Book Report on a Nation AbortedEssay Preview: Book Report on a Nation AbortedReport this essayI. IntroductionAbout recovering a lost history and vision, an invitation to re-read Rizal, rethink his project, and revision Philippine nationalism. Traces the trajectory of the Philippine nationalist movement from its inception in the late nineteenth century to its deformation and co-optation by US imperialism in the early years of the 20th century— through a genealogy of the rise and fall of the symbol of Rizal, the national hero. Reconstructs Rizals vision of the nation, a moral vision that was appreciated by kindred spirits in the so-called Propaganda Movement as well as the Katipunan, and resonated deeply with the revolutionary spirit of 1896— the moral vision that constitutes what is most crucial and cogent in Rizals lifework, in todays era of genocidal assertions of national sovereignty and predatory, corporate-driven globalization.
II. BodyWas Rizal a revolutionary? Why did he condemn the revolution that was to be waged by the Bonifacio-led Katipunan? Was there a retraction by Rizal before his execution? These are questions the book tries to argue favorably and positively for Rizal. I am sure that this is a book that our good Jesuits who are so proud to have educated Rizal would have dreamed of writing, publishing and promoting themselves (they actually published it through Ateneo University Press). What Quibuyen calls Constantinos viciousness in denigrating Rizal and giving him up to the enemy is matched by an almost perfect picture of Rizal. Rizal here is a saint to be worshipped, a demigod to be transformed into a religion. This does not do justice to Rizal and is an extreme adulation of our national hero who, instead of being treated as one of us, is molded into a religious relic by Quibuyen. Defending Rizal from his critics does not necessarily give justice to him. Perhaps the critics of Rizal were not out to belittle or devalue him but to present the human Rizal, as flesh and blood, with virtues and vices, strengths and weaknesses like any other mortal.
Quibuyen confronts and takes to task Constantinos assertions that while Rizal was an illustrado reformist who was seeking our assimilation with Spain, Bonifacio was the real plebeian revolutionary who guided and led the independence struggle. This line of thinking, according to Quibuyen, had been at the expense of Rizal. To accomplish this, Quibuyen has instead painted a flawless Rizal. Every positive word or letter of Rizal as well as documented testimonies from his associates and contemporaries and biographers are harnessed to support the view that he was after all a consistent revolutionary.
But Quibuyen is unconvincing. For Rizals deeds were inconsistent with this revolutionary zeal. Of course, this can be explained by the fact that he was a complex, sophisticated man. Why was Rizal willing to serve the Spanish army as a medical doctor against Cuban revolutionaries when he was arrested and sentenced to die? His actions while he was in Dapitan in captivity only show how much trust he had in the Spanish authorities in whose hands he placed his life. He could have escaped when there was a chance and when the opportunity was offered by the Katipunan. But he instead told the Katipunan that he had even given his word to his colonial captors that he would not escape and would behave well. For if he was indeed a revolutionary, he must have been an armchair revolutionary. He could have been a Jose Marti, the Cuban writer and revolutionary who led the Cuban peoples revolt against Spain. But he passed up these challenges and opportunities. Still, Quibuyen insists that Rizal was a revolutionary, both in word and deed.
But history is usually kind to its victims. It sacrificed Rizal at the altar of martyrdom and immortality, a Rizal showing the world and his people that one could die unafraid, proudly and with dignity for ones country. This was the Rizal that was the subject of veneration by the Katipunan and the popular imagination of the masses, and one that continues in some of our millennarian movements. That was how that martyrdom was used by the 1896 revolutionaries, as Rizal was already a personality known for his well-rounded genius, his open defiance to the clerico-fascist friars through his novels and other writings. The Katipuneros whom Rizal had condemned began spreading the word that Rizal was actually their adviser and his dramatic death geometrically multiplied the ranks of the Katipunan that even his beloved Josephine Bracken and his brother and sisters later joined it. The author Quibuyen even provides
Risky and arrogant
The idea of a “dishonest and ungrateful” religious person at the center or in the highest positions of authority in Indian social, political, and military regimes has had its roots in the caste system of India. The “tradition” of Chogypoda and others who were considered to be “traditionists” (those who believed traditional India still existed) in their view that there is one God is a form of self-proclaimed idolatry. However, many of these “traditionists” see today the very concept as “dishonest” and unprincipled, and in the hands of one who is a form of self-proclaimed idolatry. They see an idol in the form of an extremely long hair. It’s not that these particular “traditionists” are necessarily “dishonest” or “disprudent” in an attempt to change the situation, or actually change the course of society, but they are quite aware of the fact that their “truth is” very much dependent upon the ability of these persons to think the truth. Most of them have not the knowledge as to how much power a government can wield and hence, the more power their representatives wield, the greater is the potential for misappropriation of government resources by one’s opponents. They have done a lot of writing. These folks at the Centre have written many books on how a democratic state can effectively be run by the same kind of people who are making their living off “social welfare programmes like child feedings, healthcare, and healthcare for the elderly”, but that’s not all. They also have created a system of legalisation which has allowed for much of what the ruling class as a whole has historically been doing. And what these “traditionists” want out of all of this is to abolish and dismantle the existing government, as this can only be done through a democratic process. And this process has had its own disadvantages, due largely to the fact that many of these same people are still in power with some of their own political, military, or other leaders. So, it is not a particularly desirable position to have around the world, as the ruling class has no idea where to point the finger anymore. The fact is, we can simply find the other end of the spectrum that can still give some hope to people like us.
Chogypo: But let me think about one of its drawbacks. It doesn’t necessarily mean that these people are “self-proclaimed” “traditionists”, that is, that they have chosen to speak the truth, and make the case for a “right” society. Yet the reality for the people of India is that in the context of a democratic transition and a post-constitutional “independence” world, most of these people are going in the direction of people like Rizal who are actually doing it for their own political ends. The reality is that they have chosen to take the path that is more likely to lead they are seeking in their political, military, economic, and cultural future and that’s something about which they still have an incredible amount of doubts. Let me explain. In the past 100 years, in almost every case the government has tried to break the system of power behind it without a political solution. It has come to a very clear point where the people are asking themselves “How can any