Another Version of Dawn
Colonialist Imprints on the Life and Works of Rizal
By Chester Leangee Datoon
Jose Rizal died seeking change under the Spanish rule only to be used by those he fought against.
The titular novels of Rizal, Noli Me Tangere, and El Filibusterismo, have been retold and reinterpreted countless times, whether in pop through shows like Maria Clara at Ibarra or in sociocultural changes that dismantle the idea of ‘Maria Clara’ among Filipinas. These modern takes of his work come without surprise — intertwined heavily within the national education curriculum by virtue of Republic Act No. 1425 otherwise known as Rizal Law, the life and works of Rizal are required materials for secondary and tertiary level students.
Beyond discussions of Rizal’s work, his life is remembered by his full name akin to a tongue twister, as well as his countless love affairs from the Philippines to Europe. Nonetheless, while Rizal and his works mainly depicted atrocities in the Philippines under the Spanish regime, the use of his identity and ideas from the colonization of the United States (U.S.) to the present day highlights Rizal’s other dimension.
Discuss Me Not
When discussing the criticism of Rizal, it is inevitable to bring up the analysis of Filipino historian Renato Constantino in his essay “Veneration Without Understanding,” which depicts Rizal as an opposing figure to the brewing revolution at the time. Evidence of Rizal’s opposition was highlighted when examining the December 15, 1896 manifesto detailing that from the start, he disapproved the idea of revolution as a tool to achieve social change in the country due to its impossibility at the time. Similar to how most Western-educated illustrados, Rizal’s idea of justice and equity for Filipinos can be traced through the idea of full assimilation of the Philippines to Spain.
Some interpretations of Rizal and his correspondences argue that he was only looking into the bigger picture over the heightening global tensions at the time, the reason for his denial of an uprising, and his involvement in La Solidaridad as a writer. The publication, which was established with the primary goal of propaganda toward the assimilation of the country, championed the representation of Filipinos in higher government positions and the abolishment of policies that Spanish friars frequently abused. Ultimately, the goal of the publication was the recognition of the Philippines as a distant province of Spain. Rizal’s involvement with such publication depicts that his idea of justice is not an independent Philippines, but rather an assisted Philippines yet still colonized by Spain.
His stance is further emphasized by his choice of language for the novels Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. Instead of Filipino or a local language in the Philippines, both novels were written originally in Spanish. Though critics may argue that learning Spanish was accessible at the time due to the enactment of the Educational Decree of 1863 that mandated the reform of the Philippine education system, poor implementation due to Spanish friars and scarce resources made learning elusive for the lower-class Filipinos. Moreover, Spanish leaders in the Philippines vehemently curtailed the circulation of the novels in the Philippines — slashing down the number of copies spread or banning them completely.
Nevertheless, the ultimate goal of the two novels was to substantiate the hardships of Filipinos under the abusive rule of Spain in the Philippines. Through this, it hopes to educate Europeans, particularly Spanish officials, to improve the living conditions of Filipinos through legislative reforms and policies that fulfill their promise to help the country. This indirect method of obtaining justice highlights Rizal’s nature as a pacifist — a firm believer in the benevolence of colonizers to truly ‘help’ the Philippines.
In modern times, Rizal is discussed and viewed by many as a purveyor of Philippine independence, while others question his past actions that say otherwise. Perhaps, his original thought was exhumed and transformed by colonizers as a propaganda that promotes their whims in the country — a real social cancer that continues to plague the country.
A Dead Filibuster
At the final time of his life, with his correspondence to Blumentritt, Rizal shifted his principles from assimilation towards the inevitability of revolution. However, such a shift came too late and was buried under the colonial power transition to the U.S. American colonizers knew better than their Spanish counterparts — to fully achieve their goal in the country, they had to show that they were better. The bulk of Rizal’s work, especially those that highlight assimilation, outlined how the U.S. could successfully do it.
Critics of Rizal outright call him the American boy or ‘Amboy.’ In an account of a meeting of the 1901 Philippine Commission, the Philippines needed a national hero, and from the big names that had risen during the propaganda and revolutionary movement, Rizal was the best pick for the United States. It is important to note that this meeting happened in the presence of American officials and elite Filipinos who benefited from colonization. With such a meeting panel, Rizal as a reformist was obviously preferred when compared to Aguinaldo or Bonifacio. Aguinaldo was deemed a coward and a traitor; Bonifacio was too radical.
Taft loved to use Rizal to show that the Americans cared for the Filipinos. Apart from dubbing him as the ideal national hero, his passion for using Rizal trickled into policy-making by declaring the Philippine Commission Act №345, one of the early documents that declared December 30 as Rizal Day. Beyond this, Rizal’s goal of assimilation was realized throughout the US colonization, exemplified by McKinley’s rationalization of the occupation as ‘benevolent assimilation.’
Representation of Filipinos in the Spanish Cortes came in the form of the establishment of the Commonwealth by virtue of Jones Law. Accessible public education was realized through the establishment of schools and universities such as the University of the Philippines and the overall educational system was strengthened by the Monroe Educational Survey Commission. Separation of church and state and freedom from friar influence was exemplified by the Friar Lands Act of 1904. Little by little, the U.S. ingrained within the Filipinos the idea that they were fulfilling the unmet goals of Rizal.
Moreover, during the period of World War II in the Philippines between US and Japan, the Americans paraded the image of the pacifist Rizal, becoming a resistance figure accepted by Americans and Filipinos to incite patriotism. On the evening of the surrender of Manila City, US-controlled radios aired a special coverage on what Rizal would do if he were alive at the time. Depicting him as a martyr who would go into the frontline willing to be captured and die for the country, Rizal was personified as a freedom fighter and that Filipinos should be one too. Similar to how Rizal wanted to gain independence, slowly and indirectly, the country went back to being dependent on great powers.
The Philippines may have achieved independence in 1946 but the impact of the manipulation of the US is still recognizable today, even in their puppetry of Rizal by virtue of the enactment of Rizal Law in 1956. While the distant US deals with its own personal turmoils, the ruling class in the country still uses him for personal gains. Current government leaders echo Rizal’s sentiments on corruption and injustice every December 30 despite being purveyors of it; opportunistic leaders in the country became the modern personification of the reign of greed that Rizal wanted to avoid.
Makamisa: A Continuing Tragicomedy
Through these depictions of Rizal a revision of the popular phrase emerges — is the pen truly mightier than the sword? Rizal and Bonifacio, as the most prominent heroes for the Filipino masses, come into the spotlight when discussing which of the two truly emanates Filipino heroism both in principle and deed.
The pampering of peaceful and indirect modes of reform in Philippine society has stigmatized the mere thought of a revolution. Conservatives who view the current government and societal structure adhere to Rizal’s principle to a detrimental extent that radical change through various modes of revolution is feared the possibility of anarchy. Meanwhile, the avaricious elites who want to stay in power continue to disillusion many through Rizal and attack radicalists by invoking their allegiance to terrorists. As time passed, Rizal’s identity and ideas became a sword pointed toward marginalized Filipinos.
As an example of these rivaling ideas, the analysis of Filipino historian Xiao Chua elucidates some underlying implications of the arguments of both parties. Proponents of the pro-Rizal typically exaggerate Bonifacio’s radicalist action, often citing the detrimental implications of revolution when instilled in Filipinos, especially the youth. To these critics, popularizing such behavior does not lead to progress but rather anarchy by dismantling the entirety of the current Philippine social system.
On the flip-side, proponents of the pro-Bonifacio typically discredit the implication and relevance of Rizal’s literature and art in Philippine history. To them, the seemingly lackadaisical approach of Rizal echoes an empty process and a bureaucratic mode of achieving change. Regardless of these points, the relationship between Rizal and Bonifacio in Philippine history and the eventual Philippine revolution seems to be forgotten.
Regrettably, the damning effect of this form of conversation is visible on the country’s status quo where government seats are seemingly reserved for a small group of popular and powerful families in the country. Rather than pushing for grassroots change by enabling underrepresented sectors to have seats in the government, purists envision progress in a formal sense — achieved through those who are educated in the four walls of academia despite the possibility of becoming figureheads to ruling families. Rizal’s idea of peaceful change has been diluted to a point where its core essence has been lost, making change unattainable for ordinary people.
Beyond all these aggressive debates, a bare reality emerges where maybe heroes are a thing of the past. With the current education system so commercialized where students and teachers face ever-demanding competencies, Filipino heroes are often remembered merely due to the fact that they have a dedicated holiday. This ‘doomed’ and apathetic view on cultural matters that affect the socio-political landscape of the country serves as one reason why opportunistic individuals remain in power. Hence, the need to retell the value of Rizal and other heroes’ identities and ideas, and reveal how propaganda can be used to manipulate discussions. There is a call for renewal through nuanced conversations that uplift the marginalized.
Consummatum Est: To a New Dawn
At the end of the day, Rizal’s contributions to Philippine history are irreplaceable and irrefutable. From his texts to his death, Rizal’s identity and ideas have been used to instill patriotism and advocacy for change in the country — he was an honorary leader in the Katipunan, and his life, works, and death eventually fueled the Philippine revolution further. There is a necessity to view topics like these from multiple perspectives in order to optimize the existing knowledge such that it remains true to what it actually is and truly uplifts those that need to be uplifted.
Ultimately the solution has never been to remove discussions of Rizal and his works in the academic setting as it only further undermines the cultural loss experienced by the existing Philippine education system. Rather, providing additional context and perspective on his identity and his works and how they transcend through time and history allows for better understanding of his impact and legacy in Philippine society. By bringing up these forgotten contexts, novel implications and interpretations could be made that could provide a better understanding of how Rizal and his works have truly evolved different sectors in the country.
Great individuals of the past are often remembered for their best accomplishments — for Rizal, that would be the influence of his two novels on Philippine history. Nevertheless, being a ‘hero’ or popular figure does not exempt one from scrutiny on how their life and works apply in contemporary times.
Through critical analysis and diversification of interpretations, an understanding of how these figures are being utilized to promote the status quo can be observed and society can actively act against it, like the persecution of the so-called ‘Golden Era.’ In the end, it is not just Rizal that needs to be analyzed and viewed through a different lens — all heroes should be. Doing so allows the country to see a new version of dawn — a sunrise that illuminates the darkened skies of falsehood that blinds Filipinos from realizing true and equitable progress.
