Sucesos de Las Islas Filipinas PDF

SUCESOS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS Now to the specific annotations, gathered from whatever sources available ranging from presupposed scholarly journal articles like the one by Ocampo (1998) published in the Philippine Studies and the one by Clemente (2011) published in The Philippine Review of Economi...

SUCESOS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS Now to the specific annotations, gathered from whatever sources available ranging from presupposed scholarly journal articles like the one by Ocampo (1998) published in the Philippine Studies and the one by Clemente (2011) published in The Philippine Review of Economics, and the less scholarly - less scholarly because of not going through peer review more than any other reason - website articles like the one from Kahimyang Project or newspaper opinions like the one from Philstar.com (Pedrosa 2018). The only consolation is that the last two sources presented entirely similar accounts for which, by flimsy logic, their content could be accepted as true. In any case, here are some of the annotations that Rizal made in Morga's work: 1. When Morga commented about Filipinos's "daily fare", Rizal took particular offense with the insinuation that Filipinos were wont to eat rotten and stinking fish. Rizal did not content himself with just explaining what the food in question actually was which by the way was a sentence long, he went on to short of condemn the Spaniard for following what Rizal himself admitted as the norm: treating food unknown or unfamiliar food with disgust. 2. A passing remark made by Morga in the fourth chapter about a certain indio metalworker in Pampanga Rizal interpreted as proof that indios or, at least, an indio already possessed knowledge of "this difficult branch of metallurgy" even before the Spaniards came. 3. When Morga mentioned in the fifth chapter about Dasmariñas establishing a new foundry, Rizal generously explained that it was because there was no Spaniard who knew what Panday Pira did and so the foundry that de Vera caused to be established was not maintained after the indigenous metalworker died. 4. To Morga's observation about early Filipinos' being mighty shipbuilders, Rizal exaggerated about Filipinos being able to make "with primitive means" ships of arpund 2000 tons. 5. Morga's observation about the literacy of the natives in the late 16th century- that all indios could read and write well enough at least in their own language was also used by Rizal to prove, that literacy back then was higher than during the 19th century when education was in the hands of the friars. 6. Morga's remark on how different chiefdoms formed a confederation when one was deemed wealthier or stronger than others was attributed by Rizal to the similarity or agreement of the laws with which each individual chiefdom was governed, and thus also proving his claim that the "relations of the islands among themselves were very strong and the bonds of friendship were more common than wars and differences." 7. When Morga made a note about Spain discovering and conquering great kingdoms in the remote and unknown parts of the world, Rizal was quick to point out that in Spanish ships were also aboard Portuguese, Italians, French and even Filipinos. 8. Morga's observation about how the Filipinos were armed and able to defend themselves prior to the arrival of the Spaniards was used by Rizal to highlight the claim that because of the Spaniards the Filipinos were disarmed and thus became susceptible to pirate attacks. (Was it in Morga? Implied in the Indolencia) 9. Rizal also liberally interpreted Morga's use of the word "entrusted", referring to the giving of lands to the encomienderos, as to mean "divided up among." 10. Morga noted of an interaction between the peoples of the Philippines and the neighboring territories like Japan, China and Cambodia, the loss of which Rizal attributed to the "interference by the religious orders with the institutions of those lands." These are but some of the annotations that Rizal made. It is not the authors' purpose, this much must be clear, to insinuate that Rizal was wrong in annotating Morga or that his annotations were factually incorrect, although with regard the second, recent historical and archeological discoveries would actually prove Rizal wrong. No. The intention is to understand Rizal's purpose in annotating the Sucesos. One has to understand that Rizal was a propagandist. This fact cannot be dissociate from his writings. And with this in mind, one will better understand the purpose for which he embarked on the annotation project. As a propagandist, Rizal had to portray a great, strong, even beautiful pre- Spanish Philippines. For this he had to defend the cultural practices of the natives that foreigners took an issue with: it was not rotten and stinking but fermented fish, although fermented fish still stinks and it really is difficult to distinguish between rotten and fermented with how bagoong and alamang are prepared. He also had to project, even to the point of exaggeration, the strengths of the precolonial Philippines: natives had higher literacy rate, they had people who are experts in metallurgy, they built boats of two thousand tonnage, and so on and so forth. And he had to paint not just the friar but the Catholic Church in a bad light. One interesting to note is that one of the two things that Blumentritt expressly disagreed with Rizal was his anti- Catholic bias, the other being Rizal's wont to interpret the past using the lens of the present. The image of the friar and that of the institution that he represented that had become the symbols of colonial power must be destroyed if ever they were to have the progress that they dreamed of. And yes, it was progress that Rizal and the other ilustrados wanted. Whether Rizal was already harboring thoughts of separation by this time, or whether he harbored such thoughts at all, one other discussion later on will [hopefully] help. But the tone of the annotations was more of a message to the government in Madrid that the Philippines and its native citizens were way better than the image portrayed by Spanish historians and chroniclers. That at the very least, the Philippines and its native citizens were equal with the Spaniards and were thus deserving to be treated accordingly. To this end, Rizal would even go as far as to reject Blumentritt's implication of a fraternal love existing between Spaniards and Filipinos; that such notion might give the wrong impression that the Filipinos were willing to implore again and again for such fraternal love. He had to return the introduction for his Sucesos de las islas Filipinas por el Doctor Antonio de Morga. Obra publicada en mejico en el año de 1609, nuevamente sacada a luz y anotada por Jose Rizal, y precidida de un prologo del prof. Fernando Blumentritt that he asked Blumentritt to write with a note saying: "We will not ask for fraternal love as if it were like alms... We do not want compassion, but justice." Rizal, as much as he wanted his work to be objective - his very choice of Morga was due to Morga being objective and scholarly he had with him works of early historians like Pedro Chirino and Gaspar de San Agustin - he still fell prey to what Blumentritt called the error of historians: trying to see the past and judge the past through the lens of the present, and, of course, his much well-known anti-friar as well as his lesser known anti-Catholic biases were at display in his annotations. This can be attributed to the agenda of a propagandist more than to lack of diligence and intellectual dishonesty. As a propagandist, Rizal had to portray a beautiful and powerful pre-Spanish Philippines, even if in so doing he ended up exaggerating and speculating, but this we can blame on him not having the benefit of modern research. He also found it imperative to defend against malicious statements made about the indigenous culture and practices. SOBRE LA INDOLENCIA DE LOS FILIPINOS Another accusation was made about the natives of the archipelago - that the Filipino ancestors were indolent and Rizal's response to such accusation.The word indolence has, since the middle to late 17th century, come to mean "inactivity resulting from a dislike of work". And it is not simply a dislike of the actual work to be done, for this cannot be anything but normal. One, sometimes,refuses to do something because he does not like the idea of doing it. While it islaudable to do a thing that one does not like, especially if it is an important one, there is nothing wrong in not doing it except when doing it is absolutely necessary. No, the meaning assumed here by the term in question is systemic dislike for work. In other words, it is disliking work in all its forms.And this meaning of indolence was what Rizal noted to have been misused. One cannot be sure what Rizal meant by this statement: "The word indolence has been greatly misused in the sense of little love for work and lack of energy", but to take the liberty of interpreting Rizal, it could be understood this way: that there was a deeper meaning to indolence than its popular one, and that the supposed indolence of the Filipinos had to be read in the light of this "other sense" of the term in question.Two things have prompted this interpretation: the etymology of the word indolence, and the way Rizal presented the thesis of his Sobre la indolencia de los Filipinos. The word indolence came from the term indolentia that existed c. 1600 CE. This Latin term has the meaning "freedom from pain." Seen in this light, one can better understand why people dislike or even abhor the idea of work, be this dislike systemic or isolated cases. If by working, people will just end up hurt in flesh and/ or in spirit, with expectations betrayed, then there is no cause to wonder about them disliking work. And this, and some more, Rizal himself argued for in his essay. Speaking of his essay, it is now the time to talk about Sobre la indolencia de los Filipinos, starting with how Rizal outlined it and proceeding to Rizal's arguments contained within it. Rizal started his essay with a reference to Gregorio Sancianco's take, as written in his. El progreso de Filipinas, on the issue of indolence: "that such indolence does not exist, and that all said about it does not deserve a reply..." To this view, Rizal disagreed and, after citing that the issue still persisted even in the circles of "serious and disinterested persons" and the fact that the term indolence is being greatly misused was a cause of this Sancianco's view about the issue as well as of its opposite the dogmatizing of indolence he went on explaining why he took up the task of talking about indolence and how he purported to achieve it. Then he proceeded to admitting, based on his personal observations about the people he met and the overall condition of the country more than on the faulty logic that since there were those "who worship truth" claiming so, that indolence truly existed in the Filipinos. But there was a caveat to that admission: yes, there was indolence in the Filipinos back then, but it was the effect and not the cause of whatever piţiable conditions that Gaspar de San Agustin and other historians back then had observed. In Rizal's own words: "instead of holding it to be the cause of the backwardness and the trouble, we regard it as the effect of the trouble and the backwardness..." This was the thesis statement of the essay. The rest of the essay was devoted to Rizal's explanations and arguments supporting this thesis. And then he concluded with the call for reforms that could only be truly achieved with proper education and liberty. Now, to the details.. As to the reason why Rizal took up the effort of talking about indolence, he did so in the hopes of finding a cure. For although he argued, as mentioned earlier, that the indolence was not the cause of the country's pitiable condition, a man of Rizal's intelligence and astute observation could not have missed the connection between perpetuated indolence and extended poor social conditions. As to how he purported to achieve this purpose, Rizal envisioned the method of a doctor of medicine. Only four years removed from earning his Licentiate in Medicine when he wrote La Indolencia, Rizal expressed his argument that just as the doctor of medicine would seek the underlying causes of an illness before prescribing cure, those who endeavor to cure indolence must also seek to find the underlying causes of it, lest he would- not unlike like the quack who would blame the illness to this or that supernatural reasons all the while administering whatever was in his disposal (oil, leaves, roots,even prayers) to erase the symptoms - irresponsibly blame indolence on the Spaniard or the Filipino and embark on the futile endeavor of suppressing the expressions without addressing the causes of indolence. In the course of his seeking for the cause or causes of indolence in the Filipino, Rizal found out that a certain predisposition to indolence already existed in the Filipino, and in everyone for that matter. While this was but natural, the problem in the case of Filipinos was that this latent predisposition was awakened magnified - and even sustained. Explaining his claim that there exists in man, yes not just in Filipinos, a predisposition to indolence, Rizal was philosophical; the Licentiate in Philosophy that he earned just a few years back may have had factored in this view. In any case, Rizal argued: "Man's object is not to satisfy the passions of another man, his object is to seek happiness for himself and his kind by travelling along the road of progress and perfection." In this regard, avoiding pain which was the original meaning of indolence is but natural. In Rizal's own words: "We find, then, the tendency to indolence very natural, and have to admit and bless it, for we cannot alter natural laws, and without it the race would have disappeared." The industrious Chinese must have had it, Rizal noted, since there was no Chinese that he knew who took up agriculture in the Philippines' torrid climate; they were mostly noticeably men of trade and commerce. And despite the punishing heat of the tropical sun, historical records abound with tales suggesting that pre-colonial Filipinos were quite active, that there was life and movement. There were farms, mines, trade, naval constructions, manufactures of firearms, distilleries, silk and cotton, civet and horn and hide industries. "All the histories of those first years...abound in long accounts about the industry and agriculture of the natives," Rizal wrote. But the Spaniard who insisted that Filipinos were indolent tend to gloss over these, and instead lashed out at the Filipino's inactivity or lesser activity from 10 in the morning to three in the afternoon, forgetting that while working around this time back in cold Europe was even necessary, here in the tropics it would be punishment. And, to borrow Rizal's favorite phrase, "what wonder then" that a Filipino would dislike work under that punishing heat to feed the Spaniard who would report to work at ten, would do nothing in the workplace except to sit down, read the newspaper and drink coffee and then leave before twelve? Now, that is so much for the disposition. The next thing Rizal gave were the causes that awakened such disposition. "A fatal combination of circumstances", Rizal would write, "some independent of the will in spite of men's efforts, others in offspring of stupidity and ignorance, others the inevitable corollaries of false principles, and still others the result of more or less base passions...". There were wars: insurrections that naturally resulted to executions of those who did not die during the war, war of defense against invaders like Li-Mahong and the Dutch, war for expansionism like the conquest of Borneo, Indochina and the Moluccas - which demanded thousands of workhands for the building of ships and another thousand or more expendable lives for the actual wars. Then there were pirate attacks that, Rizal alleged, were instigated by the government "in order to get a complaint" and "disarm the islands subjected to it." Such attacks further decimated whatever was left of the war, with the natives left unprotected by the government and killed by the pirates simply because to weaken their Spaniard enemies, it became imperative to reduce the number of their subjects. Those that neither war nor pirate attacks were able to kill were executed for alleged or even just rumored insurrections, or fled to the mountains in the case of the luckier ones. And even those who were spared from all of these would still have a hard time winning against the latent tendency to indolence. A man returning from a war would often find his field overtaken by nature; he had to do things all over again, and for someone who had no assurance of consuming what he planted, who knew not when the next war would be, it would be hard not to be indolent. The thought of feeding from his toils the Spaniard who made life a living hell for him would certainly not inspire him to resist indolence. Now, what of the causes for the fostering of indolence? There was the "constantly lessening encouragement that labor has met in the Philippines," as Rizal noted. This was brought about by a convergence of factors: cutting off of trade relations with the Borneans, Cambodians, Siamese and Japanese merely out of suspicion that Filipinos would learn from these free and independent "individuals of their own race," the mercantilist policy of the Galleon Trade that left the Filipinos little to nothing to do despite the trade being named Manila-Acapulco. "Nothing from the Philippines at that time went to China...to Mexico a little more," the childish rule inspired by an equally childish fear of conspiracy that required the natives to seek permission from the hard to find governor or his aides before they could work in the fields; and the existence of the outlaws defending against whom was made more difficult because of the previously mentioned disarming. And there was the priest who said that being rich would make it hard for man to ascend to heaven. There was also gambling, which although predated the arrival of the Spaniards, must have been perfected by them as evidenced by the Spanish terms used, and exported by them to other places since Pigafetta never mentioned about sabong in Cebu but later on sabong would be found in that particular place. There was the apathy of the government toward commerce and agriculture. The colonial powers would rather benefit more from merely facilitating trade between Spain and China than from iniating trade, what with the import taxes that must be paid. And there was education or non-education that for Rizal was the principle and most terrible of all reasons for the fostering of indolence. Rizal, unlike many others who wrote about the issue, did admit that there existed in the Filipinos such indolence, or at least a predisposition to it. That predisposition was awakened by factors that made the Filipinos lose hope for the future and dampened whatever industrious spirit they had: wars, pirate attacks, executions, the thought of the futility of planting when just about the surest thing to happen was that the Spaniards who made life miserable for the Filipino would be the one to harvest. Indolence was fostered by a "constantly lessening encouragement" for labor brought about by factors such as: cessation of trade with neighboring territories and the mercantilist principle governing the Galleon Trade, both of which drastically decreased production in response to the sheer drop in consumption of Filipino made or produced goods. There were also policies the effect of which ranged from inconvenience, like the policy in seeking permission from the governor before starting field work, to disastrous, like the policy of disarming the natives which left them vulnerable to pirate attacks. Then there was a host of other factors: misguided belief, gambling, apathy of the government towards agriculture and, Rizal's favorite, backward educational system all of which contributed to what the Spaniards saw in the Filipinos as dislike for work. CLIMATE POLITICS At this point of this continuing narrative, there were two stories of conversion: the conversion of at least some of the ilustrados' affection and admiration for Spain and for Europe in general and the conversion of Rizal's own view about the matter, with both conversions being at once affected and affecting the climate politics to the center of which the ilustrados were thrown. In context, the ilustrados were all exiles in one form or another. There were those who managed to engender the ire of the friars and officials of the colonial government- people like Graciano Lopez Jaena and Marcelo del Pilar. There were those who sought further or better education-people like Antonio Luna and Rizal, And, although they must have anticipated with eagerness what life in that fabled continent of progress would be, they had never truly forgotten home. Also, they were propagandists, which is to say, they took it upon themselves to portray the good and the beautiful, if not the truth, about the archipelago. They were those who defended against the malicious attacks that Spanish historians and chroniclers in the Philippines hurled against indigenous customs and practices. And when the attacks were shifted to climate, it was on that stage that the ilustrados met the adversaries, and thus began what Aguilar called the climate politics of the Propaganda Movement. Very briefly, by climate politics Aguilar meant the usage of climate by both adversaries to forward their political agenda. In his Romancing Tropicality: Ilustrado Portraits of the Climate in the Late 19th Century, Aguilar mentioned about the "racial- geographic" prejudice that the Spaniards held against the Filipinos. In other words, and this is how I interpreted Aguilar, the Spaniards considered the Filipinos racially inferior partly or wholly because of the climate. It was based on the long-held belief adopted by the Europeans that the Torrid Zone one of the zonal divisions of the world based on climate that the ancients like Parmenides and Aristotle, and further later, Strabo, theorized about causes degeneracy not just physically but also morally. Back then unfortunately, personal research yielded nothing specific about this save for the account given by Gaspar de San Agustin revolving around physiognomy (the facial features give insight to the temperament and character of a person) and humor theory (that temperament can be a result of the balance or imbalance of the four humors). De San Agustin noted about Filipinos and other Asians (except the Japanese and to some extent the Chinese) being almost the same in features and even in temperament and, a few paragraphs later, about the influence of the moon on the natives' temperament: "The temperament of these Indians, as is proved by their physiognomy, is cold and humid, because of the great influence of the moon", de San Agustin observed. And there was another one, another letter subjoined to the letter of de San Agustin, attributed to the Jesuit Pedro Murillo Velarde that contained descriptions of Filipino Indians that include unsavory remarks like being "the embryo of nature and the offspring of grossness" and being "much given to lying, theft and laziness." With regard the ilustrado's wielding of climate to forward their political agenda, accounts were a bit more numerically and romantically speaking. And these accounts we will attend to presently. There was Rizal in his Brindis. In that toast to the genius of Luna and Hidalgo, Rizal made a lot of reference to nature; nature was the principal trope that Rizal used to explain his interpretation of the paintings as noted by Aguilar. And it was not nature in general; it was nature in the tropics. "So in Luna we find the shades, the contrasts, the fading lights, the mysterious and the terrible, like an echo of the dark storms of the tropics, its thunderbolts, and the destructive eruptions of its volcanoes. So in Hidalgo we find all is light, color, harmony, feeling, clearness; like the Philippines on moonlit nights, with her horizons that invite to meditation and suggest infinity," Rizal declaimed. Rizal saw in the masterful way with which the poetry of the tropical nature were imprinted through the painters' brushes and palettes the very same way with which the tropical nature imprints genius to the inhabitants of that side of the globe. "Analyze, if not her [tropical nature] characteristics, then her works; and little as you may know that people, you will see her in everything moulding its knowledge, as the soul that everywhere presides, as the spring of the mechanism, as the substantial form, as the raw material." And if in the third paragraph of that toast, the one in which he made his first reference to nature, Rizal might have referred to the mythical Sun of Progress, later on in the speech Rizal made a definite reference to the tropical sun whose rays, through the painters brush and palettes, were transformed into "rays of unfading glory." There was Lopez-Jaena in his speech at the Ateneo Barcelones. "The atmospheric variations equilibrate thereby the effects of excessive heat so that, in general and always, one enjoys in those islands invigorating autumn or eternal spring," Lopez- Jaena said in denying the notion that the Philippines being in the torrid zone was uninhabitable and disease-ridden. Later irr that speech, he would lament: "It seems surprising, gentlemen, that those beautiful islands, whose exuberance is amazing, whose natural resources should suffice to constitute the happiness and the splendors of any nation, state, or kingdom: it seems incredible that they have long been forgotten by Spain." And there was del Pilar who, after expressing his pining for the "blue sky studded with stars", the "sparkle of the moon", the "scorching rays of the tropical sun" and everything else tropical that contributed to the creation of the oriental customs, did not allow the chance to throw shade at his Fray Botod escape: "And above all, the tenderness, the sincerity and warmth of our oriental customs evoke lovely and heartfelt memories in my soul, provoking tears at the thought that such happiness granted by God is darkened by the impiety of those who purport to be ministers of God." And this politicizing of nature, coupled with what Aguilar described as the visceral strangeness of Spain that they felt after the specter of comparisons set in, paved the way for the change in how the ilustrados viewed Mother Spain. There was Antonio Luna in sharing his first impressions of Spain. "We had been traversing Castilian territory and every moment my rising anxiety was mounting The mountainous country, arid and deserted; nature, miserable and impoverished; the fields, without vegetation and everywhere rocks and crags." This, he remarked, was a starking contrast to the lushness of tropical forests back home. And when he visited Puerta del Sol, the most famous public square in Madrid, he could not help but be disappointed and comment about Spain's inferior air air compared to the pure air back home. And when winter came, he could not help but lament about the extreme dullness even during Christmas Eve when, as he wrote, "the cold paralyzes even the hand that likes to practice charity." And there was del Pilar in his own impression of Barcelona. "Everything here is rickety and miserable. The sun has no warmth, the sky is without stars, the moon is devoid of splendor, the fields are barren, the flowers lack fragrance, and even the rain when it falls, it falls in atomistic droplets," he wrote to Deodato Arellano. The climate in Spain del Pilar found forming a stark contrast to "the magnificent expressions of the prodigious nature that rocked our cradle." Thus, was betrayed the high expectations of the ilustrados about Europe and Mother Spain. But, whether or not Spain was really as bad as Luna and del Pilar described is of no importance to this current narrative. What one must be most concerned with is how the propagandists within Rizal, Lopez-Jaena, Luna and del Pilar were at full display in their accounts. Rizal and Lopez-Jaena used the greatness of the tropics and of its people to convince Spain to finally train her eyes to that crown of the Spanish orients. Meanwhile, del Pilar and Luna used whatever they found unsavory with Spain to convince, perhaps themselves or, most probably, those who felt in love with Spain more than with the Philippines, that the colony was just as good if not better than the colonizing country. This is not to say that the propagandists were lying, for not all propagandas are lies. Being travelers unaccustomed to the physical nature of Europe, the ilustrados would certainly find that place unattractive after a certain amount of time spent there. But it must be pointed out, the way they tend to occlude in their description of the tropical climate the calamities and the human sufferings these calamities brought tell of a different story. While it must be understood that, as del Pilar noted, no one would wax nostalgic for the calamities back home, they must have had at least noted about these sufferings when they talked about thunders and earthquakes. But they did not. "There was a far greater risk of a political nature that preoccupied their minds," as Aguilar noted. And, of course, who could miss Luna missing out on other aspects of nature spread in just along the road from Barcelona to Madrid plants, trees, rivers. And there was Rizal's change of view. When he returned to the Philippines in 1887, he immediately found, and this he admitted to his letter to Blumentritt, that the tropical climate was too hot for him who had stayed in Europe for more than five years. It's quite notable that in his writings back when he was in Europe for the second time, particularly his La Indolencia, his reference to the tropical climate would assume a changed nature. While the tropical climate in the Brindis breeds genius, the tropical climate in La Indolencia breeds predisposition to indolence. But even this nod to the long-seated European belief of tropical degeneracy did not escape Rizal the propagandist. It was not the climate that caused the Filipinos to be actually indolent; it only predisposed them to indolence. It was rather the wars, the piracies, the executions and such other things that resulted from poorly-thought policies of the colonial government the tales about which we have already told - that awakened and sustained that latent predisposition. To Rizal, as it was to the other propagandists, the colonial government and the friars were calamities more disastrous than the natural ones. RIZAL ON THE ASSIMILATION-SEPARATION DEBATE At this point, the greatest and most controversial question concerning Rizal will be discussed: "was he an assimilationist or a separatist," drawing primarily from the work of Floro Quibuyen - "Rizal and the Revolution." Let me start by quoting Quibuyen's last two sentences in that work: "The problem was not Rizal after all. All along, the problem has been with historians who, in unwittingly reproducing American colonial discourse on Rizal and the Philippine nationalist movement of the nineteenth century, failed to read the popular imagination and the spirit of the times." What problem was Quibuyen talking about? Why was Rizal dragged into the center of it? Who were these historians that had unwittingly reproduced the American about Rizal and the 19th century Philippines? What was this American colonial discourse all about? What was the popular, imagination and the spirit of the times that these historians failed to read? First, what problem was Quibuyen talking about? In this work, Quibuyen explored the problem of a fragmented nationalism. In the penultimate paragraph he noted: "The result is a fragmented nationalist movement unable to present a united front against the forces of reaction which are now more entrenched than ever." What causes this result was the marginalization of the peasant nationalism brought about by the radical nationalists' criticism against Rizal that, until the time of Quibuyen's writing of this work (1997) had been the dominant frame of thought. Whatever or whoever it was that Quibuyen referred to with his "forces of reaction" - whether they were the same American Imperialists that Constantino and Agoncillo opposed or the traditional oligarchy or someone else entirely will not be explored in this narrative. What matters in that nationalism is important to any nation's progress, is his poignant observation about a "fragmented nationalist movement" which is a contradiction in itself since nationalism and fragmentation are mutually exclusive terms. Arid sadly. this fragmentation was brought about by highlighting Rizal the bourgeois versus Bonifacio the proletariat a theme that, sadly, still underlies nationalism today. Now, why was Rizal dragged into the center of this problem? It had been mentioned a while ago that Teodoro Agoncillo and Renato Constantino were anti-American Imperialism. Theirs was a form of radical nationalism. It was radical since they believed that the struggle of Bonifacio and the Katipunan was not yet finished, at least in so far as seeking for independence was concerned. The backdrop for this, it must be noted. was the popular idea peddled by the Americans the benevolent assimilation. But why target Rizal? The reason was quite simple: Rizal was an American-sponsored national hero. Vivencio Jose, who was described by Quibuyen as a younger member of the Constantino camp, described the beginnings of American colonization with the imperialists availing themselves of the collaboration of the ilustrados. And there were indeed a number who collaborated with them. One known name was Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera from whose description of Rizal, ironically along with that of their erstwhile enemy back in the Propaganda days the Spaniard Wenceslao Retana, the Americans first learned about Rizal. Jose further commented about how "the new rulers enthroned in the public mind personalities not averse to American rule even as they denigrated those who opposed it." Rizal, with all his accomplishments, his being dear to the general public and to the revolutionaries themselves, and his being a "consistent assimilationist," was the perfect candidate to reinforce the ideals of the new colonial power. And so they made Rizal the national hero. It was the number task of a true nationalist, then, to destroy Rizal because doing so would also destroy the mass deception sponsored by the Americans. But where did the Americans get their idea about Rizal as a consistent assimilationist? It was from the aforementioned Retana and Pardo de Tavera. During the interview with the Shurman Commission, Pardo de Tavera was asked about Rizal and the true causes of the 1896 Revolution to which he answered: "When Bonifacio, the leader of the Katipunan society, asked Rizal if it would be a good plan to start a revolution, Rizal opposed the plan and said it would not be suitable. He said what would do the country most good would be to devote themselves to the improvement and education of the people, and to look for reformation in peaceful ways. Nevertheless, Bonifacio, instead of telling the truth, told the Filipino people that Rizal, instead of advising peace, had advised the revolution. Rizal had nothing to do with the revolution, nor with the Katipunan society." The theme on education was also the theme that Craig explored in his liberalizing hereditary influence. Without counseling for assimilation directly, Rizal's supposed call for peaceful reformation was enough for the Americans to think of him as befitting a unifying figure for the country. And there was Wenceslao Retana, Rizal's former enemy and first biographer, who interpreted Rizal as an "antirevolutionary hero" and a "deeply loyal subject of Spain." It was this interpretation that Charles Derbyshire echoed in the Introduction to his translation of Rizal's Noli. And it was this interpretation that was picked up by Rizal's second biographer Austin Craig And thus was how the American version of Rizal started. This was the very version that Agoncillo and Constantino criticized: Rizal was an assimilationin, and he did not only counsel Bonifacio to abandon the planned revolution, but even criticized Bonifacio and his katipuneros, if some accounts are to be believed. But of course, respected historians as they were, Agoncillo and Constantino must have not relied on Pardo de Tavera's or Retana's words alone; they must also have consulted the primary documentary evidence that Retana provided in his Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal. They must also have read E. Arsenio Manuel's 1934 criticism of the Valenzuela Memoirs. Of all so-called primary documentary evidence, the most famous to have given credence to the claim about Rizal the assimilationist was Rizal's Manifiesto a Algunos Filipinos (Manifesto to Certain Filipinos). In this December 1896 document, Rizal wanted his fellow countrymen to know of his continuing desire for "liberties for our country", but alongside these liberties, or even prior to them, must be sought education through which, coupled with hardwork, Filipinos would acquire a personality of their own and "so become worthy of such liberties." In this Manifiesto, Rizal also made mention about true reforms necessarily starting from the officials of the government; reforms coming from the people would only mean "upheavals both violent and transitory." And, of course, there also was the favorites of those who pitted Rizal against Bonifacio: "I cannot do less than condemn, as I do condemn, this ridiculous and barbarous uprising, plotted behind my back, which both dishonors us Filipinos and discredits those who might have taken our part [Spanish liberals, etc.). I abominate the crimes for which it is responsible and I will have no part in it." And there was Rizal's December 12 Memorandum where he mentioned of his July meeting with Bonifacio emissary Pio Valenzuela and of his comments about the planned rebellion as absurd and untimely because of which he had always been opposed to the revolution, and of his hope that Spain would soon grant Philippines her freedom. Then there was the account of Rizal's defense during the court martial where Luis Taviel de Andrade, his lawyer, mentioned about the interrogation of Pio Valenzuela. who was also imprisoned sometime earlier, having yielded no implicating statements. On the contrary, Valenzuela's statements freed Rizal from any guilt because instead of supporting. Valenzuela noted, Rizal even dissuaded them. De Andrade's claim would be validated by the transcripts of Valenzuela's September 6 Declaration and October 6 prison interrogation.. Was Rizal, then, really an assimilationist? No. Well, at least around the time of the revolution he was not regarded as an assimilationist but as a separatist. There was the co-founder of La Solidaridad and Rizal's cousin Galicano Apacible who, in his Mis Reminiscencias, described the attribution to Rizal made by "writers" - he actually singled out Retana who had not closely associated with him in the last years of his life "that Rizal was not a separatist but a lover of Spain" erroneous. Instead, Rizal himself confided to him his conviction that "...only after separation from Spain could we achieve our social, civil and political aspirations." Then there was Jose Alejandrino who, in his The Price of Freedom, expressed his surprise "that some of his biographers have presented Rizal as completely opposed to the revolution of 1896." Then there was the oft mentioned Pio Valenzuela who, in his 1917 Memoirs, quoted Rizal's reaction after hearing of the planned revolution: "So the seed grows. The resolutions of the association are very just, patriotic, and above all, timely because now Spain is weakened by the revolution in Cuba. I approve these resolutions and I suggest that they be complied with as early as possible in order to take advantage of opportunity." Valenzuela even doubled on this claim when he was interviewed by Zaide saying, "Rizal believed that independence is won, not asked for." Aside from this personal testimonies, there was the high regard given by the revolutionaries from Bonifacio to Aguinaldo to Ricarte, and even by those who came after. Rizal's name and memory were venerated and used as rallying cry of the revolutionaries. So, document versus document, interpretation versus interpretation, was Rizal an assimilationist or a separatist? Apacible and Alejandrino's statements may be regarded as simply biased - against Spain in the case of the former, and for the revolution in the case of the latter. But bias may have also characterized Retana and Pardo de Tavera's accounts. And just as the Americans portrayed an assimilationist Rizal to support their colonial agenda, the Katipunan might have also portrayed a separatist Rizal to advance its own agenda. Valenzuela's testimonies were a different matter. They were inherently contradicting, that is to say, his 1914 testimony that says Rizal favored the revolution contradicted his 1896 declarations that say Rizal dissuaded or even condemned the plan of the Katipunan. Manuel, the radical nationalist who bought the American narrative started by Pardo de Tavera and Retana, believed that the 1914 declaration was less reliable because the more than a decade time interval between his meeting with Rizal in Dapitan and his writing of the memoirs must have dulled his recollection of the events. But during his interview with Zaide in 1931, Valenzuela actually doubled on his 1914 statements. Furthermore, Carlos Quirino, in his Preface to the Minutes of the Katipunan (1978) noted that Valenzuela himself explained that his 1896 testimonies were issued because he did not want to incriminate Rizal and the katipuneros. other But what of the declarations in the Manifiesto, which in all appearances affirmed the claim that Rizal did not just support assimilation but blatantly condemned the revolution? A closer look at the Manifiesto, which Guerrero actually made, would reveal that there was nothing in there that advocated assimilation and condemned separation. In fact, Rizal even cited the inevitability of independence, and his condemnation of the revolution was on the basis of timing and readiness and not on principle. And to this, Guerrero noted, the Judge Advocate General was not blind. It might have very well been the reason why the Manifiesto was not issued by the colonial government. And, as Quibuyen noted, the "15 December Manifesto was not, and should not be considered Rizal's last word." There was his last poem. In that poem, the most patriotic of his works, Rizal poured his heart: "En campos de batalla, luchando con delino. Otros te dan sus vidas sin dudas, sin pesar. El sitio nada importa, apres, laurel o lirio. Cadalso o campo abierto, combate o cruel martirio, Lo mismo es si lo piden la Patria y el hogar." Nick Joaquin's translation particularly of the sin dudas sin pesar as "without doubts, without gloom," which Quibuyen contrasted to that of the British Austin Coates' "without hesitation or thought for the consequences," interpreted Rizal's admiration for the bravery and determined disposition of those who fought in the battlefields. And there was Bonifacio's transalation, the first Tagalog translation ever made of that poem, of that same line: "Sa pakikidigma at pamimiyapis, ang alay ng iba'y ang buhay na kipkip, walang agamagam, maluwag sa dibdib, matamis sa puso at di ikahapis." Bonifacio's "maluwag sa dibdib," Quibuyen noted, was even more representative of the spirit of that time than Joaquin's "without gloom" in that it speaks of wholehearted acceptance and not just a determined disposition. And his "matamis sa puso at di ikahapis" displayed an even more admirable disposition it was not just a determined disposition or wholehearted acceptance; it was a joy to the heart - joy that knows no pain - to die for the country. And if Bonifacio's role in the Revolution would cast doubt on the objectivity of his interpretation, then perhaps the actions of Josephine Bracken and some of Rizal's surviving family members would betray Rizal's support or at least high regard for the revolutionaries. Instead of staying to watch her beloved die, and mourn thereafter, Josephine immediately went to join the Revolutionaries at Imus. Trinidad, Rizal's sister was also with her. And Paciano became a general of the Revolutionary Army. So, to Quibuyen, to Rizal's close associates and to the katipuneros, Rizal was a separatist and an advocate or at least a supporter of the Revolution.