THE INDOLENCE OF THE FILIPINOS

"The Indolence of the Filipinos" or La Indolencia de los Filipinos is a study of

the causes of the people's not working hard during the Spanish regime. It is an essay
written by Dr. Jose Rizal published in La Solidaridad in Madrid in 1890. It deals with
the sociopolitical matters or setup of the Filipinos in defense of the accusation that the
Indios or Malays were indolent or lazy people.
Dr. Jose Rizal in this essay did admit the presence of indolence among Filipinos
but at some point he put consideration of the climate and social disorder that Filipinos
had encountered, which later disrupted their industrious and hardworking nature, a
disorder caused by the Spanish colonization. Rizal cited factors that contributed to
Filipino indolence, such as abuses, discrimination, passive governance, corruption,
red tape, baseless dogma of the church, and wrong illustration from some Spaniards.
Such factors according to Rizal caused Filipinos to lose their values. Before the arrival
of Spaniards in the Philippines, Filipinos had their own economic activities, and were
engaged in trade and agriculture. Thus, indolence was greatly caused by lack of
education, unity, and government empathy. Nonetheless, freedom and education
would heal the indolence caused by the long captivity of the Spaniards and soon
unleashed the Filipinos innate diligent and hardworking nature (Rizal, 1890).
Rizal believed that to find cure to indolence one must admit having such
dilemma; thus, he agreed with the prior writing of Gregorio Sancianco, which depicted
indolence among filipinos. A cure existed when one studied what caused indolence in
the first place. Rizal, therefore, enumerated the factors that caused indolence. First
was the climate; Filipinos could not compare their working hours with those of the
Spaniards because the Philippines had a hotter weather than Spain. A whole day of
labor in Spain was equivalent to an hour of labor in the Philippines in terms of climates.
Second, Filipinos had been doing trade within the region and neighbor countries.
Some were engaged in agriculture and mining, and some spoke Spanish before the
arrival of the Spaniards. Hence, by nature, Filipinos were hardworking. Also, Rizal
argued that the Spaniards made Filipinos forget about their past by dominantly
inflicting their ways in our country. The cultural and economic corruption that Filipinos
encountered were caused by numerous factors, like chaos and massive destruction.
Numerous Filipinos were sent abroad to fight wars for Spain or be part of their
expeditions, which led to fewer population.
In addition, when the Spaniards came, the economic activity of the country
declined. The Spanish government implemented damaging policies on trade, taxes,
and business which urged the natives to abandon such economic engagement.
According to Rizal, the decrease in the economic engagement of the natives was due
to the following reasons:
(1) Establishment of the Galleon Trade. It ended Philippine trade among Asian
and Middle last nations and boosted monopolization of businesses by Spanish
officials. This caused the closure of small businesses of the natives. The Philippines
was forced to conduct trade with Spain only through Mexico.
 (2) Forced Labor. Implementing forced labor called for men to work without pay
to shipyard and public works, abandoning their agricultural lands. Forced labor molded
Filipinos to become mere slaves of the Spaniards by not allowing them to conduct their
own businesses.
(3) Lack of Government Protection Against Pirates. Natives were not able to
receive protection from the Spanish government in the pursuit of trade. Hence, trades
were attacked by pirates and were defenseless, leaving trade behind because of
bankruptcy caused by invaders.
(4) Twisted Educational System. Natives got limited education and were treated
inferior to the Spaniards. Educational system was full of racism, separating Filipinos
from Spaniards and providing them with low quality education, which focused only on
religion and not on technical aspect, like agriculture or industry. Hence, education was
not vital to economic growth but was attached to the church's dogma.
(5) Spaniards' Wrong Idea Toward Work. Spaniards became a living example
of going to work late and leaving early without accomplishing anything relevant to their
task. Filipinos served as personal servants who followed them wherever they went
and did things, which they could do on their own, hence, showing an image of laziness.
(6) Rampant Gambling. Many officials spent money on cockfighting during
fiestas and engaging in gambling, which shattered the economic setup of the
Philippine government. Also, it increased corruption.
(7) Wrong Religious Belief. Friars manipulated the natives by claiming that
heaven was easier to enter when one was poor, thus, discouraging them from working
hard enough to uplift their status.
(8) Extremely High Taxes. The Spanish government imposed from doing
extremely high taxes, which led to the discouragement of many Filipinos trade,
business, and agriculture and kept the poor native even poorer. Also, not providing
support to farmers caused encomienderos to disregard their fields.
To summarize, the limited training and education of Filipino natives and lack of
nationalism were the reasons indolence existed. Natives were inferior in their
homeland and were separated from Spaniards. Thinking that they were inferior, they
tended to submit to foreign culture creating division among them. Without unity there
was no power in defeating the Spaniards, no leader, and no sense of oneness. This
became advantageous to Spain, which inflicted their ideas on the natives. Therefore,
Rizal argued that the main cause of indolence was Spain. They built walls that
prevented Filipinos from reaching their full potentials. Schools were not offered to
those who wanted to study. When establishing businesses there was no adequate
support and protection of resources. The Philippines was made to shut its doors to
trade with former partners, and high taxes discouraged the natives from cultivating
their lands.
THE FILIPINO FARMERS
During the Spanish regime, farming was a risky occupation. Filipino farmers
had to deal with plagues and calamities and tyranny of the officers and robbers.
Against plagues and calamities, like floods, locusts, and awful harvest, farmers could
take initiatives to create their own defense. Nevertheless, when faced with tyrant
leaders and robbers, they were often made to shut up and were voiceless in the
Spanish government. Farmers back then had to deal with the lack of laborers caused
by forced labors of the Spaniards. The capitalist farmer has to deal with tyrant officers,
like civil guards from the other towns who took advantage of their power by stealing
crops and resources of the farmer. There were instances when a capitalist farmer's
laborers were arrested for a baseless reason, like not saluting properly or not bringing
their cedulas. Theft of resources done by civil guards were often hard to trace, and
such added burden to farmers. Work encountered delays, which ranged from days to
week or even months. Hence, for a capitalist farmer to prosper, he had to build good
relationship with the chief so that he could protect his flocks and source of income (L.a
Solidaridad, 1889).
There were instances when farmers had to face the wrath of an official of the
court or the provincial government simply for an unjust reason, like not giving bribes
or an official's personal grudge. Having been displeased by the farmer, the official
could summon the farmer's laborer or farmer himself just to let such unfortunate man
to lose his savings. Also, going back and forth to the office of the provincial governor
gave an uneasy feeling and often ended up in imprisoning the native without enough
reason. He faced trial based on impulse and received biased judgment for the fault he
had not done. Oftentimes, Filipino farmers or capitalists were pushed into embracing
bribery to win the favor of the official in their area. On the other hand, they still had to
deal with the tulisanes or bandits. The tulisan or bandits were people whom one could
win with bribe but with the use of force, and because the government lacked empathy
in the protection of Filipino properties, the farmer had to do the job by himself. The
best remedy against this problem was to arm oneself and expose oneself to a daily
and dangerous combat (La Solidaridad, 1889).For a capitalist who was a peaceful tax-
payer, to use firearms and to be able to defend himself, he needed a good report from
the people, the civil guard, and the parish priest to petition the government in Manila
and patience to wait for the issuance of the license to carry firearms, Nevertheless,
having good terms with the chiefs and Spanish government was no assurance of being
able to acquire firearms, There were times when they confiscated a farmer's firearms,
denied renewal or acquisition of license to carry it, and simply tolerated the bandits,
leaving the poor farmer defenseless. Such was the case of a citizen of the province of
La Laguna who owned of extensive lands planted to sugar cane, coffee, and abaca.
Such province was very loyal to Spain, and one Indio in that province, Captain
Francisco de San Juan, declared war in the name of Spain against the English in 1762
and was able to save a large amount of government money from falling in the hands
of invaders. Despite the loyalty of such citizen to Spain he was still denied the renewal
of his license, and in spite of all the good reports, they confiscated his firearm. He
could not venture out unarmed and has little trust in the authorities. For this reason he
had to abandon his farms, losing his abaca crops (LaSolidaridad, 1889).
 Many called the attention of the Minister of the colonies to make effort to
confront issues regarding bandits. Nevertheless, the government was viewed to have
connived with such robbers to impose the new agricultural system, providing too much
obstacles to farmers so that farmers would plant in accordance with the new system.
Those who were on top put the blame on Indios' indolence. Higher officials washed
their hands of blames of having a backward government caused by their
irresponsibility.
They ran the country with words alone, but for a system to be effective it needed
both principle and action coming from its leaders. Such scenario was visible during the
Spanish regime, the incapacitated government did nothing amid the cries of farmers
who provided them with food to eat and money to spend. The government back then
was ridiculous and caused damage to the country that it ran, leaving an unreliable
governance. Bandits and criminals dwelt in the idea that the government would not
run after them since it was too busy abusing the just citizens of the country.
Such awful behavior of the government impaired the real motive of Spain, the
government's image appears as a filibuster. Propagandists asked Spain to give them
a seat in the Spanish Cortes for them to expose what was really going on in the
country. The propagandists saw the struggles of farmers, so they sought reforms
regarding the granting of licenses for the use of arms. They suggested terms of
attaining licenses to carry firearms if farmers were not granted because of not having
the report of the people, the chief of the civil guard, and of the parish priest. Instead of
being issued in
Manila, licenses should be issued by the court of every town, after previous
consultation or secret voting of the judge, of the officer of the civil guard, and of the
parish priest. It should not be granted without unanimity. Such manner would lessen
the wasted effort of farmers, lessen inconvenience, and save time and energy (La
Solidaridad, 1889).

THE LUSTRADOS VIEWS OF THE CLIMATE IN THE 19 CENTURY

In the 19" century, the Philippines was exposed to a chaotic setup. People
started to acquire knowledge, which opened their eyes to the abuses of Spaniards.
Ilustrados like Jose Rizal, Marcelo del Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena, and Antonio Luna
were prominent Filipinos in Europe. They bluntly exposed their sentiments about the
tyranny that had been going on in the Philippines.

EL DEMONIO DE LAS COMPARACIONES

After Rizal published his novel Noli Me Tangere in 1897, he anticipated
numerous events and situations, which he might encounter on his return to Manila
from Europe. Numerous questions lingered in his mind. What would it be like if he was
to return to Manila? As ilustrados who bravely pushed for reforms in the Philippines,
many were wondering about their perspective on Las Islas Filipinas from the European
location. Jose Rizal, as well as Del Pilar, Lopez Jaena, and Antonio Luna had a
promising political career as they interacted with the European oligarchs and somehow
tried to influence numerous high-ranking people to sympathize with their desire to free
the Filipino people. While in Europe, the ilustrados desire for Philippine reforms began
to have color. Ideas were overflowing as they compared the foreign land's image with
that of their homeland. They had a feeling of uplifting the Filipinos by integrating foreign
ideas and ways into the Philippines. Nevertheless their views toward the unlikeliness
of the Spanish regime in the country remained untainted (Aguilar, 2016).

ROMANCING NATURE IN RIZAĽ'S BRINDIS

On Rizal's astonishing speech about the equality of Spaniards and Filipinos,
namely, the Brindis, earned him the title of filibustero. Such speech, later on known
as Brindis, was much-applauded. While in Europe he viewed the passing affirmation
between the Philippines and Spain.

Rizal had clearly shown his eager desire to attain independence for the country.
He had interpreted the success of Hidalgo and Luna, an act of optimism of what might
lie ahead and a glance of the past. In the Brindis, Rizal praised nature in the tropics
as alongside disastrous and tranquil, magnificent and terrible. It was an appreciation
of beauty and pain, which somehow resembled his desire for his homeland. Rizal had
also seen the vitality of being positively motivated by what inspired one most to reach
a desirable end in favor of one's dream, just like Hidalgo and Luna, geniuses in the
field of art (Aguilar, 2016).
Rizal found genius everywhere, not in the place one lived in but within a person.
In glory of his comrades' achievements, he felt that triumph for both Spain and the
Philippines must be shared. Also, according to Rizal as quoted, "genius has no
country, genius sprouts everywhere, genius is like the light and air, the heritage of
everyone – cosmopolitan like space, like life, and like God".

THE RIZAL'S ABANDONMENT OF ASSIMILATION

In the 19th century, two myths about Rizaľ's standing regarding the Philippine
nationalist movement drew attention from the masses. The first myth stated that Rizal
was one of the middleclass men who sought reforms by means of opposing the
Revolution in 1896 and had encouraged the absorption of Philippines to Spain.
Hispanization of the Filipino was one of Rizal's desires and not to set the Philippines
free from its colonizers. The second myth was Rizal's contradiction to the ways of the
Katipunero led by Bonifacio. Such dislike was shown in Rizal's La Liga Filipina, which
somehow contradicted Bonifacio's ideologies. This myth argued that Bonifacio was a
pitiable and illiterate laborer according to Rizal's viewpoint. Also, the Katipunan was
an organization of the "uneducated and unfortunate" people.
 The two prevailing myths contributed to confusion and divided beliefs in the
young Filipinos about the history of the Philippines. If such myths prevailed, the history
would then be left hanging and loaded with loopholes. The celebration of the
centennial of the Bonifacio-led Revolution and Rizal's martyrdom demanded
clarification of the myths. Hence, such myths ought to be critically evaluated through
historiographical evidences. A critical examination of Rizal's correspondence, l1887-
1892, could better explain the first myth. Such dates could help highlight Rizal's
eagerness to attain independence from the hands of the cruel Spaniards by means of
a peaceful struggle. In 1887, two letters Rizal wrote to his friend and mentor, the
German scholar Ferdinand Blumentritt, depicted his desire to break free bloodlessly
from the colonizers, diminishing the idea of having the Filipino assimilated to Spain.
On the 21" day of February 1887 – “The Filipinos had long wished for
Hispanization and they were wrong in aspiring for it. It is Spain and not the Philippines
who ought to wish for the assimilation of the country" (Rizal-Blumentritt, 52).
January 26, 1887- A peaceful struggle shall always be a dream, for Spain will
never learn the lesson of her South American colonies. Spain cannot learn what
England and the United States have learned. But, under the present circumstances,
we do not want separation from Spain. All that we ask is greater attention, better
education, better government officials, one or two representatives in parliament, and
greater security for persons and our properties. Spain could always win the
appreciation of Filipinos if she were only reasonable. But, quos vult perdere Jupiter,
prius dementa! (Rizal-Blumentritt, 44).
Rizal's two letters must be evaluated and analyzed properly since both are
important in the determination of Rizal's standpoint on Philippine independence.
Numerous scholars today undermine the value of such letters. In fact, many have
intentionally revised it and had totally changed its meaning. giving favorable
consideration to the idea that Rizal truly wanted Philippine assimilation to Spain and
not Philippine independence. An exemplar of such distortion was the writings of Ruth
Roland (1969:58-59), an American author, who had three misquoted lines of Rizal's
letters. On the 26" day of January 1887 in the letter cited above, the author cleverly
omitted the first sentence “A peaceful struggle will always be a dream, for Spain will
never learn..."- and the crucial word "But" [Aber in the German original] in-"But, under
the present circumstances we do not want separation"–to prove that Rizal was an
assimilationist. Additionally, Roland had also omitted the very important Latin line
"quos vult perdere Jupiter, prius dementat" [whom Jupiter would destroy, He first
makes mad]. Such lines emphasized Rizal's hesitations about Spain coming to a
reasonable settlement with the Filipino reformists. Note that Rizal was describing to
Blumentritt a political tactic-seeking reforms like better education, representation in the
Spanish Cortes, better government, etc.– that needed to be distinguished from the
longer strategy of separatism.
The editor of La Solidaridad, a reformist journal, made it clear that Jose Rizal
did not have any illusions about the Reform Movement; however, he appreciated its
strategic worth. This was evident in Rizal's letter to Del Pilar in April 1890, the editor
of La Solidaridad that time. As written in the letter,
 Parliamentary representation will be a burden on the Philippines for a long time.
If our countrymen felt otherwise than they do, we should reject any offer of such
representation but, the way we are, with our countrymen indifferent, representation is
good. It is better to be tied by the ankles than elbow to elbow. What can we do!
(Guerrero, 1963: 287).
Viewed in this sense, the campaign for reform and the struggle for
independence were not jointly private; the first was but a tactic in a broader strategy.
Rizal had been consistent with this perspective, judging from his correspondence from
1887 to 1892.
April 4, 1890, another letter containing Rizaľs point of view on independence
was again written to Del Pilar. The letter contained Rizal's abandonment of the
propaganda La Solidaridad for its goal no longer fit into Rizaľ's desires for the
Philippines. He had written: "I could not accept a seat [in the Cortes] although my
ancestors on my mother's side were Congressmen Jose Florentino and Lorenzo
Alberto. I am no longer interested in those things. Leon Ma. Guerrero's translation)."
Despite having Florentino and Alberto as a cousin and an uncle of Rizal's mother,
Rizal was still able to let go of Del Pilar and La Solidaridad. In addition, Rizal had cut
his connection with the reformist in Madrid. Such action was exposed in his surviving
fragment of a letter, dated October 1891. The letter was signed by Laong La 'an [Ever
Prepared; Rizal's pseudonym] reads–
If our countrymen hope in us here in Europe, they are certainly mistaken. The
help we can give them is our lives in our own country. The error all make in
thinking we can help here, far away, is a great mistake indeed. The medicine
must be brought near to the sick man. Had I not been unwilling to shorten the
lives of my parents, I would not have left the Philippines, no matter what
happened. Those five months I stayed there were a model life, a book even
better than the Noli Me Tangere. [The field of battle is the Philippines; there is
where we should be.]
This was a clear viewpoint of his withdrawal from the propaganda's campaigns.
According to him, if offered a seat in the cortes, he could no longer accept it even
though he came from a family with political background because of a conflict of
principles and goals for the Philippines.
Jose Rizal had seen the worsening struggle of the Filipino people in the
Philippines and was determined to take a riskier and higher level of battle for
independence. Inhis letter to his German friend and mentor Ferdinand Blumentritt, a
German Scholar,Rizal expressed his views toward La Solidaridad. He wrote:
Life in the Philippines has become impossible: without courtesy, without
virtue, without justice! That is why I think that La Solidaridad is no longer the
place to give battle; this is a new fight. I should like to follow your wiskes, but I
believe that it will all be in vain; the fight is no longer in Madrid. It is all a waste
of time. (Guerrero's translation).
Despite the existence of such letters, numerous historians had disregarded
them and relied solely on one document. Many focused on a document Rizal had
written in his prison cell, Rizal's so-called December 15, 1896 manifesto. Rizal gave a
statement issued to the Spanish court, which contained his denial as the mastermind
of the revolution. Denying such condemned Bonifacio's premature uprising as an act
of ridiculous barbarism. It also encouraged the Katipuneros to surrender.
Nevertheless, the military court rejected Rizal's manifesto. They were disappointed in
Rizal's lack of loyalty to Spain because he did not reject the idea of independence,
which was unfavorable for the Spanish authorities. Rizal, on the contrary, asserted its
inevitability. Such document of Rizal dated December 15 lacked credibility in the
representation of his last words. An accurate writing of Rizal, which contained his last
ideologies was his untitled poem. Such poem was later on given the title "Mi Uitimo
Adios" by some scholars.
Mi Ultimo Adios was Rizal's last testament, a literary masterpiece that contained
his in-depth views of the Revolution. Also, such poem made an impact on the Filipinos'
minds because it was distributed by Bonifacio. The second stanza of the poem was
about the intertwined connection between Rizal's martyrdom and Revolution. Such
idea was clearly seen by the masses who had read it. The original reads
"En campos se batalla, lunchando con delirio Otros te dan sus vidas sin
dudas, sin pesar El sitio nada importa, cipres, laurel o lirio, Cadalso o campo
abierto, combate o cruel martirio, Lo mismo es si lo piden la Patria y el hogar.”

Austin Coates' translation reads:

Others are giving you their lives on fields of battle, Fäghting joyfully,
without hesitation or thought for the consequence, How it takes place is not
important. Cypress, laurel or lily,. Scaffold or battlefield, in combat or cruel
martyrdom, It is the same when what is asked of you is for your country and
your home lemphasis mine).
Observing the translation that took place, Rizal's phrase in the second line
which was "sin dudas sin pesar" was translated by Coates into "without hesitation or
thought for the consequence." Differentiating Coates translation from Nick
Joaquin'stranslation was:On the field of battle, fighting with delirium, others give you
their lives without doubts, without gloom. The site naught matters: cypress, laurel or
lily: gibbet or open field: combat or cruel martyrdom are equal if demanded by country
and home [emphasis mine].Joaquin's translation shows a closer similarity to Rizal's
Spanish writing. Joaquin's translation of the phrase "without doubts, without gloom"
captures the beauty of the poem and its essence, as interpreted and read by the
revolutionaries. This shows the different motive and views of the writers who have
interpreted Rizal's masterpiece. Coates'translation was misleading "without hesitation
or thought for the consequence." His translation contains his personal opinion about
Rizal and his ideologies. Using his stylistic and artistic literary skill, he was able to
deliver a self-made lecture on Rizal's standpoint on Revolution. Coates action was
showcased in a lecture on Rizal's last poem given during the celebration of Rizal Day.
Coates made emphasis on Rizal'sambivalent attitude to the revolution, to wit:
 Now we learn from this [stanza] that a war of some kind is going on. He
is in some way connected with it. He admires those who are fighting, but he
does not entirely agree with what they are doing. Note the phrase 'without
thought for the consequence (Coates, 1977-18; emphasis mine).
Using Nick Joaquin's translation of Rizal's Spanish line of "sin dudas, sin pesar"
to "without doubts, without gloom" leaves Coates without space to inflict his own ideas.
He would not be able to make the daim that "Rizal did not entirely agree" with what
the revolutionaries were doing. Rizal's Spanish text and Nick Joaquin's translation both
appeared in Philippine Literature, edited by Bienvenido Lumbera (Manila: National
Bookstore, 1982). Meanwhile, Austin Coate's version appeared in Rizal: Philippine
Nationalist and Martyr (1968) and in his Rizal Lecture (1977).
The last poem of Jose Rizal was distributed to the revolutionaries by Bonifacio
using his own vernacular translation, it was the first Tagalog version of the poem. Such
reads:
Sa pakikidigma at pamimiyapis ang alay ng iba'y ang buhay na kipkip
walang agam-agam, maluwag sa dibdib matamis sa puso at di ikahapis
lunderscoring mine]. Saun man mautas ay di kailangan cipres o laurel, lirio ma'y
putungan pakikipaghamok at ang bibitayan yaon ay gaon [gayon] din kung
hiling ng Bayan.
The Tagalog version to Bonifacio has a happy translation that empowers
revolutionaries more. He has imaginatively added new phrases, which were not found
in the original poem nor in Joaquin's and Coates’ translations. The following translation
of "sin dudas, sin pesar," “walang agam-agam, maluwag sa dibdib–matamis sa puso
at di ikahapis."Such shows a more confirmatory and joyous version of the poem.
"Walang agam-agam" is equivalent to Nick Joaquin's English version of "without
doubts," but the "maluwang sa dibdib" by Bonifacios goes further than the English
version Of Joaquin, which is, "without gloom." "Maluwag sa dibdib" by Bonifacio's
translation means a whole-hearted acceptance, sans misgivings or reservations.
Adding more controversy and interest to Bonifacio's translation of the last
untitled poem of Rizal was his added phrase, "matamis sa puso at di ikahapis," which
means "a joy of the heart that knows no pain." Yet the most vital line is the second part
of the stanza of Bonifacio's Tagalog version of the poem, which appeared in The
Writings and Trial of Andres Bonifacio, edited by Teodoro Agoncillo in 1963. Such was
the stanza translated by Joaquin as "The site nought matters: cypress, laurel or lily:
gibbet or open field: combat or cruel martyrdom are equal if demanded by country and
home." Also, Coates' version is "How it takes place is not important. Cypress, laurel
or lily, Scaffold or battlefield, in combat or cruel martyrdom, It is the same when what
is asked of you is for your country and your home [underscoring mine]."
Digging deeper into the sequence of events that took place in 1896 calls for an
analysis free from the limitation of its setting, which includes Rizal's actions in his final
days to the time of his execution and the revolutionary masses' views of Rizal inthe
aftermath of the execution.
 Consider these: Rizal, faced with the horror of knowing the hour of his doom,
exerted time to leave his family and beloved Josephine a farewell present. The Agony
of the Garden sketch was given to his family, and to Josephine he left Kempis' La
Imitacion del Cristo. The words "Consumatum est!" Jesus' last words were heard from
Rizal's lips. Though he was positioned with his back to the firing squad, he bravely
faced the firing squad as the eight Remingtons cracked and died facing the sky. Such
tragic event left tears among the numerous Filipinos who were there and had
witnessed the cruelty of the Spaniards. The aftermath of Rizal's death led to the
uprising of his supporters. Rizal died as a martyr for his countrymen to be awakened
and continue the battle of independence. A leading intellectual in Aguinaldo's cabinet
remembered Rizal's happy face before his death. While Rizal was in exile in Guam
because of his refusal to take an oath of allegiance to America, Mabini in his memoir
mentioned his great respect for the National Hero. Mabini viewed Rizal as a brave soul
who chose to face death by the time he took the bumpy path of exposing the abuses
that the Spaniards had done to his country. Using his literary talent and excellent
command of language, he touched many slumbered minds to condemn the tyranny
that the Filipinos encountered. Unlike the GOMBURZA, who died in tears, Rizal faced
a happy death knowing that he had made an impact on the natives' viewpoint and was
confident that after his death, the natives would continue the battle for liberty. He was
a martyr who loved his countrymen; his actions were enough to fuel revolutionaries to
continue the fight for independence.
His death was later on compared with Pasyon or Christ's suffering, death, and
resurrection. From the perspective of the Pasyon, acts of sacrifice, martyrdom, and
armed struggle are not mutually exclusive modes of resistance. Martyrdom has always
played a vital role in the Philippine revolutionary custom from Hermano Pule (1840) to
Felipe Salvador (1910) to Tatang de los Santos (1967), and to the three secular priests
Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora who were executed in 1872. Martyrdom is a struggle par
excellence. Rizal's last poem later became the rallying cry of the Katipunero. To the
revolutionary folk, Rizal's martyrdom marked his apotheosis as the Tagalog Christ.
Thus, Bonifacio urged his Katipuneros to reminisce the ultimate sacrifice of "our most
beloved compatriot, the great Jose Rizal" ["ating pinaka-iibig na kababayan na si M.
Jose Rizal"). Today's Filipinos can do nothing compare with what Rizal has done for
the sake of nationalism and liberty.
THE VISCERAL STRANGENESS OF SPAIN
The Ilustrados’extreme and idealistic desire for the tropics or for a tropical
climate showed their feeling of longing for their homeland, the tropical environment
where they were raised during their younger years. Being able to experience an
instinctive strangeness of Spain signified the time to take a look at their home country.
The visceral experience of the ilustrados, namely, Rizal, Luna, and Del Pilar, gave
them an unsatisfactory, strange, and alienating feeling toward Spain. The tropics
served as a strong motivator of longing for home. It had also marked the ilustrados'
political estrangement and disappointment toward the Spanish life that lowered the
image of Spain and heightened the ilustrados' growing desire to set their homeland
free from tyranny and to spread equality (Livingstone, 2002).
OCCLUDING CALAMITIES
A hindrance to the ilustrados' longing for tropical climate was the possibility of
encountering human suffering because of natural calamities at home. Nevertheless,
the wealthy ilustrados did not allow such calamities to hinder their desire for the tropical
climate. They had lived through many typhoons before their stay in Europe, but
because they lived in large, durable houses unlike the poor, these youths might not
have experienced directly the severest horrors of typhoons. Amid their goal of
modernity, they did not partake in “the modernist aspiration of moderation." The
native's resilience to calamities back home was incorporated in the poetry equilibrating
the dynamics of nature (Head and Gibson, 2012).
HOMOGENIZED TROPICS, COSMOPOLITAN CLIMATE
European countries have always viewed the tropics as the home for the natural
abundance of resources. As the ilustrados ventured to the foreign land, they had seen
the numerous tropical islands of the country and the neighboring nations. Hence, the
ilustrados included in their writings the territoriality of climate and did not limit their
views to the national weather. It was an in-depth realization of the territories they were
entering (Aguilar, 2016).
The nineteenth century was loaded with territorial assumptions to acquire vast
amounts of natural resources. Acquiring resources and large natural deposits was a
basis of multicultural equality with the colonial masters. Hence, Filipinos who owned
great resources in the Philippines could mingle with the Spaniards because of the
amount of wealth that they possessed. Yet, political exiles in Europe sought a glance
of the warm sun in their tropical homes. Being a part of the tropics built the separation
between the foreign people and the Filipinos. Nevertheless, it is without race when
genius is depicted. The ilustrados'longing for the tropical lands was a mark of
increased political perspective, a perspective to overturn the Spanish regime from the
tropics.
The desires of Rizal for the tropics ceased when he was faced with the great
prejudice coming from the Spaniards that he exposed in his writing the Noli Me
Tangere. In 1887, a reversed thinking shook Rizal when he later on realized the value
of getting closer to the enemies than having them an ocean apart. Being Crisostomo
Ibarra, the main character of his novel, Rizal's homecoming was faced with the great
distress shown in the novel. As stated, Crisostomo confronted the demon of
comparison on his return to Manila, the demon of comparing his homeland with the
foreign land. Nonetheless, Rizal decided to end his romanticism about the Philippines
and returned to Spain to be with the ilustrados as they drew closes to their enemy
because of the hostile climate in the Philippines. Rizal had seen that it was the colonial
rule that made the Filipinos indolent or lazy. In comparison to the climate, colonialism
was viewed by Rizal as a far greater calamity than that of a real storm (Aguilar, 2016).