Assessment 1 (Unit 3_Lesson2)

Name: Dave Acsel B. Galvez

Course: AB-Political Science 1A

Instructor: Jorge Denard Malzarte

Class Schedule: T-TH 5:30-7:00 pm

The issue surrounding Jose Rizal's alleged retraction has long been a topic of debate and

scrutiny in Philippine history. The conflicting narratives and interpretations surrounding this

event have led to a deeper examination of historical sources and biases. This paper aims to delve

into the multiple perspectives regarding Rizal's retraction, analyze the accuracy of historical

narrations, and explore the similarities and differences among these accounts.

Jose Rizal, a revered Filipino nationalist, writer, and reformist, played a pivotal role in

advocating for Philippine independence from Spanish colonial rule during the late 19th century.

His literary works, particularly his novels "Noli Me Tangere" and "El Filibusterismo," challenged

colonial injustices and social issues, sparking a sense of national consciousness among Filipinos.

However, Rizal's activism and writings also attracted scrutiny and ire from colonial authorities

and the Catholic Church, leading to his eventual arrest, trial, and execution on December 30,

1896.
Prior to his execution, there are claims and documents suggesting that Rizal retracted his

anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish sentiments, expressing remorse and reconciliation with the

Church. This alleged retraction has been a contentious issue, with historians and scholars

offering varying perspectives on its authenticity and significance.

Historically, accounts aligned with the Catholic Church assert the authenticity of Rizal's

retraction. They cite documents such as the "Retraction Document" attributed to Rizal as

evidence of his repentance and return to the Catholic faith.

These narratives emphasize Rizal's purported confession of errors in his writings and his desire

for religious reconciliation before his execution. Supporters of this perspective view Rizal's

retraction as a testament to his spiritual awakening and acceptance of Catholic doctrines.

Conversely, nationalist and revisionist historians challenge the credibility of Rizal's retraction.

They question the authenticity and circumstances surrounding the alleged retraction, highlighting

the lack of conclusive evidence such as Rizal's own writings or reliable eyewitness testimonies.

These historians argue that the retraction narrative was likely fabricated or coerced by colonial

authorities and the Church to discredit Rizal's nationalist ideals and pacify growing anti-colonial

sentiments among Filipinos.

They view Rizal's steadfastness and principles until his execution as a testament to his

unwavering commitment to Philippine independence and social reform. The divergent

perspectives on Rizal's retraction reflect broader historiographical debates regarding historical

accuracy, interpretation, and bias. The examination of primary sources, such as historical
documents, letters, and testimonies, becomes imperative in unraveling the complexities of

historical events and personalities.

The reliability of sources plays a crucial role in evaluating historical narratives. Documents

attributed to Rizal's retraction, such as the alleged "Retraction Document," have faced scrutiny

regarding their authenticity and origins. Nationalist historians argue that these documents lack

verifiable provenance and may have been manipulated or fabricated to serve colonial agendas.

Historical interpretations are inherently influenced by biases, perspectives, and political contexts.

Catholic Church accounts of Rizal's retraction often emphasize religious redemption and

reconciliation, aligning with institutional narratives. On the other hand, nationalist historians

prioritize critical analysis and contextual understanding, questioning dominant narratives and

seeking alternative viewpoints.

While the Catholic Church and nationalist perspectives diverge significantly regarding Rizal's

retraction, there are areas of common ground and shared analysis. Both perspectives

acknowledge the turbulent historical context of late 19th-century Philippines under Spanish

colonial rule, marked by socio-political tensions, nationalist movements, and religious

influences.

Both sides recognize the complexities of interpreting historical events, especially when dealing

with contested or incomplete sources. They highlight the importance of rigorous historical

research and critical analysis. However, the fundamental differences lie in their interpretations of

Rizal's intentions, actions, and the significance of the retraction.

Emphasize Rizal's alleged retraction as a genuine act of remorse and spiritual renewal,

highlighting his acceptance of Catholic doctrines and reconciliation with the Church.

Question the authenticity of Rizal's retraction, viewing it as a contested narrative shaped by

colonial pressures and agendas. They emphasize Rizal's nationalist convictions and resistance to

colonial oppression until his martyrdom.

Another layer of analysis delves into Rizal's psychological and personal motivations, providing

additional insight into the complexity of his character and actions. Psychologists and biographers

explore factors such as Rizal's upbringing, education, religious beliefs, and interactions with

colonial authorities and the Church. This perspective seeks to understand whether Rizal's alleged

retraction stemmed from genuine conviction, external pressures, strategic maneuvering, or a

combination of these factors. By examining Rizal's mindset and emotional state during his final

days, scholars can offer nuanced interpretations of his actions and decisions, moving beyond

simplistic portrayals of heroism or betrayal.

A comparative analysis with other historical figures facing similar dilemmas or controversies

adds depth to the discourse surrounding Rizal's retraction. Exploring cases of political or

ideological figures navigating conflicts between personal beliefs, societal expectations, and

external pressures provides valuable context and parallels. By examining how individuals in

different historical contexts responded to challenges of conscience, loyalty, and identity,

historians can draw insights into universal themes of integrity, resistance, and compromise in the

face of adversity. This comparative approach enriches our understanding of Rizal's choices and

legacy within a broader historical and humanistic framework.

Incorporating these additional perspectives enriches the historiographical discourse surrounding

Jose Rizal's issue of retraction, highlighting the multifaceted nature of historical analysis. By

engaging with psychological, comparative, and interdisciplinary approaches, scholars can

transcend simplistic narratives and delve deeper into the complexities of Rizal's life, beliefs, and

historical significance. Ultimately, the ongoing exploration and reevaluation of historical events

such as Rizal's retraction contribute to a more nuanced understanding of Philippine history,

nationalism, and the enduring legacy of key historical figures in shaping collective identities and

aspirations.