* Rizal has a different view on revolution..personally , i dont hold grudges on someones article. this was his opinion
neither this was a factual evidence. because he did not presented
any sources from his article. he can tell old dates, people from past and their
actions when Rizal was made the hero. He(the author)
can deliberately deconstruct Rizal on his views
why cant he just accept the fact that Rizal was thinking of the other way around?
he thought of a peaceful demonstration of showing liberty
he did not agree on blood shed.. does him made a less of a hero?
maybe this person who wrote this article wants to hold a rifle instead of a pen.
He chose to stay on the good side of showing how you feel about liberty. He made the two books for something more important than barbaric revolution. Maybe it was just a fault of other heroes because Rizal and other heroes were not on the same level of thinking.? I see this article as disrespectful to my belief and my principle about Rizal. Let me get back to what was important. The books were made to open the mind of the Filipinos that they need a change in government style. He showed the dark side of the Spaniards and well this had stirred up the hearts of those heroes I wont mention. So barbaric that they fight with bolos and bamboo sticks well in fact the enemies had cannons and rifles and battleships. Where they on drugs? I mean I don t fight wars that would I know what result and what could happen to me. The Philippine Revolution led by Gat Andres Bonifacio was utterly devastating. He has bravery in his heart but he sacrificed so many lives of our fellowman. and that was why ex-president General Emilio Aguinaldo, his rival, got the position of being the fisrt president of our country. He has more failed skirmishes than victories which you can count in your hand. General Emilio Aguinaldo was more successful in combat situations and hade more victories. *
*Dr. Jose P. Rizal is probably an american sponsored because advocated that the Philippines in incapable of indepence from spain and thus just be part or be province of principle can be manipulated as the same to the United States in handling the Philippines. The one being a big nation and the smaller one can be subdued as they please. But the principle of Rizal may also not be an american sponsored since he never hinted the transfer of the Philippines to the U. may have based his observations from the differences of filipinos in location so thus hard to unite, and because of seperated islands, filipinos tend to ally to any foreign force that may give them benefits. Just look how the different american indian tribes made themselves allied to different european nations who were at war with each other, killing each others own red they were not even seperated by seas. So, it is the same with the philippines but with more ease. There is a principle of war that a place scattered by great barries as great mountains and seas can be easily conquered but hard to manage or to unite. American sponsored or not, Rizal ,among the heroes of that time , deserves to be chosen as the national figure as his wisdom overwhelmed them all. that wisdom is to be diplomatic at all means to a greater power but resort to violence even when outpowered and be annihilated when justice is important aspect of his life is also not of his being a patriotic or nationalist but of an internationalist person, a citizen of the world, where no boundaries and racial discrimination exist. *
*National Hero =/= Being the most genius person ever. National Hero -first and foremost- is a model for Filipinos to protect what theirs, not a model to show how great Filipinos are intellectually. For once, Rizal didn't approve of Revolution to SET FILIPINOS FREE. He chose to be under and to let Spaniards run the Philippines. He chose PHILIPPINES to be under. It was the revolution who sets Filipinos free and who entails the message that is 'TOTAL LIBERATION' (which Rizal pointedly declined to participate). For having a national hero who necessarily doesn't like his country to have her own name and own set of community, him being a 'genius' is nothing but a pathetic facade to veil what he didn't do for the liberation of Philippines. Tell me, during your HS life and Elementary days, are your teachers ever told you that Rizal didn't approve of the revolution? No, I don't think all of our teacher taught us that. They pondered the thought of Rizal martyrdom and his writings because hell, that's the only he did to promote his 'patriotism'.
I agree that Rizal is a hero in his own way but having him as a National Hero is an embarrassment.*
*constantino did not state categorically that rizal did not deserve to be our principal hero. the points of his essay are: first, that rizal should be viewed with more historicity, that is to say, we should analyze the role he played in our history in the proper context, and not unduly elevate him into the status of a saint. by doing so, we would be able to see that rizal was not a perfect human being. that he could also make mistakes. that his utterances were not always correct for his time, and not always applicable in our present experiences.
an example of rizal's weakness was his distrust in the revolutionary solution. akomismo's assertion that rizal believed in the revolution but was only more prudent in his approach is supported by the account of pio valenzuela's interview with him, i concede. but let us not forget that rizal, in fact, PUBLICLY CONDEMNED the revolution in the manifesto he issued from his prison cell. akomismo only has the words of valenzuela. constantino has the manifesto of rizal.
the second constantino point is that rizal was a product of the society in general and his middle class environment in particular. he was not the reason why 1896 revolution erupted. rather, he and the revolution were products only of events that transpired during the 19th century that changed the landscape of philippine society. following this principle, even without rizal, the revolution would have occured. if there were no rizal, another hero would have stepped into the picture to fulfill rizal's function.
third, since rizal was only created by the society of his time, and since we can't always utilize rizal's ideas to solve our present-day problems, we must begin to realize that everyone could be a hero, that a hero does not not always need to be exceptional or genius.
as to constantino being a leftist, that is not an accurate description of the man. whenever he wrote history, he always did so not from the vantage point of the left, but strictly from a nationalist perspective. he championed not only philippine nationalism, but the third world nations' right to self-determination as well. that is why is a highly respected figure in the academic circles the world over. read his writings first before judging the man. otherwise you would be guilty of precisely the same crime that you are accusing constantino.*