Our Own Mount Rushmore

My original plan was to ask my readers why now, more than 100 years after Rizal's death, he has become such a controversial topic and then move on. I have come to realize, after reading the numerous responses to my blog, that I just can't walk away.

A friend, CV, forwarded to me some reactions from members of the RP-Rizal e-group. Most are arguing against my thesis that Rizal was not a Founding Father of the Philippine nation. CV's sampling of the many reactions follows:

"I posted your article on 'More questions than answers about Rizal' at the RP-Rizal group and it received a few comments. I would like to invite you to join that group and possibly engage some of the folks there on your article.

"Here (are some) of the responses (rebuttals):

" When we celebrate Independence Day, do we think of Rizal? Or do we think
of Bonifacio, or Aguinaldo?

"Rebuttal: We think of Rizal, Bonifacio, Aguinaldo and every unnamed hero who fell and fought for it. We celebrate and think about them because we would not be as free
or islas Felipines would not be as free, as we/it is, can be today if not for
them.

" I belong to the camp that believes Philippine Independence was the
handiwork of Bonifaco and Aguinaldo, not of Rizal. In fact, Rizal opposed the
revolution. His two books, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo argued against
the revolution.

"Rebuttal: Any person can belong to any group he wants, but as far as reason dictates, the independence that we celebrate today would not come about without the birth of nationalism. Nationalism did not come about (ie love of one's native land
desiring to be free from the clutches of someone else, this includes the
assimilation, of which Rizal, concluded that the poor and native indios would
not be totally free, since although the Spanish masters would be kick out in the
process, the indio-masters would replace them, and therefore, the poor and sad
indios would be poorer and sadder all the more), of which Rizal was the
acknowledged leading proponent (not only up to this day, but more so during his
times, not only did the Spanish authorities identified him with such concept,
but all members of the Katipunan, too, the principalia, and everyone else during
those times), independence (or if we want to call it -the fight for freedom)
would not be a reality at all. Any person would first love (conceptualize) to be
free first before actually planning, or doing and achieving it. Rizal
spearheaded all of it, and therefore, the handiwork of independence would not be
complete without him.

" Every revolution has its George Washington, and it was not Rizal. It was
Bonifacio. It was Aguinaldo.

"Rizal clearly ranks as one of the greatest national heroes of the Philippines,
and was hands-down the most talented and most prolific multi-talented genius of
the modern era. But he was not the father of the Filipino nation.

"Rebuttal: If Rizal was not, who will be the father of the Filipino nation? And if your argument is correct, why until this very moment, every Filipino, even the new
generation acknowledges the martyrdom, the sacrifices, intelligence, and the
courage of Dr. Jose Rizal? Why would not the person who initiated brilliantly
with his blood and tears the birth of nationalism and therefore independence, be
not accorded the honor?

" Rizal's "on one hand, yet on the other hand" paralysis by analysis
approach to the Philippine revolution made him a liability to the revolution
rather than an asset.

"Rebuttal: Rizal's approach to Philippine revolution was not a total NO. If ever his
retraction was true, sending home his brothers in arms and advising them to stop
with their plans of armed struggle then the Spanish authorities and enemies
would not shoot him after all. The logical thing for them to do was to set him
free, but not, he was still shot. Because Rizal was a peaceful revolutionary, by
that, it means he wanted peaceful change, change in the way the indios and
insulares were being treated by the Peninsular Spaniards, what he wanted was
total self governance guided by them, until full emancipation from prejudices,
a complete assimilation process achieved peacefully; a revolutionary process
without bloodshed. Yes, the revolution that Jesus Christ had long time ago won
over against imperial Rome. This is simple to understand, isn't it?

"Gracias, Sr Cesar."

CV

The issue is not whether Rizal was a great man or that he deserves to be a national hero, in fact, the Philippines' greatest national hero. That is a settled issue.

The issue is, instead, whether he deserves to be regarded as a hero of the Philippine revolution. My carefully considered opinion is that Rizal is not a true hero of the Philippine revolution. How could he be, when he opposed the revolution?

Rizal was a reformist, not a revolutionary. His portrayal of a defeated Ibarra and his prediction of the collapse of the revolution in his twin books, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo clearly demonstrate his abhorrence for a Philippine revolution.

How can one be a hero of a revolution that one opposes? It is akin to those Republican governors and senators who opposed Obama's stimulus bill and then when the stimulus money started arriving in their states attempted to take credit for bringing the money to their states.

Rizal, of course, had nothing to do with the blatant sales job. A widely-held theory is that the American occupiers of the Philippines who of course were tasked with writing our history for us selected Rizal as not only our foremost hero but also as the hero of our revolution because Rizal never opposed them. How could he, he had been dead more than two years before Admiral Dewey's fleet sailed into Manila Bay.

We ask ourselves: What historical event is the single most important event in all of Philippine history?

My humble opinion? It was the Philippine revolution. And who were the heroes of the revolution? Bonifacio, Aguinaldo, then later Del Pilar of the Battle of Tirad Pass fame and the close to a million Filipinos who resisted the American occupiers and were gunned down like dogs by an army with far superior fire power.

Rizal's greatness was there for the whole world to see. He was willing to die for his country. But his method was reforms and full representation of Las Islas Filipinas in the Spanish Cortes. His dream was of meaningful reforms, not of revolution.

Those Filipinos who used Rizal's name to promote the revolution did not know any better. But we know. We know that Rizal did not favor a revolution. In fact, he argued persuasively against it.

He was therefore not a true hero of the Revolution, the single most important event in Philippine history. And he was not a true biological father of the Revolution.

The true fathers of the Revolution were Bonifacio and Aguinaldo.

It is important that we get this right. We must have clarity in our history. We cannot as a people have clarity in our lives if our view of ourselves is clouded by erroneous history written by our colonizers.

Let us ask the questions and endeavor to supply the answers and let the chips fall where they may. Water always seeks its own level. Let our rivers of consciousness take us to where we rightfully belong. Only through honest soul searching can a shell-shocked and brow-beaten people such as the Filipinos emerge from the shadows of its false hopes and murky ideas and renew its search for the sunlight of true idealism.

We can start by identifying our heroes more accurately and discover how best to emulate them.

We can start by examining the lives of Bonifacio and Aguinaldo and enthroning them on the same dais that we as a people have reserved only for Rizal. We can erect two additional thrones in this holy pantheon, where I envision the triumvirate of Bonifacio, Aguinaldo and Rizal as the Philippine equivalent of Mount Rushmore.