Critical Analysis of the Article: Rizal: Father of Hitler?

Jack The
Ripper?

The article was about the issue of the fatherhood of Rizal to Adolf Hitler. The former was a dictator
and leader of a group known as Nazi Party in Germany. It explained the possibilities of father and son
relationship of the two. The writer also made mention of Jack the Ripper, the mysterious notorious
serial killer of the 19th century in London. It pinpointed Rizal as one of the suspects of the Whitechapel
killings in 1888.

There were several arguments presented on the article. Let’s begin with Rizal as the biological father
of Hitler. The first argument was Rizal had a German connection because he studied at Heidelberg
University in Germany and probably had a son who later became Adolf Hitler. But the argument was
easy to discredit for Hitler was actually an Austrian and not a German. Secondly, is that Rizal and
Hitler share the same physical characteristics such as height, eyes and hair color. Lastly, when Rizal
visited Vienna, he spent a night with an Austrian prostitute which could be the mother of Hitler.

Another issue was Rizal being the infamous killer Jack the Ripper. It was stated that during the time of
killings, Rizal was also in London copying the book “Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas” in the British
Library. The first argument was that when Rizal left the place, the killings stopped, making our national
hero a suspect to the crimes. Second is Rizal and Jack the Ripper share the same initial J.R. which I
think is non-sense. Another was that Rizal was good with weapons and has a medical background
since it was believed that the killer was somehow had a medical experience on the way he murdered
his victims.

The issue of Rizal being Jack the Ripper was new to me, as well as the Rizal and Hitler father-son
relationship. I’m quite amazed how people made these connections. Actually, I never had such
interest in Rizal’s life until now. After reading Ocampo’s article, I made some researches and did some
additional readings about the controversial Jack the Ripper, I learned that there were many suspects
of the true identity of the serial killer. Some even suggested that the killer might be a butcher and was
a local to Whitechapel which disqualifies our national hero. When Annie Chapman was killed Rizal
was in Paris which again making it impossible for him to be the killer. Even the initial J.R. does not
justify Rizal’s connection to the notorious killer.

I am not convinced with the arguments of “Karen”. Is Rizal the only person with medical background
during the time of killings? If Rizal’s medical knowledge was a basis then all people with medical
backgrounds should also be suspected. Another argument is that the killings ceased when Rizal left
London. What if Jack the Ripper had a large brain tumor that caused his death by that time? Or had
met a serious accident on his way to his next victim? Who would have known? According to research,
no one saw the Ripper’s face so there’s a possibility also that the killer might also be a woman who
hates prostitutes.

Hitler was born on 1889 while Rizal only stayed in Vienna, Austria for 5 days in 1887. If the Vienna
prostitute was impregnated by Rizal then she must have gave birth by February 1888. Contrary to
what is written in the book, Hitler has blue eyes and not dark eyes similar to that of Rizal. Even if Rizal
had a one-night stand with a Vienesse prostitute, no one has proven that the woman neither was
Hitler’s biological mother nor has been impregnated by Rizal.

This journal entry tackled about the authenticity of the poem “Sa aking mga Kabata”. It was believed
by some historians that Rizal was not the author of the said poem. It stated some point of views why
an eight-year old Rizal did not really write it. The article included also the copy of the poem presented
by Herminigildo Cruz as well as the translation of Nick Joaquin in English language.

Rizal did not write the poem “Sa aking mga Kabata”. Here are the presented arguments: (1) Is it really
possible for an eight-year old boy to compose such poem? (2) There’s no original document in Rizal’s
hand that shows it was his composition. (3) Letter “k” was not yet part of the Filipino orthography in
1869; and the word “kalayaan” was not common in the 19th century and Rizal admitted that he only
encountered it when he was 21 years old.

I grew up knowing Rizal as the Philippines’ national hero. That he was a great man because of his
works. In elementary days we were taught by our Sibika at Kultura (equivalent subject now is Araling
Panlipunan) teachers that Rizal quoted “ang hindi marunong magmahal sa sariling wika ay daig pa
ang mabaho at malansang isda” (this is how my teacher said it in class). It was really a surprise to me
knowing that Rizal did not really cited it. The evidences presented were quite convincing. How could a
child as young as eight year old compose such poem depicting love of one’s own language? Even if
he already knew the alphabet by three, it is somewhat intriguing for a child to create a poem while he’s
still on the process of learning to read and to write.

The poem emerged only a decade after Rizal’s death which was in 1906. It was presented in public for
the first time by Herminigildo Cruz. If it’s really Rizal’s work when he was eight years old he should
have published it while he’s still alive especially if it’s his first poem ever written. I also learned that
Rizal suggested the use of “k” instead of “c” and “q” in 1890 after he has read Trinidad Pardo de
Tavera’s essay in 1884 about the ancient Baybayin script. This implies that the poem might be written
in the late 19th century or early 20th century.

It really doesn’t matter if Rizal wrote the poem or not. Yes, whoever composed it should be given
recognition, however, let’s be more focused on the message of the poem rather than its true author.
Today we are being colonized by foreign culture and that includes language. I read and heard from the
news that Dep Ed has already included the study of Korean language in the curriculum. There’s
nothing wrong with learning foreign language. Actually it’s a good thing for us since this might help us
to be more globally competitive. Nevertheless, we should not forget our roots and how it helped us to
become what we are right now.

The third article talks about the reason why Rizal is the Philippines national hero. Ocampo regarded
Rizal as a “conscious hero”, meaning he is very willing to sacrifice his life for the goodness of
everyone. The author cited some instances where Rizal showed his psychic abilities as well as the
letter that Rizal wanted his fellow Filipinos to read after his death.
Rizal quoted “my dreams have always guided my actions”. The author made this a basis to call him a
“conscious hero”. That Rizal had planned his whole life based on the way he had written all his diaries,
letters and novels. The next argument is that Rizal could have the chance to live longer (beyond
December 30, 1986) if only he didn’t return to Philippines from Hongkong. However, he made the
choice to face the trial which he obviously know that will end up to his death. Rizal was even proven
calm before his execution through his normal pulse rate being checked by a physician. How could
Rizal be such a brave man?!

I’ve read several articles that questioned Rizal as our national hero. Some were even insisting that
Bonifacio should be the one. Actually, there are lots of Filipinos in the past that could also fit the
requirements to be the national hero. And we do not deny their great contributions on the attainment of
our freedom, that’s why we also had this “National Heroes Day” celebration every month of August.
The thing is Rizal was different. Like what has been stated earlier, he had the chance to escape death
yet he chose to die proudly. This act showed his great love to our country. He even refused to be
blindfolded and requested to face his executioners just to show that he’s no traitor. There’s no doubt
that Rizal deserve to be called the Philippine national hero. It’s the least thing that we could do as
benefactors of his sacrifice for independence.

This journal entry explained why Rizal was not an American-sponsored hero. It gave an explanation
that he is indeed chosen by his fellow Filipinos long before the American considered him as such.
Ocampo stressed that the man was already a hero even before his death in 1896. He also made
mention how Bonifacio along with the other founders of KKK idolized Rizal, that the former even tried
to rescue him from exile. The article stated how the Spaniards concluded Rizal’s connection to the
revolutionary group.

Some articles claimed that Rizal actually opposed the revolution because he was against a bloody
form of fight. However, according to historian Teodoro A. Agoncillo, Rizal was not against the
revolution itself but in the absence of its preparation. He even suggested Bonifacio to seek help from
the rich Filipinos to gather sufficient arms to guarantee the revolution’s success. Yet the full
preparation failed when one of the wives of the two fighting KKK members betrayed the group which
led to the premature launch of the revolution.

The idea of Rizal being an American-sponsored hero came from the fact that it was Governor William
Howard Taft and some Filipinos in 1901, who named Rizal as the Philippine national hero, over
Aguinaldo, Bonifacio and Mabini. The truth is, it was General Aguinaldo, and not Governor Taft, who
first acknowledged Rizal. I learned that the first celebration of “Rizal Day” was held in December 30,
1898 by Aguinaldo’s Decree of December 20, 1898. This made the said date as 'national day of
mourning' in memory of Rizal and other victims of Spanish cruelness. This only attests that Rizal was
indeed chosen by his fellow Filipinos to be a role model. I also read from several readings that there
has been no law that proclaims Rizal as our national hero, only R.A. 1425 proposed by Claro M. Recto
which mandated the inclusion of the study of Rizal’s life and works in the school curricula.

Whether Rizal was an “amboy” or a “home-made” hero, what is important is that the legacy he left to
us Filipinos. Being a hero doesn’t necessarily means to die for one’s country. It is caring of our
national identity and supporting our nation to reach its common goal.

discussed about why Americans chose Rizal to be our national hero making others conclude that Rizal
was not really a “home-made” hero but an “amboy”.