Dialogue on the Myth of Rizal
And his role in the hollowness of Filipino identity
We must not make the mistake of supposing that the Russian changes were dependent merely on the presence of one or another individual, on the personal wickedness or nobility (depending on our point of view) of, for example, Stalin. If Lenin himself had lived, there is no reason to think that the process would have differed greatly. After all, there is more than passing significance in the fact that, for many years, probably the most intimate colleague of Lenin’s, the man with whom he exercised hidden control over the Bolshevik party underneath the party's formal apparatus, was the brilliant and successful engineer—the manager—Krassin. But the death of all the early leaders was an important ritual act in establishing the mass attitudes of managerial society and in strengthening the foundations of the managerial institutions.
James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution
I went down today to the forum, that I may stay among friends in between work. When I entered, I saw that the Pillar’s writers had already gathered. Theodore, ever stalwart in this Faustian winter, came and presented to us a thread.
Theodore: When talking points for a serious critique of Rizal are born, like in Ryan Mello’s article, we begin not to accept the left's premise.
Vexillum: Rizal has to be replaced though.
Theodore: An immature Philippine right was born first with the dispelling of the Ninoy myth. It will not be able to establish a heroic myth while it still clings to the Rizal Myth. The Rizal myth is the reason why we are stuck in “rationalistic utilitarianism”. Vexillum, what is the main meme of the Rizal myth? I think it has something to do with education.
Ryan Mello: I suppose that the main meme here is the notion that Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo ‘educated’ the masses about their conditions and oppression under the Spaniards and stoking in them a yearn for liberty.
Theodore: This is the left's premise.
Ryan Mello: Of course, this justification is entirely self-serving and puerile because, as with the American Revolution, these works primarily circulated among the small circles of bourgeoisie sympathizers that proved to be the Katipunan’s core, along with other assorted rebel groups. In that sense, at least, it is slightly truer than the modern attempts to inflict Locke on the Founding Fathers. In the broader sense, with a population of questionable literacy, the claim was always spurious and unfounded.
More broadly, this is the official ex post facto justification for why Rizal is considered a hero figure without resorting to ‘it's the law’ or talking about American influence in the choice (which is becoming more of a common leftist trope nowadays towards moving the needle leftward by positing this and Bonifacio as a counter-figure in a sort of dialectical process).
I've actually been pondering over this thread for a while, but not because of any Filipino considerations, as Theodore talks about. In the latter sense, however, I must say that I have rather been skeptical and pessimistic about the idea of salvaging a Filipino nationalism from its corrupted roots. Despite the hopes of people like Ritsa and others, I see very little hope in uplifting or redeeming the sense of Filipino nationalism, although I am willing to be disproved on this.
Dispelling the Rizal myth is going to be far more difficult than what had been the case for Ninoy. Ninoy at least had a partisan undercurrent, wherein Ninoy was a martyr for the yellows, who was a useful foil for Marcos loyalists to keep the fire burning.
On the other hand, Rizal had been an unimpeachable figure for far longer. Civic nationalists on the center-right want him to flip off the NPA for violent tactics, Ninoy for craven ambition, and most damningly, the Church for holding the line against their new desires for a globohomo nation state. The left wants him for obvious reasons, as well as to popularize the writer/social critic scheme that globohomo seems particularly inclined to.
Theodore: Yet this is the exact reason that the Rizal myth need to be dispelled. Rizal is a modern figure and advocate for modernity.
Conde: I still find it puzzling why the Church wants to claim Rizal. He already disowned Catholicism by the time he was 20.
Ryan Mello: That’s less of a Church problem and more of a Filipino problem, wanting to reconcile the new nation with those who had spoken out against it. The bishops couldn't speak kindly about the friars at that point.
Vexillum: “B-but he hecking reverted!” The local Church hierarchy conceptually cucks itself by accepting the premise for nationhood of a nation that repudiates Church principles.
Ryan Mello: I'm half of a mind to somehow have the deathbed recantation be confirmed and made true so that Rizal can in some way be salvaged and not have to tear down the whole edifice.
Conde: I have a hard time believing he retracted. Ildefonso T Runes’s examination over the supposed retraction has me believing the clergy forged it.
Vexillum: Browsing through our library of Renato Constantino books, I read nothing but coping and seething. “Revitalize the nation!” “How?” “By being a squeaky clean goody two shoes citizen!” What the hell? I expected more.
Conde: The 60s and 70s Nationalists were indeed seething. Constantino goes on about how since Filipinos are educated in English, they're being made into Mini Americans. I'll admit I don't know what the Curriculum of the average College Student looked like in the 50s and 60s, But if there was any attempts at producing ‘Mini Americans’, it was during the Commonwealth Era. Then the United States figured the Philippines was a bad investment, so they pulled out lickety split.
Theodore: They are Mini Americans because they watch bad television and adhere to the globohomo system.
Ryan Mello: The more that I see it, the more I think that Constantino and his fellow travelers were complaining less about Filipinos becoming Americans per se, than Filipinos being trained to look up to America and the Anglo canon, which would leave them out in the cold and begging for public attention.
At that point, I stood up. “If it was a choice between reading Paradise Lost vs some of Rizal’s writing, I’d gladly devour the Anglo canon.” I sighed. “Take Canterbury Tales. It’s a work about people fucking walking and telling tall tales. Yet it has more literary value than the whole sum of Nick Joaquin.”
I heard cheers and yells.
“A single Shakespeare sonnet far outclasses the entire quote unquote ‘canon’ of local poetry. I count Spanish-era stuff here, by the way.”
Ryan Mello: I actually enjoyed Ibong Adarna and Florante at Laura far more than what Rizal or other local ‘social realist’ thinkers have written.
“Social realism, but the society is fictional,” I said. Laughter came at my jest. “Either way, our epic tales tell epic tales, but I have never read anything of philosophical value from local poetry beyond dumb misapplications of historical materialism.”
Vexillum’s eyes shone, and he joined me. “Absolutely. I was thinking the same with those bad misapplications. America and Europe are, or used to be dominated by yeomanry. Free men with land, small businesses, tight-knit communities.”
He sighed. “We never had that as a ‘nation.’ All we had was globohomo and ZOG. And we need a new elite to fight ZOG.”
We all nodded. Vexillum continued. “And does Constantino ever move away from his liberal ‘history is made by the masses’ view? The masses are like women. They make nothing whatsoever. It is exceptional men that make exceptional things happen.”
Conde only shook his head. We stayed longer in the forum before heading our own ways again. Cold times would lay ahead, and we needed to prepare for the storm.
 | A guest post by
|