King Louie G.

Perez
G-5R

PI 10
Reaction on Veneration Without Understanding

Sir Herald Ian Guiwa

Denunciation Without Understanding

In the article Veneration without Understanding, Constantino expressed his opinions

about the veneration of the Filipinos to Rizal. From the title itself, he was accusing the Filipinos
for adoring someone (Rizal) even without having enough understanding about his life and works.
On his analysis on the life of Rizal, he described Rizal as anti-revolutionary, Americansponsored hero, limited Filipino, and ilustrado. He questioned the heroism of Rizal. Evidently, he
is anti-Rizal but pro-Bonifacio.
The issue drawn by the article is the overwhelming respect and adoration of the Filipinos
to Rizal to the extent that he had crowned as the greatest national hero of the Philippines as if
they understood Rizal very well. This issue went deeper and deeper as he discussed Rizal. At
some point, he did not give Rizal so much importance because he said that the nationalist
struggle will happen even without Rizal. Even the works of Rizal were questioned. He said that
Rizal was not for the indios and does not deserve to be the hero of the indios because he is not an
indio in the first place. Constantino attacked and refuted the beliefs of the Rizalists.
As a student, taking up the PI 10 course, I need to respect the ideas and opinions of
Professor Constantino towards Rizal not just because he is a well-known historian but because
the course is promoting the idea of Kanya-kanyang Rizal. My Rizal is different from his Rizal
in many ways because we have different understandings about his works.
In the issue of Rizal as an anti-revolutionary, I think many had misunderstood the answer
of Rizal to the consultation of Bonifacio about launching armed forces against Spanish Regime.
Rizal answered that it was too early; the Filipinos were not yet ready for those kinds of actions.
This means that he was not clearly disapproving the revolution. He was just having a warning.
The message of Rizal is also evident in his novel El Filibusterismo specifically on the last
chapter where he showed what might happen if someone was carried by his emotions and
brought him to audacity. Against on what Constantino said, I think Rizal was right. By that time,

Filipinos were not yet ready because they were not yet unified. But yes, the revolution had begun
despite the advice of Rizal but, are not we forgotten that the revolution was accidentally started
because the secrets of Katipunan led by Bonifacio were revealed? Thus, we could not say that
Bonifacio started the revolution based on his plans. Maybe he would obey Rizal. Maybe his plan
was to prepare more before the revolution. We do not know. My point here is we could not say
Rizal repudiated the revolution because we are having possibilities here. We could not jump into
conclusions. Rizal was the inspiration of Bonifacio. He enlightened Bonifacio and opened the
eyes of the Filipinos. How come he took no part in the revolution? For me, Rizals advice was
always been better until the end parts of the revolution. The revolution was not really very
successful based on its very purpose because it was not really the reason why the Spain gone. It
was the Treaty of Paris. In this case, the Philippines gained liberty not independence.
Rizal was an indio. I believe Rizal was an indio and had always been for the indios.
Though Rizal came from a rich family, he experienced same kind of oppression. Spaniards had
treated us as indios. But Rizal proved that indios can do something to fight them. He needed to
be away from the battlefield, from the Philippines to see the whole picture. He studied the history
of other countries to gather some ideologies which can be utilized in his works. But he did not
leave the indios. He came back bringing the truth about the conditions of our society. He brought
the Noli Me Tangere which was considered as a Tagalog novel. From this, the indio became
Tagalog. Rizal did not stop his advocacy and continue to study and write. He studied de Morga,
wrote The Philippines A Century Hence, and finished the El Filibusterismo. From this, the
Tagalog became Filipino.
Aside from criticizing Rizal, I think Constantino also wanted us to remember that there
were some heroes other than Rizal who had made things happen in our history. But I do not like
the way he chose to do that. He gave less importance to Rizal. I also disagree about the shallow
understanding of Filipinos towards Rizal. We understood Rizal but the fault of others here is they
only focused on Rizal instead of only using his eyes to see what was the Philippines during his
time. This matter of comparing heroes is wrong. On the other hand, comparing is not bad. We
also need to compare to check the views of all witnesses and to balance our treatment. Rizal was
a product of the 19th century. The time molded him. But at the same time, at some point, he also
created his time. He also molded the 19th century and brought light to the Filipinos.