppiers of Philippine islands. Rizal did not
advocate freedom for Philippines either.
 
Subsequently, the US-sponsored commission passed Act No. 346 which set the anniversary of
Rizal’s death as a “day of observance.”
 
Renato Constantino writes Rizal is a "United States-sponsored hero" who was promoted as the
greatest Filipino hero during the American colonial period of the Philippines – after Aguinaldo lost
the Philippine–American War. 
 
The United States promoted Rizal, who represented peaceful political advocacy (in fact, repudiation
of violent means in general) instead of more radical figures whose ideas could inspire resistance
against American rule. 
 
Rizal was selected over Bonifacio who was viewed "too radical" and Apolinario Mabini who was
considered "unregenerate."
 
Made National Hero by General AguinaldoOn the other hand, numerous sourcesquote that it was
General Emilio Aguinaldo, and not the second Philippine Commission, who first recognized
December 30 as "national day of mourning in memory of Rizal and other victims of Spanish tyranny. 
 
As per them, the first celebration of Rizal Day was held in Manila on December 30, 1898, under the
sponsorship of the Club Filipino.
 
The veracity of both claims seems to be justified and hence difficult to ascertain. However, most
historians agree that a majority of Filipinos were unaware of Rizal during his lifetime, as he was a
member of the richer elite classes (he was born in an affluent family, had lived abroad for nearly as
long as he had lived in the Philippines) and wrote primarily in an elite language (at that time, Tagalog
andCebuano were the languages of the masses) about ideals as lofty as freedom (the masses were
more concerned about day to day issues like earning money and making a living, something which
has not changed much today either)
 
Teodoro Agoncillo opines that the Philippine national hero, unlike those of other countries, is not "the
leader of its liberation forces". 
 
He gives the opinion that Andrés Bonifacio not replace Rizal as national hero, like some have
suggested, but that be honored alongside him.
 
Constantino's analysis has been criticised for its polemicism and inaccuracies.
 
The historian Rafael Palma, contends that the revolution of Bonifacio is a consequence wrought by
the writings of Rizal and that although the Bonifacio's revolver produced an immediate outcome, the
pen of Rizal generated a more lasting achievement
End Of Veneration -Rizal
and Constantino
– Conclusion
 Bob Couttie  Uncategorized  May 1, 2007 2 Minutes

Conclusions
 

Where does all this leave us? First, Rizal was a national hero sponsored by Filipinos so
forcefully that the Americans had little choice. Second, that Rizal believed that when
Filipinos achieved a national consciousness thatcontinuously denied tyrants their
supremacy the means for overthrowing the tyrants would self-generate out of the people
themselves. Third that Rizal saw revolution and independence as options once national
consciousness had been achieved.

The second conclusion is that Constantino is a thoroughly unreliable source of analysis

of Rizal’s philosophy since he has suppressed and distorted all data that does not fit
within his pre-conceived polemical framework.

Third, the value of Veneration Without Understanding is not as a source of historical

analysis of Rizal’s place as national hero, but in what it tells of someone who played a
key role in the political activism of the 1960s and 1970s, Renato Constantino. It should
therefore be viewed as a polemical historical document of the mid-late 20 th century.

Much has changed since Constantino’s day, yet also little. Ferdinand Marcos was
overthrown in in 1986 in a revolution begun by a military coup sponsored by the
wealthy elite that was co-opted by the Catholic Church that succeeded as a coup because
of the power of the masses.  Yet as a revolution it failed because the masses did not
maintain and defend what they had struggled for and the status quo re-asserted itself,
which is precisely what Rizal feared almost a century before.

Without question a people have the right to liberty but implicit in that right are two
duties: To respect the right of liberty of others, those who do not do so are by definition
tyrants; and to fight for, defend and maintain that liberty. If these two duties are
abrogated then the right to liberty necessarily falls by the wayside. Only those who have
internalized those principles honour them and live by them can successfully achieve a
state of liberty, of kalayaan in the sense outlined in Rey Ileto’s Pasyon and
Revolution and it is that internalization which is the liwanag, the light, that will
illuminate the road tokalayaan.

No-one can deny the heroism and courage of the thousands of ordinary Filipinos who
gathered on EDSA, any more than we can deny that of those who fought the Spanish and
American regimes. Each one of them became national heroes, even though they remain
largely nameless. Yet is it not time to explore why that unity and that awesome desire for
change foundered?

It is certainly time to ask, objectively and dispassionately why the movement of which
Constantino was a part failed to deliver the goods, failed to inspire the masses, and still
fails to inspire them today, the true role of activist events such a the First Quarter Storm
and their contribution, or lack thereof, to the events of 1986 and whether it is relevant to
today’s Philippines. Critical examination of the polemics ofVeneration Without
Understanding should be a part of that exploration.

Liberty is not a fashion accessory to be worn once and put away in a cupboard like the
Che Guevarra sweat-shirts and radical chic of the 1960s and 1970s. It is a dynamic
process which must be defended anew each day. Rizal’s writings show that he
understood the need to dynamically maintain and defend liberty, Constantino did not.

Constantino wrote of Rizal and the masses: “He was their martyr; they recognized his
labors although they knew that he was already behind them in their forward march”. If
there is a forward march of the masses all one can say is that it is not Rizal that they left
behind, it is Constantino.

END