Rizal, Ninoy and revolution (adapted)

A post-Rizal birthday entry courtesy of National Artist for Literature F. Sionil-Jose. This selection relives and resolves the debate on whether Rizal was actually a radical-revolutionary in slightest terms or a reformist in his comfortable midst. This also reminds me of a lesson in PI (Philippine Institutions) 100 of the same issue. But arguments, backed by personal and historical accounts of the author really set a resolved to this long standing dispute among scholars and academics. But standing on the shoulder of Bonifacio, Sionil-Jose's findings confirming Rizal's inevitable support for the 1896 revolution is a relief in view of an on going struggle in the countryside and of the classes.

Complete story here.

Sionil-Jose:
"Rizal was opposed to Bonifacio’s revolution. To seek his support, Pio Valenzuela visited him in Dapitan where the Spaniards had exiled him. Rizal argued against that revolution, saying that Filipinos were not ready for it, that the cost — and the bloodshed — would be tremendous. Such a position is made clear in his writing, particularly in the second novel, El Filibusterismo, where Ibarra turned Simoun returns to the country a full-fledged revolutionary. But the very reasons Rizal presents against revolution are nullified by the conditions depicted in both novels; they argue forcefully instead against the authorial denial."

"And when the Spaniards executed him, his martyrdom, like Ninoy’s murder, galvanized the people to act compulsively against the colonial power. His death confirmed Bonifacio’s dream — that upheaval was not just inevitable, it was also supremely righteous."