Otherwise Maladroit

14 February 2000 Reaction Paper: Veneration Without Understanding by Renato Constantino

14 February 2000

Reaction Paper: Veneration Without Understanding by Renato Constantino

Constantino was correct in calling for a review of the approach to Philippine history by predecessors. History has distorted the meaning of nationalism, as such that changing the name of the inhabitants of this archipelago from "Filipino" to "Maharlika" was considered by some as the epitome of nationalist sentiment. Nationality is not merely a badge, a characterization, or a name. It is a sentiment which defies rationality. It is a feeling which transcends it. It is an irresistible call to defend the unremarkable Juan beside you, simply because of a feeling of kinship. A call that may go well beyond the point of rationality; to be willing to die for the future of a multitude of unremarkable Juans, who for some reason, seem wonderfully remarkable to you.

I think what sparked Rizal to call for reform was his obligation to the moral mission of attaining the ideal society. I think he wanted to impart the thrill of reading the Count of Monte Cristo, the taste of European culture, and the pride in partaking in intellectual pursuits to the masses. These were things appreciated by the ilustrados through education and opportunity. These being the things appreciated by his class, were for Rizal what should be the concerns of a man living a proper life. As a proper life is interpreted by Rizal. This is evident by his putting priority to paving the way for a proper environment for the inheritance of the ideal society. Hence, the stress on education.

The reason that I do not consider Rizal as a nationalist was that he found the average Juan de la Cruz as average. Rizal wanted to raise the average to loftier possibilities, not because they seemed so wonderful to him, but because he was an educator, an idealist, and a moralist. He wanted to bring the uncivilized into the civilized world. He wanted to remold the indio into a Filipino.

But this concept of "Filipino" was for him as dictated by Spanish standards, and to which integration was the attainment of the identity. What "Filipino" was for the Revolutionists was a concept divorced from the Spanish ideal, and taken from their own idea of "what-ought-to-be." Filipino was therefore the possibility of being, without the Spanish shadow hindering its growth and condemning it. We do not know the full mind of Rizal, but I think what kept his ideas a shade from nationalism was that his image of a Filipino had a pointy nose.

I doubt that Rizal was to be blamed for his limitations, afterall geniuses tend to get more than their share of expectations. Great things seem to be the standard in what people view as great men. Because of this we tend to forget that great men, heroes though they may be, are only human themselves. This is the problem with historians, opportunists, cultists, revisionists, etc. that tend to edify Rizal to proportions distorting vital information on that era's trends, and developments of social and political thought and activity. Rizal as we know him, as he is taught in the primary level of education, as he is presented in the media, film, and literature, is an embellished image. It is precisely because of these near mythical qualities of Rizal, and a "holier-than-thou" characterization by his fervent autobiographers that somehow makes him too unreal to me. Rizal seems to be merely a poster-boy of the era of Revolution.

Others could have taken up Rizal's space in history. The period was ripe for revolution, since discontent and the invasion of the ideas of liberalism were presented in society. If there were no Rizal, we may have had Jaena, or Del Pilar instead; and even if they did not exist, it is sure that some other will. It is my belief that the environment makes a person, and not otherwise. If Cromwell was not a Puritan, would he be as firm and determined to reshape the administration of England? Would he be as unrelentless and strict? If Malcolm X was not jailed, or converted to Islam, I doubt that he would have been a leading black leader, much less change his ways.

If the Philippines were colonized by the Dutch, who were Protestant, would the same Christian values that permeate the ideas of Rizal and subsequent thinkers, would be as is? The Dutch were lenient in the conversion of their colonies to Christianity, since the Dutch have always been characterized by their no-nonsense approach to business. Their colonies were business.

If so then Islam would have flourished, or paganism would have survived. In this light, would we have produced a Rizal, exactly as we know Rizal? It would be more likely that a leader for reform or emancipation would be one of the religious leaders, is the oppressed did not call for a jihad first. And if Rizal was to flourish into a genius in this environment, would he have been the same romanticist and liberal? I would think that he would call for a fundamentalist state.

posted by Otherwise Maladroit @ 5:17 PM