R2

There are numerous debates about Rizal whether Reformist or Revolutionist.
The
opinions of this topic vary in different perspectives. Some people believed that Jose Rizal
dedicated his life and labor for the cause of the revolution and venerated him to a certain extent.
He is most well-known for his works to enlighten the Filipino and his attempts in giving his country
more freedom from Spain. He expressed the growing national consciousness of many Filipinos
who opposed Spanish colonial tyranny and aspired to attain democratic rights. The Filipino culture
prides Rizal as a peaceful revolutionist whose weapons were the papel at pluma. 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. On the other hand, there were also some historians who
refuted this idea and presented a stand that Rizal was not an actual leader of the Philippine
Revolution. They cannot deny that Rizal played a major part in the country’s struggle for reforms
and independence. It has become the fashion recently to speak of Rizal as a reformist. Sometimes
the words are spoken deprecatingly; he was a mere reformist who had to be supplanted by
Bonifacio, the man of direct action, by those who do not want to see too much of a shaking up of
the status quo, and find in Rizal a sanction for their position. In his writings, he did call for reforms,
to be sure, a whole series of them – reforms in the government, reforms in the church, reforms in
the friars, reforms in the attitudes of the Spaniards, and above all, reforms in the Filipinos
themselves.
[1]
The ideas of Rizal exposed the ills of Spanish colonial rule. Renato Constantino, in his
1968 essay “Veneration without Understanding,” pointed out that Rizal was just propped up by the
U.S. colonial government as a tool to pacify the revolutionary aspiration of the Filipino people by
1
https://filipinojournal.com/rizal-on-reform-and-revolution-part-1-of-4/
2
http://nhcp.gov.ph/jose-rizal-and-the-revolution/
3
https://www.studocu.com/hk/document/our-lady-of-fatima-university/philippine-history-and-culture/essays/rizal-is-not-a-radical-grade-
a/2653798/view
4
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42632435?read-now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
https://biography.yourdictionary.com/jose-rizal
5
playing up his reformist calls. He tried to disclose the real Rizal and the truth of his heroism
stripping off the superficial novelty 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. [2] 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. [3] 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.
[4]
However, reforms alone would never satisfy Rizal; neither would independence alone;
that is why he only parted company with those Filipinos who thought that lobbying with Spanish
politicians and publishing fiery newspaper articles in Madrid would bring about the happiness of
the Filipino people, but he likewise refused to let himself be persuaded to lead an armed revolt
which he knew, even if it should by some chance succeed militarily, would not essentially change
[5]
the situation in which the Filipinos found themselves. Jose Maria Sison wrote a book entitled,
“National Democracy (1967),” he made an emphasis that Rizal’s novels demonstrated that
revolution was collateral of reform. The character of Ibarra showed his frustration in reformist
efforts, but the other forces represented by Elias, struggled to fight the oppressors. In Noli Me
Tangere, Pilosopo Tasyo told Ibarra: “Change will ultimately come with the coming of fresh ideas
from abroad.” He did not rule out revolution on the last resort; as Padre Florentino put in the Fili:
1
2
3
a/2653798/view
4
5
“oppression I know that His arm has never been wanting when, with justice trampled underfoot and
all other resources at an end, the oppressed have taken up a sword and fought for their homes,
wives, children, and those inalienable rights… No, God is justice and He cannot abandon His own
cause, the cause of freedom without which no justice is possible.”
But whether or not revolution will come is in the end not what is important to Rizal. What is
important, Padre Florentino goes on, is “to endure and work.” And he adds, “I do not mean to say
that our freedom must be won at the point of the sword… but I do say that our freedom must be
won by deserving it, by exalting the mind and enhancing the dignity of the individual, loving what is
just, what is good, what is great, even to the point of dying for it.” Rizal’s reformism prepared the
condition and set the stage for the revolution to grow. Therefore, Rizal is both a reformist and a
revolutionist because revolution is an offshoot of reform.
1
2
3
a/2653798/view
4
5

R2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

There are numerous debates about Rizal whether Reformist or Revolutionist.

You might also like