Rizal Without the Overcoat by Ambeth Ocampo

Title: Rizal Without the Overcoat
Author: Ambeth Ocampo
Publisher: Anvil Publishing,Inc.
Original Publication Date: 1990
Pages: 272


"Jose Rizal Mercado y Alonso (1861-96) is the Philippine national hero because an American governor gave him that recognition. President Taft did not choose Aguinaldo because he was too militaristic; Rizal fitted the ideal of national leader for the Filipinos. (Arcilla 1984:88)"<

Jose Rizal is touchy subject for most Filipino scholars. It is worth emphasizing that unlike the designation of the Narra as the National tree, or the Mango as the National fruit, ejusdem generis, there is no law designating Rizal as the Philippine national hero. So contrary to popular belief, the post of 'THE' National Hero is, in all its actuality, lodged in a genuine debate, and not merely in a verbal one.

If you are interested in reading a more academic approach of why Rizal is worthy of being labeled as the Philippine national hero, read Leon M. Guerrero's book The First Filipino.

The title is not a mere designation. Rizal Without the Overcoat endeavors to present Rizal, without the overcoat, the overcoat of the European influence embossed upon this enamored persona though his European education. In some sense, this could be certainly taken as a post-colonial approach in viewing Rizal.

The book is a compilation of articles Ambeth Ocampo wrote in a Philippine newspaper, which says a lot about his writings. Ocampo's writing has been designated as 'popular history' and it is not without any grounding at all. Popular history is history writing striving for a very wide audience of non-specialists. Reading this made me feel I was going through a Rizal trivia book, it was enjoyable (who doesn't love trivias?), and had its moments. Of course the necessary critiques of this form includes the style, analytical depth and the wealth of resources/references which in Ocampo's case has suffered from existential dearth. Be critical in reading Ocampo, you may just subliminally fall into his bandwagon.

But is there a need to remove the overcoat? Who is Rizal but the man who sought education in the foreign shores to liberate his people? Is he too not defined by the knowledge, motivations, social stimuli he encountered wearing that overcoat? Is the overcoat not a part of who Rizal truly is?


P.S.
Entirely not part of this book's review!
I seem to keep reading the statement that Rizal wrote for the people, for the masses, for the 'Indios'! Rizal did not write for the masses, the two seminal novels were originally written in Spanish, a Lingua Franca known only to the Filipino landed elite, the landlords, and even to them a limited number was capable of reading. More importantly, books were a luxury then compared to today. Noli and El Fili were inaccessible when it first came out.

The First Filipino by Leon Maria Guerrero

Originally posted at Goodreads

For all the years, studies and romanticisms of Rizal, he has somewhat remained, an enigma. This is not surprising.

The vast number of scholars that have attempted a great many times to deconstruct and understand Rizal on his writings have fallibly tainted Rizal’s political ideologies and perspectives in doing so. Some even failed to see that what they have deconstructed was not Rizal, but an image hewn from themselves.

Some of this were, Agoncillo who regarded Rizal as a “revolutionary reformist” or “reformist revolutionary” while Constantino declared Rizal’s genuine agenda were the Hispanization of the Indio and the assimilation of the Philippines to Spain, which proved little to clear the matter but in essence has founded the contradiction that has bedeviled nationalist historians. Romeo Cruz however puts it differently by saying that Rizal’s purported assimilation is the union of sectionalism – loyalty entrenched in the Filipino people and nationalism – this he refers to the loyalty directed to Spain. The belief that these sentiments are subversive and seditious to the national cause is wrong, for nationalism does not favor class and the nature by which it is defined.

Floro F. Quibuyen maintains that this view is inherently flawed on the aspect that most of our scholars’ personal standpoint is levied upon the Enlightenment terms when Rizal is studied. Viewing the matter in the Enlightenment terms merits a view in terms of the liberal concept of the nations–state. The state exercises power in making and enforcing laws in behalf of the people it stands for. But Rizal’s vision went beyond the liberal concepts conceived by the Enlightenment period.

Does this rudimentary predicament afflict Leon Maria Guerrero's work?

In the pursuit of veracity more than brevity, I quote and support the introduction in saying that:

"... it presents him in the guise of the original and singular philosopher he is, as well as the great stylist and thinker of clarity, precision, and profundity he also is."

An achievement in itself.

The question looms however, and whether one accepts the answer entirely depends on no one else but the reader as much as the material. Is Rizal worthy to be the first Filipino? Is it fitting?

As any historical work, the historical narrative is to be subjected upon critical objective examination. Points of contention undeniably exist, which are realistically inevitable, in the historicization. This subjective scholar preference I'm pointing exists for example on Leon Guerrero's choice with which to start his discussion (Gomburza), which also implicitly carries his nationalistic orientation (that is much to be desired).

Still, as it stands, a great scholarly work.

Revolutionary Clergy by John Schumacher, S.J.

Originally posted at Goodreads

John Schumacher, S.J. is an amazing academician and that is giving respect to where it is due. He had written 180+ books and articles (and is still continuing to do so at this review's writing), all considerably well-researched. Ironically however, I must write down that the reason by which he can be considered a successful researcher is also the reason by which his writings (most prevalent, concerning those of nationalism) must be greatly challenged if not expounded and more thoroughly (as it is well researched as it stands) researched upon. However, before expounding on the reason for giving only three stars on John Schumacher's works, I still suggest one to read his works as they provide a distinctive perspective and approach upon the topics he has grazed.

John Schumacher offers us a different perspective on the development of nationalism. He presents the standpoint of the friars, and the clergymen present in every facet of the colonial regime. His excellent academic and scholastic training merits him an effective researcher. To such end, his works have been great historical researches, founded upon documents of great importance.

Schumacher’s works, however, can only be credited as far as merit for use of sources go (my standpoint as a scholar). His works clearly provide us with a perspective but in so much that it is examined as an objective work, it fails to impress for precisely the same reason, that he is first and foremost a man of the Church.

If he is credited well in his voluminous works and use of sources in his studies, it is apparent that his authorial bias induced that parts of contrary evidences and repudiating circumstances were left out to fit in his defense for the clergy.

(One example of the manner by which Schumacher is blatantly guilty of my claims is when he repetitively asserts his argument that Jose Rizal derived his nationalistic bearings and was greatly influenced by Father Burgos though the evidence he presents to support this claim is nothing but an indirect connection between Rizal and Burgos and nothing else was presented further. This indirect connection was between Rizal and Paciano who is Burgos' nephew, who also helped him enter Ateneo Munipal, but as i stressed, no other personal and direct connection between Rizal and Burgos was presented).

This bias in research can actually be summarized in the fact that his nationalistic ideas are modernist in nature. By this consideration, never did Schumacher really give any significance in the pre-Spanish era of Filipino culture and history that post-colonial studies actually call for.

There is this fundamental conflict within his ideas that ultimately fails to impress but in effect exposes the evident bias with the friar orders. I am led to question for what reasons were such researches done. Was it in light of clarifying matters and the genuinely love for knowledge or was it in the end aimed to defend the positions the men of the faith took those pressing times? He presents a well-researched historical inquiry that is founded on the role of the clergy that in the end, demerits his claims at worst, and at best, contaminates his ideas and conclusions. The fundamental conflicts in his arguments demerit it so some extent but more importantly it exposes his attempt to wipe clean the slate of the friar orders and is a clear representation of his authorial bias.

Researchers could very well consult his works as it does provide a significantly different perspective, and it was exceptional at doing that. By doing so, one can supplement and avoid the very dilemma we consequentially aim to address, a limited and bias understanding of things. As it stands, it will provide an excellent perspective of Filipino nationalism from the eyes of the clergy.

Notes on the New Society of the Philippines by Ferdinand Marcos

Title: Notes on the New Society of the Philippines
Author: Ferdinand Marcos
Original Publication Date: 1973
Pages: 214
Genre/s: History, Academic, Filipiniana


Marcos has proven too well that his political charisma can be fully translated in what he writes. Notes on the New Society of the Philippines is no exception to that (Caution: He might win you over).

Just as his tyrannical and definitively despotic regime pretentiously stood for the mere vestiges of democracy itself, so too does this book contain what the ideals Marcos has sought to ennoble which, as history judged it to be, succumbed to nothing less than corruption and iniquity.

Aside from the standard fill of making things superficially palatable, of unfounded and unsubstantiated conclusions and the not too subtly contrived authorial biases, Notes on the New Society of the Philippines can still infallibly function as the proverbial window to the soul of one of the most remembered Presidents in the Philippines, not in a noble nor revered manner (save what could be called fundamentally fanatics in existence), but still remembered.

Let us take in hindsight what he wrote in page 50 concerning the Constitution and Martial Law.

"The Constitution therefore provides for its (Martial Law) survival in a clear, orderly and democratic manner for the instrument used is not only legal but moral in the highest sense. It places the proclamation of martial law under the Rule of Law.

This resolves the eternal moral question of Ends and Means, The Constitution, being democratic in spirit and content, does not recognize means which are not integral with, or not logically follow from, its ends, even though that end may be self-preservation itself."(Emphasis mine)

And on page 127 on Martial law and its so called uniqueness.

"Our martial law is unique in that it is based on the supremacy of the civilian authority over the military and on complete submission to the decision of the Supreme Court, and most importantly of all, the people. It is unique in that it does not seek to maintain the status quo but has instead brought about radical reforms.(Emphasis mine)

We all know how that turned out to be, with old Justice Teehankee(later C.J. under Cory Aquino) barely holding out, but certainly with great conviction and nothing less of the ideal.

Much can be said and deduced with these meager passages. I do not intend to misquote nor offer an unwarranted argument lest I fall in the same boat. Deductions are clear as can ever be as echoed in the annals of history.

In hindsight, this perspective relegates the human capacity in determining morality, which I believe is an entirely different thing with what is legal. This stand does not come with surprise. Marcos has alienated the people and these words point to his mental inclination to pursue such ends, and history sufficiently offers us the more than adequate manifestations of his bearings.

And just as most writings concerning sociological and cultural matters, Notes on the New Society lies in the plain of the ideal. And if not for critically examining the facts, all would have but remained an enigma, hauntingly questioning us, what went wrong? What revelation it would have been if the ideal remained, forever to be, an ideal, but depressingly, it became a corrupted, depraved and brutally oppressive reality beyond any recognition.