QUIBUYEN’S – A NATION ABORTED  MODERNIST VS TRADITIONAL

MODERNIST
(SUMMARY-NOTES)  Elite/official
 Liberal reformist
 CHAPTER 1 TOWARD A RADICAL RIZAL  Elite
 Floro Quibuyen TRADITIONAL
 Nationalist view  Folk/ vernacular
 Teodoro Agoncillo  Tagalog christ
st
 1 Nationalist view  Masses
 Reform movement did not cause the  ―realm of the familiar‖
Revolution  GRAMSCIAN: IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICTS
 DICHOTOMY: RIZAL
 REFORM  Prim and proper
 REVOLUTION  Sensitive
 Renato Constantino  Anti-SPAIN
 Echoed Agoncillo DEL PILAR
 Accepts: Essentialist characterization of  Ambitious
Agoncillo  Politically shrewd
 DICHOTOMY  Anti-FRIAR
 RIZAL  Correspondence and Memoirs as Source for a Critical
 BONIFACIO Hermeneutics
 Reform movement did not cause the  Other scholars:
Revolution  Cesar Majul
 NOT based on historical FACTS  John Schumacher
 FACTS: (REFORMIST)  Sesuho Ikehata
 Province of Spain  Austin Coates
 NOT for INDEPENDENCE  Leon Guerrero
 Anti-Friar  Rizal‘s works and political acts
 NOT anti-SPANIARD  1861-1882 : Formative years
 Not for Armed Revolution  Calamba,
 RIZAL: El Fili and  Binan
Manifesto to the Filipino  Ateneo and the Jesuits
People  Gomburza Martyrdom
 Denounced the Revolution  Imprisonment of Teodora Alonzo
 Antonio Luna: x  Literary ventures
Katipunan  Encounter with the guardia civil
 Accepts: Essentialist characterization of  Rizal‘s works and political acts
Agoncillo  1882-1887: European Sojourn
 MIDDLE CLASS  Enlightenment education
 Illustrados  Medical studies
 Economic interest  Patriotism
 Cautious and conservative  Noli me tangere
 MASSES  1887-1888: The turning point
 Revolutionary consciousness born of praxis  Calamba Hacienda case
 REFORM VS REVOLUTION  Rizal‘s works and political acts
REFORMIST  1888-1892 : Second Sojourn
 Middle class  Radicalization of Rizal
 Illustrados  Historical, ethnological, and linguistic studies
 Rizal  Los Indios bravos
 La Liga Filipina  Break with the del Pilar and La Solaridad
 ―hatred of the masses‖  El Filibusterismo
REVOLUTIONARIES  Rizal‘s works and political acts
 Masses  1892-1896: The Moment of Truth
 Bonifacio  Rizal and the Revolution
 Katipunan  La Liga Filipina and the Katipunan
 RIZAL VS BONIFACIO  Exile to Dapitan
RIZAL  Arrest
 Assimilationist  Martyrdom
 Self-serving  CRITICAL ISSUES
 Counter-revolutionary 1) Strategy and tactics – Reform or Revolution
BONIFACIO 2) Calamba Hacienda Case
 Fighting for the country‘s liberty 3) Rizal‘s break with del Pilar‘s La Solidaridad
 CRITICAL ISSUES:  Reform or Revolution
 What are the ―historical FACTS‖  Independence
th
 How did the people of the 19 century perceive  Peaceful struggle
events?  DREAM
 CRUCIAL QESTIONS  Assimilation
 Why, of all heroes, was Rizal the most venerated in  MISTAKE
th
the 19 century nationalist movement?  Reform or Revolution
 What was it in Rizal‘s life and works that struck a  Letters to Blumentrit
chord in popular imagination?  The Filipinos had long wished for
 What was Rizal‘s nationalist agenda? How was it HISPANIZATION and they were wrong in
received by the revolutionaries? aspiring for it. It is Spain and not the
th
 Did the people of the 19 century perceive Liga and Philippines who ought to wish for the
the Katipunan as ideologically and strategically assimilation of the country. (Feb 21 1887)
opposed political organizations?  Reform or Revolution
 Did the revolutionaries perceive Rizal as an  A peaceful struggle shall always be a
assimilationist and therefore opposed revolution? dream, for Spain will never learn the lesson
 Did they, for that matter, perceive Reform and of her South American colonies. Spain
Revolution as opposed political agendas? cannot learn what England and the United
 IKEHATA States have learned. But, under the present
 Ileto‘s : ―history from below‖ circumstances, we do not want
 Two opposite and irreconcilable meanings separation from Spain. All that we ask is
 Modernist discourse great attention, better education, better
 Traditional discourse government, one or two representatives, and
 Reproduces the Agoncillo-Constantino binary grater security for persons and our
opposites properties. Spain could always win the
 Answers the first 2 questions appreciation of Filipinos if she were only
reasonable. But, quos vult perdere Jupiter,
prius dementat! (Jan 26, 1887)
  Constantino and Ruth Roland
 A peaceful struggle shall always be a
dream, for Spain will never learn the lesson
of her South American colonies. Spain
cannot learn what England and the United
States have learned. But, under the present
circumstances, we do not want
separation from Spain. All that we ask is
great attention, better education, better
government, one or two representatives, and
grater security for persons and our
properties. Spain could always win the
appreciation of Filipinos is she were only
reasonable. But, quos vult perdere Jupiter,
prius dementat! (Jan 26, 1887)
 Austin Coates
 Rizal‘s pseudonym : Laong-la‘an (Ever Prepared)
 Almost Fatalistic attitude
 Spain would never accede to the demand of reforms,
and so, if the revolution was going to happen, it was
going to happen; one must, therefore, be prepared
for any eventuality. (June 19, 1887)
 I can assure you that I have no desire to
take part in conspiracies which seem to
me premature and risky in the extreme.
But if the government drives us to it, that is
to say, when there remains to us no other
hope than to seek our ruin in war, when the
Filipinos shall prefer to die rather than to
endure their miseries any longer, than I
too shall advocate violent means. It is
Spain who must choose between peace and
ruin… I cannot believe that you, as a free
man, as a citizen of Europe, would like to
advise your good friend to endure all and to
act like a cowardly man, without courage.
(Guerrero trans. 1963, 286)
 Austin Coates
 Reform = Political TACTIC
 Distinguished from: Longer strategy of SEPARATISM
 NOT mutually exclusive (Reform vs Revolution)
 Rizal: did NOT have ILLUSION of the reform
movement
 Appreciated: tactical value
 Letter to del Pilar
 I am assiduously studying the events in our
country. I believe that only intelligence can
redeem us, in the material and in the
spiritual. I still persist in this belief.
Parliamentary representation will be a
burden on the Philippines for a long time. If
our countrymen felt otherwise than they do,
we should reject any offer of such
representation but, the way we are, with our
countrymen indifferent, representation is
good. It is better to be tied by the ankles
than elbow to elbow. What can we do!
(Guerrero)
 Antonio Luna: Support for RIZAL
 The propaganda for assimilation is necessary but
separatist propaganda should be even more active
for the practical thing is to seek adherents in shaking
off the yoke since we should not obtain and even if we
did we would work for independence, banding
together, making ourselves into apostles to gain men
and money. For all this much study, a great deal of
fact and prudence and no boasting of our strength will
be required…
 Antonio Luna: Support for RIZAL
 …I think you understand me well enough… I shall go,
then, to Manila and in all my acts keep ever in mind
my duty as a separatist… You already have then a
follower around here who will work with constancy
(Guerrero)
 Views of the Filipinos
Agoncillo-Constantion
 Dichotomy
 Reform VS Revolution
th
19 Century
 Reform = tactic
 Long-term: SEPARATISM
 Revolution
 Enlightenment of the Filipinos
 Develop national consciousness: Propaganda
(REFORM)
 Attain nationhood
 Obtain the knowledge that was not available to the
Philippines but come home and work among your
people.
 CHAPTER 2 RIZAL AND THE REVOLUTION
When we open the pages of history books in the
Philippines, it is not surprising to see texts about the
martyrdom of our most celebrated hero-- Dr. Jose Rizal. In
fact, it seems that his name already occupied a permanent
and prominent place in every publication that has
something to say about the Philippines. Truthfully, there
is nothing wrong about immortalizing Rizal and his
heroism in books and literatures read by several
generations of Filipinos and non-Filipinos. Probably, most
writers deemed that doing such is a fitting way of paying
respect and gratitude to his contributions and sacrifices for
the benefit of the Filipino people and of our nation. It‘s just
unfortunate that in trying to present him as an icon of
heroism, he was placed in a pedestal that became too
tough for Juan dela Cruz to reach. The national revolution
that we had in our country from 1896 to 1901 is one period
when the Filipino people were most united, most involved
and most spirited to fight for a common cause—freedom.
While all aspects of Jose Rizal‘s short but meaningful life
were already explored and exhausted by history writers
and biographers, his direct involvement in the Philippine
Revolution that broke out in 1896 remains to be a
sensitive and unfamiliar topic.
Historians cannot deny that Rizal played a major part
in the country‘s struggle for reforms and independence.
His writings, particularly the Noli me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo were viewed as the guiding force for other
patriots to rally for the country‘s cause. While most of us
believed that Rizal dedicated his life and labor for the
cause of the revolution and venerated him to a certain
extent, a brave historian rose up and went against the tide
by making known to the public his stand that Rizal was
NOT an actual leader of the Philippine Revolution. While
most of his biographers avoided this topic, it is important
to note that this greatest contradiction in Rizal made him
more significant than ever. In his Rizal Day lecture in
1969 entitled ―Veneration without Understanding,‖ Prof.
Renato Constantino tried to disclose the real Rizal and the
truth of his heroism stripping off the superficial knick-
knacks adorned on him by hagiographers and hero-
worshippers. The very striking fact that Constantino
forwarded was the notion that Rizal was not a leader of
the Philippine Revolution, but a leading opponent of it.
Accordingly, in the manifesto of 15 December 1896 written
by Rizal himself which he addressed to the Filipino people,
he declared that when the plan of revolution came into his
knowledge, he opposed its absolute impossibility and state
his utmost willingness to offer anything he could to stifle
the rebellion. Rizal thought of it as absurd, and abhorred
its alleged criminal methods.
Rizal in his manifesto put into premise the necessity of
education in the achievement of liberties. Most
importantly he believed that reforms to be fruitful must
come from above and that those that come from below are
shaky, irregular, and uncertain.
Rizal‘s weakness for this matter was his failure to fully
understand his people. He was unsuccessful in
empathizing with the true sentiments of the people from
below in launching the armed rebellion. He repudiated
the revolution because he thought that reforms to be
successful should come from above. It could be
understandable that the hero thought of such because it
was the belief of the prevailing class to which Rizal
belonged. It is also possible that Rizal disproved the
revolution due to his belief that violence should not prevail.
In this case, Rizal unintentionally underestimated the
capacity of those from below to compel changes and
reforms.
This hesitation of Rizal against the revolution was
supported by Dr. Pio Valenzuela‘s 1896 account of the
revolution after he was sent by Andres Bonifacio to
Dapitan to seek Rizal‘s opinion and approval in launching
an armed rebellion against the Spanish administration. In
September 1896, Valenzuela before a military court
testified that Rizal was resolutely opposed to the idea of a
premature armed rebellion and used bad language in
reference to it, the same statement was extracted from
him in October 1896, only that he overturned that it was
Bonifacio, not Rizal, who made use of foul words.
However, Valenzuela after two decades reversed his
story by saying that Rizal was not actually against the
revolution but advised the Katipuneros to wait for the right
timing, secure the needed weapons and get the support of
the rich and scholarly class. Valenzuela recounted that
his 1896 statements were embellished due to duress and
torture and it was made to appear that in his desire ―not to
implicate‖ or ―save‖ Rizal, testified that the latter was
opposed to the rebellion. This turn of events put historians
into a great confusion, making Rizal‘s stand over the
Philippine Revolution, controversial and debatable, making
him both hero and anti-hero.
Constantino, in reality did not disrobe Rizal the merit
he deserves, what he did was a critical evaluation of Rizal
as a product of his time. He pointed out that even without
Rizal, the nationalistic movement would still advance with
another figure to take his place because it was not Rizal
who shaped the turn of events but otherwise. Historical
forces untied by social developments impelled and
motivated Rizal to rose up and articulate the people‘s
sentiments through his writings. In fact, the revolution
ensued even Rizal disagreed with it. Finally, Constantino
argued that to better understand the hero, we should also
take note of his weaknesses and learn from them.
• Chapter 3 ANDERSON’S READING OF RIZAL
AND THE PHILIPPINE NATIONALISM
• 7 key elements of mistranslation and
emasculation in Guerrero’s English version of
Rizal’s novel:
• Demodernization
• Exclusion of the reader
• Getting rid of Tagalog
• Bowdlerization
• Delocalization
• De-Europeanization
• Anachronism
• ANDERSON’S MISREADING OF THE NOLI-FILI
Why Guerrero did unwittingly emasculated Rizal‘s novel in
a systematic fashion?
• Immerse subterranean shift
• Fundamental reshaping of Filipino‘s conception of
themselves
• Fundamental change in the imagining of the
Philippines and of the Philippine Society
Fundamental difference between two modes of
consciousness
 the patriotic and nationalist
• Rizal’s object of devotion is for the Filipino nation
to be loved in the imagining was a place, a heimat,
and not, as in the contemporary sense, an
“ethno-racial unity” of people called Filipinos.
• According to Anderson, this is manifested strikingly in
the fact that Rizal‘s beautiful farewell poem was
addressed not to his fellow Filipinos and Filipinas, but
to his patria adorada and the only people mentioned
in it are his immediate family, and his dulce
extranjera. As time passed, as the suffrage expanded,
and as a second independence was achieved,
Filipinos‘ increasingly took the place of ‗Las Filipinas‘
as the objects of rhetorical and genuine attachment.
• For young Filipinos would at once see, in any straight
translation from the Spanish, that they do not exist
within the novel‘s pages. ―Filipinas,‖of course appear
but they are exactly what Filipinos today are not: pure
blood, Spanish creoles. This alongside with the
influence of Anglo-Saxon racism, may also help to
account for Guerrero‘s strange translation of mestizo
by half-breed, despite the fact that both he and Rizal
were, by these terms, also half-breeds. But was a
half-breed first Filipino thinkable in the 1950‘s?
• Nationalism in our times dreams of purities and finds
it hard to linger Caruñosamente over the Oxymoron
pure mix.
• Unlike nationalists today, Rizal was not preoccupied
with race or racial purity. For Rizal, it was never a
case of Filipinos versus Spaniards.
• The “nonexistent” Filipino
• All of us have to sacrifice something on the altar of
politics, though we might not wish to do so. That is
understood by our friends who published our
newspaper in Madrid. They are creole young men of
Spanish descent, Chinese mestizo and Malayans; but
we call ourselves only Filipinos.
• It is simply not true that the only people Rizal
mentions in his farewell poem are his family and
Josephine: the second stanza explicitly pays homage
to those who are giving their lives in the battlefront.
• The last and most memorable paragraph of Rizal‘s
farewell letter to the Filipinos reads:
I have always loved my poor country and I
am sure I shall love her to the last moment if men should
prove unjust to me; my future, my life, my joys, I have
sacrificed all for love of her. Be my fate what it may, I shall
die blessing her and wishing for her the dawn of her
redemption.
• Anderson‘s pronouncement that Filipinos and
Filipinas in the Noli and El Fili refer only to pure blood
Spanish creoles is flat wrong. Rizal resorts to four
interlink narrative devices which confront the reader
even before he starts reading the first chapter:
1. The novel‘s title, El Filibusterismo
2. The dedication to Gomburza
3. A two paragraph preface to the Filipino people and their
government
4. A quotation from Blumentritt on the novel‘s cover
• The word filibustero is little known in the Philippines.
The masses do not know it yet. I heard it for the first
time in 1872 when the tragic executions [of the three
priests Gomez, Burgos, Zamora] took place. Our
father forbade us to utter it, as well as the words
Cavite [site of insurrection], Burgos [the leading light
in the campaign for Filipinization of the parishes], etc.
The Manila newspapers and the Spaniards apply this
word to one whom they want to make a revolutionary
suspect. The Filipinos belonging to the educated
class fear the reach of the word. It does not have the
meaning of freebooters; it rather means a dangerous
patriot who will soon be hanged or well, a
presumptuous man I am sending you the enclosed
article, El Filibusterismo en Filipinas. I mock it n my
novel. Ispichoso (sospechoso, suspicious) is better
known, though less feared. The ispichoso of the poor
and lower class is banishes or temporarily jailed; but
the plibestiro, as my cousins say it, is not yet known;
but it will be! (Rizal-Blumentritt, 69).
• One is tempted to imagine that an agitator has
secretly bewitched the friar-lovers and the
reactionaries into favoring and promoting, all
unwitting, a policy which can have only one aim: to
spread subversive ideas throughout the country and
to convince each and every Filipino that there is no
solution except independence from the Mother
Country (El Fili’s original cover).
• The Meaning of Pueblo
 According to Anderson:
• The lineaments remain obscure, not least because he
used it very often for the local inhabitants of Calamba
or Manila. This is not only a gross misreading of Rizal,
it is downright obscurantist.
• The novels use of ―people‖ in this very delimited
sense is to miss out on the crucial political themes of
Rizal was exploring on his novel.
• The word “People”
 IBARRA
Can one say that it refers only to the
inhabitants of Calamba or Manila when he mentions ―the
people‖?
• He speaks of the Philippines and not of Calamba.
• He is also adamant in his belief about the benign
relationship bet. The Philippines and Spain. This
colonial relationship between two countries is in fact
the underlying context in the discussion about
Government the need for reforms, and the people‘s
apathy.
• PHILOSOPHE TASIO
How can the term ―people‖ here denote only
the inhabitants of Calamba or Manila, and not of the whole
country?
• To delimit ―people‖ in this localized sense is to
emasculate the political points.
• ELIAS
He speaks of ―us when he mentions ―the
people‖.
• ―No noble sentiment unites us… our hearts do not
beat to a single name.‖
• Theme of Noli-Fili
• That an oppressed people may be disunited without a
voice, but through enlightened struggle, it can
become a nation.
• July 27 1888 letter to Mariano Ponce, Rizal spoke
of:
• ―Our arduous mission which is the formation of the
Filipino nation.‖
• Colonialism and the National Question
Guerrero
• Is aware of the problematic nature of colonialism and
nationalism and is thus sensitive to Rizal‘s nuanced
rendering of these intractable political issues.
• The Fili is quite contemporary in its treatment of the
obsession with the ―prestige of the ruling race and the
conflict of nationalism.‖
The word “people”
RACIST PENINSULARS
• ―indios‖
• Peninsulars who recognize their dignity as human
beings call them “the people” and those who
sympathize with their political aspirations call them
FILIPINO.
• Shifts between Indian and People
FATHER FERNANDEZ
• When the rights of the natives are considered, he
refers to them as people.
FATHER CAMORRA
• He refers to them only as Indians.
• The Evolution of the term “Filipino”
• Renato Constantino and Clarita T. Nolasco were
probably the first to expound on the evolution of the
term Filipino. Benedict Anderson offered his basically
similar account of the Emergence of the Filipino
Identity.
• Most people in our country called Filipinas or Las
Filipinas. Filipino is synonymous to ―Criollo‖, which
means pure-blooded Spanish born in the archipelago.
• Constantino and Anderson share 2 basic premises:
1. Filipino was originally a creole identity.
2. In Constantino‘s words, ―The growth of the concept of
nationhood was coterminus with the development of the
concept of Filipino.‖
• The fundamental change in the meaning of ―Filipino‖
reflected the rapid transformation of the political
demands of an anticolonial movement that was
initiated by the illustrados but which eventually
involved the masses – from secularization to
assimilation to separation.
• Rizal never equated being Filipino with Hispanization.
Rizal had noted with chagrin the timidity of the
celebrated painter Juan Luna towards the Spaniards.
• CHAPTER 5 THE MORGA AND RECLAIMING
HISTORY
• Late 1880‘s
• Period of Rizal’s intellectual labors.
• Secularization controvers.
• Assimilationist issue- beginning of 1890’s
• Second accusation:
• The ingratitude of Filipinos to mother spain, to
whom they owed so much.
• Burgos
• First to appeal to history in his defense of fellow
Filipino priest.
• Documenting the accomplishments of Filipinos
past generation.
• Rizal‘s 3 countrymen had done doing historical and
ethnographical studies.
• Isabelo de los Reyes
• Pedro Paterno
• Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera
• Isabelo de los Reyes
• A prolific Filipino journalist
• Had written a whole series of newspaper articles
on Philippine history and indigenous culture
• Pedro Paterno
• A colorful figure, if notorious for his outlandish
and fantastic claims about Philippine precolonial
history and culture.
• Extrapolates a high level of Filipino culture at
Spanish contact.
• Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera
• Sanskrit scholar.
• Medical colleague of Rizal
• Referred to Paterno’s book – full of surprises for
history, for science and for reason.
• Rizal‘s work differ from those of his compatriots in
another crucial way:
• Its rigorous scholarship based on German
historiography.
• Its clearly defined nationalist agenda.
• Its Asian-Pacific perspective.
• Its impact on the nationalist movement.
• Dr. Ferdinand Blumentritt
• Austrian professor
• 33 year old history
• Geography professor at the Leitmeritz Classical
Secondary School
• Most respected Philippine expert among
European orientalists
• Rizal‘s 1890 Edition of Morga‘s Sucesos
• Blumentritt declined to write a Philippine history.
• Morga’s sucesos de las Islas Filipinas (1609)
• Dr. Morga
• Liutenant governor of the Philippines
• Justice of the Audencia of Manila for 7 years
• Criminal judge
• Counselor of the Inquisition
• 2 phases:
• An assessment of the 300 years of spanish rule
on the basis of an “ archeological excavation” of
the Philippines precolonial past.
• The construction of a national view of Philippine
history and culture
• Threefold agenda
• To awaken in Filipinos “a consciousness of our
past, now erased from memory”.
• To correct “what has been distorted and
falsified”.
• To better judge the present and assess our
movement in three centuries.
• Functions:
• They make crossreferences to other early
chroniclers to confirm, correct or highlight the
importance of certain ethno-historical
observations;
• They draw contrast between a flourishing pre-
Hispanic filipino society and culture
• They highlight the similarities in folkways, religion
and languages among various regions in the
archipelago to establish a common heritage
• They show the precolonial linguistic, cultural and
trade relations between Philippines and Malay
peninsula,Vietnam,Cambodia,China,Japan and
Pacific Islands to situate the Philippines in the
Asia Pacific region
• They expose the falsehood of “white
mythodologies and thereby deconstract spanish
orientalism
• The Footnotes
• Philippine precolonial culture and society.
• The immediate impact of conquest such as
depopulation, the decline in agriculture and native
industries, and the destruction of the native
culture.
• The long-term impact of colonial rule.
• Some examples of Rizal deconstructive moves
against Spanish colonial discourse.
• Rizal’s hypothesis about why Philippine society
succumbed so easily to Spanish conquest
• The Indio as Filipino
• A number of places he refers to the precolonial
natives.
• This is remarkable because Morga, like the friar
chroniclers, never reffered to those they called
“indios” or “naturales” as Filipinos, which was
the colonial label for Spanish creoles
• Immediate impact Spanish conquest
• Morga cites an interesting account of the voyage of
Adelantado Alvaro de Mendana de Neira to the
Solomon Islands, written by the senior pilot of the
expedition, Don Pedro Fernandez de Quiroz, who
tells of an incident involving Medanas crew and the
natives of an islands, which Rizal identified as
Fatuhiwa.
• The natives of Fatuhiwa are described by de Quiroz
as ―very handsome ―, ―tall and strong, large –limbed,
and so well that they made by far surpassed us‖.
• This footnotes sets the first theme of the Rizal-Morga:
the death and destruction, violence and oppression
brought about colonialism and the consequent social
decline and depopulation.
• Long-term effects of colonial rule
• Aside from Morga, a number of Spanish chroniclers—
Chirino, San Antonio, Zuniga, Le Gentil, Ezgerra.
• ―argue a considerable amount of culture among the
Filipinos prior to the Spanish conquest‖.
• The said chroniclers has a major reason for this claim
is the well developed system of writing and
widespread literacy among the precolonial Filipinos.
• Rizal did not let Morga get away with this statement.
In his footnote, Rizal writes that ―along before this
indios had schools where they learned to read and
write in tagalog, in which all of them were skilled‖.
• Another issue was the encomienda system. The
encomienda was grant in which the holder, the
encomendero, controlled the wealth that the land
produced, i.e. he had priority to buy and sell the land‘s
produce at a price he was to determine.
• On the question of slavery and exploitation of natives
by encomenderos, Morga constructs an image of an
autocratic precolonial society that practiced slavery.
• Rizal raises a number of points regarding Morga‘s
observation. What Morga observed in the Philippines
was not slavery in the European sense, for according
to the chronicler Argensola, the so-called saves are
with their master at the same table and were allowed
to marry members of his family.
• Rizal also highlights the gross disparity in wages.
• In Morga‘s time (1609)- captains: 420 pesos/year;
master-of-camp: 1400/year; general of galleys:800
pesos/year; captain of galley: 300pesos/year
• During Rizal‘s time (1889)- First Sergeants, ang mga Ilustrado at mga mason sa kanyang
European: 318-360 pesos/year, native:180 proyekto.
pesos/year • b.) Isa sa kanyang mga nakuhang miyembro ay si
• Deconstructing colonial discourse. Andres Bonifacio, ang syang bubuo ng Katipunan
• In Morga,, such words are ―pacify‖, ―entrust‖, pagkatapos mahuli ni Rizal at mabuwag ang Liga.
―treachery‖, ―piracy‖. Rizal takes note of these and • c.) Sa usaping pagsusulat ay parehong gumamit ng
does what could well be late nineteenth-century ―Pasyon Pattern‖ si Rizal at Bonifacio. Ito‘y ginamit ni
version of deconstruction.- Rizal sa kanyang mga nobela, samantalang ginamit
• According to Morga, the raid by Datus Sali and naman ito ni Bnifacio sa Kalayaan. Ang nasabing
silonga of Mindanao, in 1599, with fifty sailing vessels ―Pattern‖ ay lubhang nakatulong sa dalawa upang
and 3,000 warriors, against the capital of Panay, is makaimpluwensiya ng tao.
the first act of ―piracy‖ by the inhabitants of the South • d.) Humingi ng payo si Bonifacio kay Rizal noong
which is recorded in Philippine history. ito‘y nasa Dapitan ukol sa nalalapit na himagsikan,
• CHAPTER 7 Interrogating the Empire ito‘y sinunod naman ni Andres ngunit napilitan rin
• Nagsisimula ang kabanatang ito sa pagsuri ni Rizal magsagawa ng ―Premature Revolution‖ dahil sa
sa pagiging kolonya ng Pilipinas sa Espanya. Sa pagkakadiskubre ng Katipunan.
pagsusuri ni Quibuyen sa mga sulat at mga artikulo ni • e.) Sinabi sa kabanatang ito na si Bonifacio ang
Rizal ay lumabas ang mga sumusunod na naging tulay sa masa ng mga adhikain ni Rizal.
obserbasyon: • f.) Ayon kay Nick Joaquin, si Rizal ay isang
• a.) Makikita sa palitan ni Rizal at Blumentritt ng ―Antihero‖. Isang taong ayaw maging bayani at
opinyon ukol sa kolonyalismo, tutol si Rizal sa bagkus, iniiwasan pang magpakabayani.
pagiging kolonya ng Pilipinas samantalang naniniwala • CHAPTER 10 REMAKING PHILIPPINE HISTORY
si Blumentritt na ito‘y nakabuti sa Pilipinas. Ang • Sa kabanatang ito inilathala ang simula ng
palitang ito ay makikita sa nobelang Noli me Tangere, kolonisasyong Amerikano sa Pilipinas at kung paano
sinasalamin ng kanilang mga opinyon ang nangyaring niligawan ng ―mananakop‖ ang ―nasasakupan‖. Isang
usapan ni Crisostomo Ibarra at Elias noong sila‘y matinding punto sa kabanatang ito ay nang malaman
namamangka at naguusap tungkol sa dayuhang ng mga Amerikano ang popularidad ni Rizal sa mga
mananakop at ang taongbayan. pilipino ay ito ang isa sa kanilang ginamit na
• b.) Ipinakita rin sa kabanatang ito ang isang ―literary kasangkapan upang makuha ang tiwala ng tao,
war‖ sa pagitan ni Rizal at ni Vicente Barrantes. lalung-lalo na ang mga elite
Nagtagisan ang dalawa tungkol sa kasaysayan ng •
Pilipinas bago ito sinakop ng mga kastila. ―Racist‖ at
maraming mali ang mga artikulo na inilabas ni
Barrantes. Inilabas rin ni Rizal sa nobelang Noli ang
iba pang kapalpakan ng nasabing propesor na
KAstila.
• c.) Matunog sa kabanatang ito ang salitang
―indolence‖ o katamaran at kabobohan. Para kay
Rizal, nagmula ang nasabing ―indolence‖ sa maling
pamamalakad sa bansa. Dito pumapasok ang pang-
aabuso ng mga kastila na sinalamin din ni Rizal sa
Noli bilang Kwento ni Elias. Sinasabi rin niya na ang
kabobohan ay nagmumula sa maling sistema ng
edukasyon na pinapairal ng mga kastila at ang
pagpapalaganap nito ng sugal.
• Sa pagpapakita ng mga nasabing argumento
at ang masusing pag-aaral ni Rizal sa nakaraan ng
Pilipinas, lumalabas na iginigiit ni Rizal na
masmaayos ang Pilipinas bago ito nasakop ng mga
kastila. Taliwas sa sinasabi ng karamihan sa mga
historyador noong panahong yaon. Hinimay sa
kabanatang ito ang ―mananakop‖ at ang epekto niya
sa kanyang ―nasasakupan‖.
• CHAPTER 8 A GRAND NARRATIVE OF
REDEMPTION AND TRAGEDY
• Sa kabanatang ito ay sinuri naman ang mga gawa ni
Rizal. Lumalabas ang mga sumusunod na
obserbasyon:
• a.) Bakas sa mga sulatin ni Rizal ang
matinding impluwensiya ng ―Pasyon‖, ang
pinakapopular na babasahin sa katagalugan. Hinati ni
Rizal ang kanyang mga nobela sa tatlong bahagi, ito‘y
mayroong ―Paradise‖, ―Tragedy‖ at ―Redemption‖.
Ang ―pattern‖ na ito ay malinaw na makikita sa
Pasyon.
• b.) Samantala, ang Kilusang
Propaganda naman ay mayroong masprogresibong
bersyon nito, ―Precolonial‖, ―Colonial‖ at
―Postcolonial‖.
• c.) Sinasabi rin sa kabanatang ito na
hindi itinatabi ni Rizal ang posibilidad na kailangan ng
rebolusyon upang makalaya ang Pilipinas, ngunit
naniniwala rin syang kaya rin ito ng Reporma.
• d.) Sinabi rin nito ang mga tunay na
adhikain ng dalawang nobela. Ang Noli ay
naglalayong ipakita ang mga kasalanan at
pagkakamali ng nakakatandang henerasyon,
samantalang ang Fili ay isang apela sa kabataan na
huwag ng ulitin ang mga nasabing pagkakamali.
• CHAPTER 9 THE REVOLUTION THAT NEVER
WAS
• Ikinuwento sa kabanatang ito ang ebolusyon ng
Ebolusyong Pilipino mula sa pagbuo ng La Liga
Filipina sa pagbuo ni Bonifacio ng Katipunan at
Digmaang Pilipino- Amerikano. Lumalabas ang mga
sumusunod na punto:
• a.) Bumalik si Rizal ng Pilipinas sapagkat siya‘y
nawalan na ng ganang humingi ng reporma sa
Madrid. Ginalugad niya ang Luzon upang imbitahan