Chapter 3 - A New Look at Heroes

A NEW LOOK AT HEROES
It is only within the context of a people’s history that individuals can be correctly
appraised. In a history written from the point of view of the people, individuals as
particularities will be seen in their proper perspective within the generality of a historical
process and only then will these particularities be correctly understood. As people gain
knowledge and as society’s progress, some individuals who were hitherto regarded as
heroes begin to lose their relevance; others are unmasked as villains who stood against
the interests of the people. It is the people who ultimately make or unmake heroes.
Propensity to deify
Filipinos have the curious habit of honoring people at the slightest excuse. They have
generally been uncritical of men and events and have failed to look into their real merits
or historical significance. The result is a plethora of streets, plazas, buildings and
monuments named after person, living or dead.
Many streets continue to bear the names of individuals whom history has shown to be
deserving of condemnation rather than honor. Take for example such streets as p.paterno
named after the negotiator of two betrayals, or legarda street named after another symbol
of ilustrado compromise, or taft avenue which honors a governor who was really anti
Filipino and anti-Philippine independence.
A streets name will sometimes be changed in memory of someone who had lived there
and never mind if his only distinction was that he had been influential with the mayor.
And what about public school buildings bearing the name of some congressman or other
just because he donated money from his pork barrel or from god knows what source
In this connection we can derive a good lesson from what may seem to be surprising
source: cuba’s fidel castro. In an interview with American photo journalist lee lookwood,
in the course of a discussion on political power, castro said:
“I don’t know whether you are aware that one of the first laws that the
revolutionary government passed, fallowing a proposal of mine, was the prohibition
against erecting statues to and living leader or putting his photographs in government
offices… furthermore, the same law prohibited giving the name of any living leader to
any street, to any park to any town.”
The prohibition was sound and may have stemmed from another Castro view he
expressed simply in these words:
“I have learned from experience that one must never be absolutely certain that the
decisions he takes or the ideas he has are always correct…”
The late Ho Chi Minh held similar views. He expressed on several occasions his distaste
for any deification of the living, or any personality cult. He knew the frailty of human
beings and acknowledged that even the best were capable of error. During this lifetime,
many observers noted with some surprise that despite the general affections his people
felt him there was in monument s or streets in his honor.
We should consider the sensibilities of our people. How would a Filipino citizen feel of
his plaza or his home town were names after a person who later discovered to have been
a scoundrel or a fake?

The image makers
An individual can, to a certain extent, portray the role created by his image builders. This
is one of the hazards historians encounter when they try to analyze and reconstruct
events. An uncritical acceptance of everything that is written about individual and events
may distort historical impressions and mislead students of history in their attempts to
understand certain periods.
But image makers no matter how faithfully their subjects try to conform to the script
cannot in the long run escape history. Since part of the equipment of the image maker is a
measure of sly deception, the subject cannot be expected to act the role consistently.
Sooner or later, observers will note the discrepancy between claim and posterity and the
lie can be shifted from the truth.
When new facts are unearthed which alter the image of a leading political of the past,
there may be consternation and argument, but only among historians since the image
makers responsible have already disappeared from the scene. But when the subject of
new revelations is still very much a part of the present, the result must be a crisis for the
image makers. All at once, their carefully built up deceptions are found out, their
shattered image is embarrassing proof of the essential immorality of their work.
Take the case of Diego Silang who is currently enjoying a sort of renaissance as the early
hero of Illocandia. Certainly he was the leader of a revolt, but a revolt which initially
demanded only greater autonomy, not freedom. For Silang saw himself as the defender of
the Spanish King and the Catholic Church against the British whose victory, the feared,
would result in the loss to the Illocanos of their Catholic faith. When the Spaniards
rebuffed him, he decided to set up an independent government for his province. At this
moment he could have developed into a real leader of the people struggling against All
oppressors. Unfortunately, fearing that Simon de Anda was planning to march on Ilocos,
he quickly shifted his allegiance to the British and asked for their protection, offering in
exchange the natural resources of his region for their exploitation. Silang was the proto-
type of future leaders who would capitalize on the genuine grievance of the people only
to betray them as their own individual interests required changes of allegiance from one
master to another.
As for Gabriela Silang, she is now not only a celebrated heroine of Illocos but also of the
Ayalas of makati. She has been hailed by at least one historian as the joan of arc of the
Philippines, probably because like joan she fought on horseback. True, Gabriela bravely
fought the Spaniards, but she fought to avenge the death of her husband who already
sworn allegiance to a new colonial master.
Emilion Aguinaldo
Aguinaldo led the force that pre-empted the revolution. The elimination of Bonifacio
assured leadership to the elite. The result was biak-na-Bato, that shameful betrayal of the
people’s sacrifices that was preceded by lengthy negotiations, not because Aguinaldo was
insisting on basic reform but because the two parties could not agree on the amount of
money Aguinaldo was to asked for 3,000,000. Schedule of payments and amount finally
agreed upon, Aguinaldo promptly issued a pre-departure statement branding as Ulisanes
those who would continue resistance against the Spaniards. Before boarding the ship that

was to take him to Hong Kong, he himself led in shouting “vivas” for Spain and “The
Philippines, always Spanish!” in 1898, back again in Cavite courtesy of admiral Dewey,
he immediately reassumed power by declaring independence. But this independence
which we now celebrate placed the country under the protection of the United states.
Declaring to the last his faith in the Americans, he reluctantly took up arms only when
Gen. Otis bluntly declared that since the fighting had begun it “must go on to the grim
end.” After his capture he again issued a statement condemning those who continued to
resist and declaring his faith in” magnanimity of the great American nation!
Aguinaldo’s vacillations, his surrender at Biak-na-bato, his smahfull utterances revealing
thay he believed the success of revolutionary efforts was dependent on favorable
developments in the American continent all these presaged the subservience and
mendicancy practiced by our politicians who went to the United states in mission after
mission begging for freedom and in the process popularized the myth that the Americans
came here in order to educate us so that we might deserve to be set free.
Inadequacy of June 12
Because Aguinaldo’s declaration was not a real independence proclamation and because
it is associated with a man whose revolutionary integrity is in question, June 12 should
not be the symbol of our effort to achieve freedom. A more appropriate date would be
one when the entire people, not just an individual, proclaimed its determination to be
free. Balintawak denoted such a determination but it was not yet expression of the
national will. January 23 is perhaps more appropriate because it is a date when the
people, already in possession of virtually the entire archipelago, proclaimed in Malolos a
national government which for one short moment in history seemed to embody the will of
a united population.
Because of the seizure of power by the ilustrados, again under Aguinaldo’s leadership,
Malolo may also prove inadequate as an independence day. Still the aspect of mass
participation makes in better than June 12. The defeat of the people at Malolos may even
be an object lesson for them of the danger of entrusting their destiny to the elite.
I am no plea for a change of data at this time, although I personally believe a worthier
occasion have been chosen for commemoration. The change should await a time when
colonial consciousness will have been completely eradicated; otherwise we are bound to
make yet another mistake.
Repudiation at Malolos
American patronage and subsequently the uncritical minds of American oriented
historians have been responsible for the undeservedly high reputation of Emilio
Aguinaldo. Little noted on the records of our history, however it is the fact that the people
of Malolos long ago rendered their judgment on this leader who initiated a tradition of
mendicancy and compromise among our government officials.
On January 23, 1923, Aguinaldo and his followers from the veterans Association went to
Malolos to commemorate the founding of the Malolos republic. Malolos the town which
thirty years before had witnessed the high point of Don Emilio’s career with his
inauguration as president of the Philippine republic, decided to give him a funereal

reception. Nearly all the houses and stores of the town closed their doors and windows
and displayed black flags with big question marks. The church bells rang out the
lugubrious pleagaria while the people in the streets pointedly ignored the veterans
colorful parade. All business activities were suspended, even the buying and selling of
food. Placards protesting the politics of Aguinaldo were posted in different parts of the
town. The placards read.
“Emilio Aguinaldo, former present of this short lived Philippines republic: who
small answer for the death the two Filipino patriots, Luna and Bonifacio.” Long live
the Filipino cause, away with those who side with the enemies of our county and our
race. To Aguinaldo: your rendition in palanan terminates your leadership, however the
town of Malolos, the birthplace of the extinct republic of which you were the head, will
receive and honor you, if you will only discard your disguise of pro-ailen an imperialist.
Aguinaldo’s collaboration with the American, and particularly his closeness to Governor-
General wood who was against Philippine independence, were responsible for the
sentiments expressed on the people’s placards. The language used was of course
Tagalog ; the quaint English translations are those of the reporter of a Manila paper.
The trial
The defeat of Bonifacio in the tejeros convention was the defeat of the revolution. In the
convention, the ilustrado ideologues of the principalia maneuvered to consolidate their
control and to purge their ranks of individual like Bonifacio who did not have the
property or educational requirements they considered necessary for the leadership of the
national government.
Bonifacio, though of lower middle class origins, had become the national symbol of the
power of the masses. he had to be destroyed to insure that the masses remained in their
assigned place in the ilustrados conceived hierarchy as the class that merely follows And
obeys. Among the emerging national elite, there was a latent fear that the militant masses
might later prove to be uncontrollable. For although the ilusrtados needed the strength
and sacrifice of the masses to assure the success of the they intended merely to replace
the colonial rulers, not to broaden the base of leadership.
Temporarily allied with the masses in rebelling against Spain, the ilustrados retained
nevertheless the Spanish elite’s aristocratic attitude toward the people. They were acting
according to the dictates of their own material interests as expressed in their anti-clerical
and anti-colonial propaganda and wanted to gain complete control over the direction of
the struggle so that it would continue to defend that interest.
The defeat of the revolution was the defeat of the people and the triumph of the first
generation of compromiser whose ideas and attitude have been handed down to the new
ilustrados of the neo-colonial period. The compromise of Biak-Na-Bato was the historical
prototype of parity and the bases agreements.
Jose Rizal
To exempt Rizal from historical criticism is an act of disservice to him. Those who have
learned to view Rizal historically and critically know the value of this contribution to an
evolving Filipino society.

But those who in fatuous veneration would make him out to be a universal hero whose
teaching are valid for all time are the hero’s detractors. When they try to extend Rizal’s
teaching to justify certain aspects of the status quo, they are in effect turning the hero into
a defender of the establishment to lend support to their own reactionary objectives. Most
suspect in this respect are certain groups which in the past actively sought to impede the
dissemination of Rizal’s writing because he represented the struggle against obscurations
Today these same groups have adopted Rizal and are defending his pre-eminent status in
our hierarchy of heroes. Do they hope to use Rizal’s repudiation of the Philippine
revolution as an argument against element in our society who seek radical change. Do
you believe that Rizal’s abandonment of his people when they decided to rice can be used
to dissuade others from making common cause with the masses today? If this is the
intention, then some Filipinos are attempting to use Rizal the way the Americans used
him. Those who stand accused of downgrading rizal do him more honor because, by
placing him in the proper historical perspective, they can appreciate the service he
rendered the Filipino people.
Rediscovery of other heroes
Rizal is a hero of our race. But he should not be the only hero nor one who towers
above all others. He is not the zenith of our greatness; neither does he have a monopoly
of patriotism. Not all his teachings have universal and timeless application. Just as each
social system gives way to higher forms, so much individual heroes give way to higher
forms of heroism.
This does not mean that Rizal’s heroism is thereby nullified; his heroism merely
assumes its correct place in a particular stage of our people’s history.
Our admiration for Rizal should not hinder the rediscovery or heroes of the past
who were overshadowed by him and who may have more relevance to our times that he
does. More over, the Rizal cult should not prevent us from discovering heroes of the
present, an epoch very different from Rizal’s.
Rizal, the reformist, worked for a Hispanized Filipino; the heroes of the present
will be those who have dedicated their lives to the cause of the decolonized Filipino.
Veneration without understanding
Hero-worship must be both historical and critical. We must always be conscious
of the historical conditions and circumstances that made an individual a hero, and we
must always be ready to admit at what point a hero’s ideas cease to be of current value.

To allow hero-worship to be uncritical and unhistorical is to distort the meaning of the
heroic individual’s life, to reduce our homage to a cult bereft of historical meaning, one
that can be used for almost anything because being form without content, it is really
nothing. It is in this light that we must asses the status of Rizal as a hero as well as our
current attitude toward him.
Our veneration of heroes must have a dynamic content. As a people, we must not
rest on past laurels, seeing the present and the future within the framework of the past,
using value and standards that were valid for another epoch. Neither should we be
satisfied to contain our aspirations within the context of the aspirations of our national
hero even though it is true that many of his hopes are still unrealized.
It is a reflection of our lack of creative thinking that we continue to invoke Rizal
when we discuss specific problems of present-day society. This is also a reflection of our
intellectual timidity because we are reluctant to espouse new cause unless we can find
sanction, however remote, in Rizal. This tendency is fraught with dangers. It results in a
fatuous veneration devoid of any appreciation of what Rizal’s historical role was nad
should now be.
Uncritical homage: a disservice
The national regard for Rizal constitutes a limiting factor in our appreciation of
our other heroes –– for the cult of Rizal assumes that there can be no Filipino greater than
Rizal, that Rizal is the epitome of heroism and can therefore not be surpassed by any
other Filipino. Professor Esteban de Ocampo stated in blunt terms what representative
cultists have all along assumed when he said, “No Filipino has yet been born who could
equal or surpass Rizal…“ There may be an element of truth in this statement in the sense
that in terms of intellectual achievement and as a forerunner of Filipino nationalist
consciousness, Rizal certainly made invaluable contributions to crystallize and to project
our libertarian adoration, such an evaluation can only discourage efforts on our part to
inquire deeply into the lives and works of other heroes whose roles have been regarded as
secondary or of minor importance.
Strangely enough, our veneration of Rizal has not resulted in a greater understanding of
his teaching nor of his role in our history. Rather, our uncritical homage has taken two
forms, both doing Rizal a great disservice. First, it has reduced commemoration to
meaningless biannual exercises in hagiolatry conducted by prominent cultist sporting
glittering uniforms and impressive titles. Words of ritualistic praise uttered on such
occasions have done little to deepen our understanding of the historical significance of
Rizal’s life, works, and death. Instead, some cultists have focused on trivialities,
demonstrating their Rizalist scholarship and devotion by following Rizal’s steps all over
the world, searching for trace or every house he lived in, every girl he fancied.
Ridiculous extensions
Uncritical adoration has had a second and perhaps more dangerous result. It has
allowed Rizal to be used to justify certain ideas that were not really central to his
teachings. In an exhibition of pseudo-scholarship, so-called Rizalists have examined

some of Rizal’s minor experiences and passing thoughts and used these as evidence of
the hero’s approval of some aspects of present society.
Just because during his Dapitan exile Rizal decided to engage in a small business
one cannot deduce from this purely personal endeavor that Rizal was economist. Neithr is
one entitled to conclude that because he once bought land, wrote a “Hymn to Labor,”
asked his father for money to start a business, planned to request a friend to be his agent
in Manila, ergo, he believed in the so-called “four factors of production – land, labor,
capital, and the entrepreneur.” Surely, to imply that Rizal believed in our products were
critized today because he once declared the fact that our products were unknown abroad,
to assert he would probably promote tourist travel agencies were he alive today just
because he once made a speech before a group of tourists in Austria – these are
unwarranted extensions of Rizal’s ideas. Such exercises would be merely ridiculous if it
were not obvious that the intention is to make Filipinos believe that our present society
has the approval of Rizal. His reformism is being transformed into a justification for
reaction denial change. We must remember that even the radicalism of the past, if
defended today may well be already reactionary.
The limitations of Rizal
To emphasize his passing experiences in some fields of endeavor and project him
as if he were a universal genius in theory and practice is to do Rizal a disservice. Rizal’s
versatility cannot be denied but this does not necessarily make him an authority in all
fields. Because of the circumstances under which he lived and the nature acquired the
expertise to deal with the problems of today. This habit of invoking Rizal’s sanction for
solutions to contemporary problems can only result in the stifling of original thought, as
if knowledge had stopped growing with Rizal’s death.
Rizal could not anticipate today’s problems. He was not conversant with
economic tools of analysis that would unravel the intricate techniques that are being used
by outside forces to consign us to a state of continued poverty. He was capable of
exposing the myths that were woven by the oppressors of his time but we can not rely on
his guidance to decipher the more sophisticated myths and subtle techniques of present-
day colonialist. This is not to say that were he alive today and subject to modern
experiences, he would not understand the needs of our times. But it is useless speculation
to try to divine what he would now advocate.
A homogenized Rizal
Unless we have an ulterior motive, there is really no need to worry. Many of his
social criticisms are valid today because certain aspects of our life are still carry-overs of
the colonial society of his time. A true appreciation of Rizal would require that we study
these social criticisms and take steps to eradicate the evils he decried.
Part and parcel of this attempt to use Rizal as an authority to defend the status quo
is the desire of some quarters to expunge from the Rizalist legacy his views the friars and

on religion. We have but to recall the resistance to the Rizal bill, the use of reading of his
other works to realize that while would have us venerate Rizal, they would want us to
revere a homogenized version.
In his time, the reformist Rizal was undoubtedly a progressive. In many areas of
our life today, his ideas could still be force for salutary change. Yet the nature of the cult
of Rizal is status quo by a confluence of blind adoration and widespread ignorance of his
most telling ideas.
How has it happened that our people have come to venerate one hero almost to
the exclusion of all others and have no intimate understanding of his ideas? Perhaps part
of the answer may be discovered by going back to the roots of the Rizal cult.
American endorsement
There is mo question that Rizal had the qualities of greatness. History cannot deny
his patriotism. He was a martyr to oppression, obscurantism, and bigotry. His dramatic
death captured the imagination of our people. He was therefore revere by his countrymen
and deserved their admiration. But we must accept the fact that his formal designation as
our national hero, his elevation to his present eminence so far above all our other heroes
was abetted and encouraged by the Americans. It was Governor Commission that he
Filipinos be given a national hero. The Free Press of December 28, 1946 gives this
account of a meeting of the Philippine Commission.
In this book, Between Two Empires, Theodore Friend* says that Taft “with other
American colonial officials and some conservation Filipinos, chose him (Rizal) as
amodel hero over other contestants – Aguinaldo too militant, Bonifacio too radical,
Mabini unregenerate.”**
This decision to sponsor Rizal was implemented with the passage of the fallowing
acts of the Philippine Commission:
This early proper example of American “aid” is summarized by Governor W. Cameron
Forbes who in his book, The Philippine Island,
“And now, gentlemen, you must have a national hero.” In these fateful words, addressed by then
Civil Governor William H. Taft to the Filipino members of the civil commission – Pardo de
Tavera, Legarda, and Luzuriaga – lay genesis of the Rizal Day.
In the subsequent discussion in which the rival merits of the revolution heroes were
considered, the final choice – now universally acclaimed a wise one – was Rizal. Ans so was
history made.
1) Act No. 137 which organized politico-military district of Morong and named it the
province of Rizal “in honor of the most illustrious tagalong the islands had ever known,”
2) Act No. 243 which authorized a public subscription for the erection of a monument in
honor of Rizal at Luneta , and
3) Act No. 345 which set aside the anniversary of his death as a day of observance.
It is eminently proper that Rizal should habe become the acknowledged national hero of the
Philippine people. The American administration has lent every assistance to this recognition,
setting aside the anniversary of his death to be a day of observance, placing his picture on the
postage stamp most commonly used in the island, and on the currency…and throughout the
islands the public schools teach the young Filipinos to revere his memory as the greatest of
‘Filipino patriots.*

The reason for the enthusiastic American attitude becomes clear in the following
appraisal of Rizal by Forbes:
Taft’s appreciation for Rizal has much the same basic, as evidenced by his calling Rizal
“the greatest Filipino, a physician, a novelist, and a poet (who) because of his struggle for
a betterment of conditions under Spanish rule, was unjustly convicted and shot…”
American motivates
The public image that the Americans desired for a Filipino national hero was
quite clear. They favored a hero who would not go against the gain of American colonial
policy. We must take American acts in furtherance of a Rizal cult in the light of initial
U.S policies which required the passage of the sedition and the display of the Filipino
flag. The heroes who advocated independence had to be ignored, for to have encouraged
a movement to revere Bonifacio or Mabini would not have been consistent with
American colonial policy.
Several factors contributed to Rizal’s acceptability to the American as the official
hero of the Filipinos. In the first place, he was safely dead by the time the American
began their aggression. No embarrassing anti-American quotation could ever be
attributed to him. Moreover, Rizal’s dramatic martyrdom had already made him the
symbol of Spanish oppression. To focus attention on him would serve not only to
concentrate Filipino hatred against the former oppressors, it would also mitigate their
feelings of animosity toward the new conquerors against whom there was still organized
resistance at that time. The American decision to make Rizal our national hero was a
master stroke. The honors bestowed on Rizal were naturally appreciated by the Filipinos
who were proud of him.
At the same time, the attention lavished on Rizal relegated other heroes to the
background – heroes whose revolutionary example and anti-American pronouncements
might have stiffened Filipino resistance to the new conquerors. Although he had provided
inspiration, Rizal was never actually associated with the struggle for independence. The
American specially emphasized the fact that he was a reformer, not a separatist. He could
therefore not be invoked on the question of Philippine independence. He could not be a
rallying point in the resistance against the invaders. One more point in Rizal’s favors was
that like the Filipino members of the Philippine Commission he was an ilustrado. He
therefore belonged to the right social class – the class that they were cultivating and
building up for leadership.
Distorting Rizal
In line with their avowed policy of preparing us for eventual self- government, the
American projected Rizal as the model of an educated citizen. His name was invoked
whenever the incapacity of the masses for self-government was pointed out as a
justification for American tutelage. Rizal’s preoccupation with education served to
further the impression that since the majority of the Filipinos were unlettered, they
Rizal never advocated independence, nor did he advocate armed resistance the government. He
urged reform from within, by publicity; by public education, and appeal to the public
conscience.**
…I am one most anxious for liberties of country, and I am still desirous of them. But I place as a
prior condition the education of the people, that by mean of instruction and industry our country
may have an individuality of its own and make itself worthy these liberties.*

needed tutelage before they could be ready for independence. A book, Rizal, educator
and economist, used I certain Philippine school supports thesis by quoting a portion of
Rizal’s manifesto of December 15, 1896 which states,
The authors of this book then make the following comment: “Rizal intentionally
avoided the use of the term ‘independence’, perhaps because he honestly believed that
independence in its true, real, and strict sense should not be granted us until we were
educated enough to appreciate its importance, and its blessings, and until we were
economically self-sufficient.” This statement not only supports the American line but is
also an example of how our admiration for Rizal may be used to beguile us into accepting
reactionary concepts, the products of a colonial mentality.
A people have every right to be free. Tutelage in the art of government as an
excuse for colonialism is a discredited alibi. People learn and educate themselves in the
process of struggling for freedom and will attain their highest potential only when they
are masters of their own destiny. Colonialism is the only agency that is still trying to sell
the idea that freedom is a diploma to be granted by a superior people to an inferior one
after years of apprenticeship.
Neglect of other heroes
We are in a way fortunate that Americans, in furtherance of their colonialism
policies, made Rizal a national hero. His works were preserved and we see clearly that,
despite his political limitations he contributed greatly to the flowering of nationalist
consciousness. We owe to him many of our libertarian ideas and especially our
consciousness of national dignity and desire for equality. The unfortunate side of this
policy was that we were conditioned to look up to Rizal alone, to the great neglect of
those heroes who were more relevant to the burning question of independence. Today,
this cult seems to be stopping us from considering the emergence of new heroes with
greater relevance to present-day issues.
We are living in an age of anti-colonial revolutions different in content from those
of Rizal’s period. The national heroes of other nations have been men who led the fight
for independence. In our case, our hero did not die for independence. In fact, he was on
his way to Cuba to use his medical skills in the service of Spain when he was arrested.
And in the manifesto which he addressed to the Filipino people denying his connection
with the revolution, he declared:
From the very beginning, when I first had notice of what was being planned, I opposed it,
fought it, and demonstrated its absolute impossibility…
I did even more. When later, against my advice, the movement materialized, of my own
accord I offered not alone my good offices, but my very life, and even my name, to be used in
whatever way might seem best, toward stifling the rebellion; for, convinced of the ills which it
would bring, I considered myself fortunate if, at any sacrifice, I could prevent such useless
misfortunes…I have written also (and I repeat my words) that reforms, to be beneficial, must
come from above, and those which come from below are irregularly gained and uncertain.
Holding these ideas, I cannot do less than condemn, and I do condemn this uprising – as
absurd, savage, and plotted behind my back – which dishonors us Filipinos and discredits those
that could plead our cause. I abhor its criminal methods and disclaim all part in it, pitying from the
bottom of my heart the unwary that have been decided into taking part in it.*

The need for new heroes
We have somehow imbibed the notion that to be a hero one has to die as
dramatically as Rizal did. We have overlooked the fact that heroism does not lie
primarily in the circumstance of one’s death but in the acceptability of one’s life and
ideas by the people in an individual’s identification with the people and in the articulation
of their desire. Rizal articulated some of his people’s basic aspirations; this is a service
we must acknowledge with gratitude. But he is inadequate for the new consciousness, the
new level of struggle, the goals of a people who are marching alongside other peoples of
the underdeveloped areas of the world n their search for a destiny long denied them by
colonial domination.
We must be conscious of the fact that a nation’s pantheon of heroes grows not
only in numbers but also in quality depending on the stage of the nation’s struggles and
aspirations. Rizal is still valid today insofar as his social criticism of Filipino colonial
society it concerned. We must continue to draw inspiration from him to change those
aspects of our social life that decried and which have not yet changed, such as the neglect
of our language, our habit of looking down on our products, and our penchant for aping
foreigners.
But today we need new heroes who can help us solve our pressing problems. We
cannot rely on Rizal alone. We must discard the idea that we are incapable of producing
heroes of our epoch, that heroes are exceptional beings, accidents of history who stand
above the mass and apart from them. The true hero is one with the masses, does not exist
above them. In fact, a whole people can be heroes given the proper motivation and
articulation of their dreams.
There is no doubt that we would have made Rizal one of our heroes even without
American intervention. But he would not be our only hero nor one who stands far above
the others. Rizal did not need to be sold to us as a hero, unlike Magsaysay whom the
Philippines. The Filipinos of the future, even after they have rediscovered their other
heroes and acknowledged new ones, will still know how to appreciate Rizal.
Let us escape from the limitations we have imposed upon ourselves. Let us study
our other heroes. Let us convince our people that they, too, can be heroes, that heroes
need not be exceptions. If we liberate ourselves from all the vestiges of colonialism, we,
too, will easily recognize the heroes among us; we, too, can become a heroic people.
Then Rizal will be in better company peacefully and quiet in utter loneliness as the object
of unthinking adoration by a people he could not proud of and who cannot be proud of
themselves.*
* * * * *
Ramon Magsaysay
Let us examine a more recent American-promoted “hero.” T is no longer a secret
that Ramon Masaysay was sponsored by the U.S Central Intelligence Agency. No less
than Lansdale, a famous CIA operation, has confirmed this. Magsaysay was an
unabashed pro-American. After his death there were efforts to elevate him to the status of

a hero. No less than the Rockefellers sponsored the foundation and awards given in his
name. at the time, the success of propaganda in favor of Magsaysay was so tremendous
that it looked as if he would occupy a co-primary niche with Rizal in our national
pantheon. That was the temporary triumph of press agentry.
But looked at what has happened in the course of less than two decades.
Magsaysay is hardly remembered except during the yearly ritual of award in his
memory.*
Claro M. Recto
Unlike Magsaysay, recto has not had the benefit of a concerted public relations
effort to keep his memory fresh in the public mind. On the contrary, those branded him in
his lifetime as a dangerous leftist because he dared to expose imperialist machinations
wanted him forgotten. But over the years, although little was done to preserve his
memory, the validity of many oh his ideas has insured remembrance.
Claro M. Recto experienced a brief period of triumph after his death in 1960. he
had all the promise of becoming a contemporary hero after his courageous crusade
against colonialism in all its forms. Many of his old detractors paid him tribute, quoted
him and even tried to link themselves to him no matter how tenuously because it seemed
that his ideas would dominate the contemporary scene. The homage which his
countrymen showered on him and the respect which his enemies paid him attested to this.
Unfortunately, however, apathy set in among his supporters; many succumbed to
the temptations of political office and opportunity, other found easy accommodation in
the economic establishment, and some were driver to silence and political passivity with
the resumption of witch-hunting activities.
Second demise
In the early 1960s only the young saw the real relevance of Recto, and they
honored him and popularized his ideas. Then came the rapid upsurge of young protest
which resulted in a sharp polarization between old and young. In the rush to cast aside the
institutions and the values of the old order, Recto was included in the “debris.”
The failure to see Recto as a historically-developing figure and the inability to
appraise his deficiencies in their proper perspective and within the context of his own
time were among the causative factors in sharp contrast, in black and white, made Recto
a victim of his own logical successors in dissent.
Yet, if there was any one prominent figure who was persecuted and maligned
during the 1950s it was Recto. His was practically the lone voice of dissent during the
dark days of McCarthyism. And he not only dared to oppose the powers that be;
advocated what during those days were regarded as blasphemies against the existing
order.
In 1957, Recto was called an ultra-nationalist by a high American official in this
country for defending Philippine interests. Recto turned the tables on his accuser and
denounced the Americans as the real ultra-nationalists. He said:
Those who are bent on carrying on their nationalism beyond their
national frontiers in order to overrun other nationalisms have ceased to be true

nationalists and have become ultra-nationalists, which is another word for
imperialist… An ultra-nationalist, therefore, is one who wants to be first not only
in his country, but also in other countries to which he is a foreigner; that is, an
imperialist.
* * * * *
Victim of schematic attitude
Recto battled the Americans and the Church and all their respective camp
followers in a crusade in which he gambled the conventional prestige he had acquired.
Many of the ideas that now animate the young or at least initially inspired them and the
residual nationalist forces in this country owe their being to Recto. For Recto embodied
during the last days of his career the nationalist purpose. He was becoming the enemy of
the establishment of which he was a part.
He therefore became the prime example of a man who by reason of his nationalist
integrity should not mechanically be included among the enemies of change, despite his
ilustrado origin and his failure to espouse certain demands which should have been the
logical corollaries of his anti-imperialist stand. When Recto became a casualty of this
schematic attitude, the young lost many allies who saw in Recto the link between their
nationalist strivings and the youth’s progressive goals.
It is ironic that the one man who could have been held up as an example of the
possibility of changing the human being has been interred by the young along with past
values, present institutions and the “old foundation.”
Recto represented both the continuities and discontinuities in Philippine history.
The continuities in history should be painstakingly nurtured for they link our libertarian
struggles in a historic totality. Recto represented a continuity in our struggle for freedom;
Recto also represented the discontinuity between the conventional political system of
which he was a product and the new movement for change. In both instances, he was the
example of the ilustrado politician in the process of becoming a real voice of the people’s
aspiration.
Now Recto’s ideas are again being cited, although often without attribution, to
justify new developments in foreign policy and relations with the United States.
I have cited these cases to show that in the end you cannot cheat history. History
will not err in its judgment because no matter how you fabricate achievements, glorify
events or conceal truths, a true people’s history will eventually unmask the fake heroes
and the judgment on them will be harsh and severe.

Chapter 3 - A New Look at Heroes

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Chapter 3 - A New Look at Heroes

More from Cedrick Abadines

Recently uploaded

Chapter 3 - A New Look at Heroes