Is Rizal Deserving of the Title: National Hero?
When I was in college, I was very much into Filipiniana. I got stuck to the culture, politics, and history of the Philippines in the decades leading to and during the Philippine revolution of 1898. For four years, Teodoro Agoncillo's textbook on Philippine history was like a Swiss knife to me. I used it on many occasions not necessarily related to reading. It was my stool, paper weight, pillow, blanket to cover my face when I sleep and many more.
Rizal was the focal point of discussions in P.I 100 (Philippines Institutions 100), a required subject for all students but one which is taken up only during third year college. I, on the other hand, had with me tomes of books about Rizal and his times when I was only a freshman in college. I had a strong liking for Rizal, an appreciation not shared by many in the university. Rizal is studied in UP possibly because it is a government mandated course. Without this mandate, many professors of UP would rather devote a course to Andres Bonifacio.
Rizal resonates in my personal values. Both of us has a thing for the printed word, but we differ on issues that have to do with violence. Part of the reason why the sword often appears as a symbol of personal transcendence in many cultures has precisely to do with what a sword can do to flesh. It cuts flesh; it kills people. A man who is not violent by nature is hardly a good man. A man who is capable of grim violence but chose not to use it is the true heroic person.
Rizal's resistance to take on the sword to face Spain made him an incomplete heroic figure because not only did he not take on the sword when he needed to, his true character as a person is one which is not capable of violence. This made him severely incomplete as a heroic figure in history.
Comments
Post a Comment