This article of Renato Constantino entitled “Veneration Without Understanding” seeks to
enlighten the Filipino people that the worship being paid to Rizal is irrational and emotion-driven
without considering the fact of the achievements of this great man. According to Constantino, a
Filipino nationalist who sided with the United States during the controversy, Rizal, who is
regarded as the country’s hero de ut supra, did not support the Philippine revolution and that
this muddies Philippine’s nationalism. He also stressed the critical appreciation of Rizal because
he considers hero-worship as Counter-Revolutions which prevents people from understanding
both Rizal and the revolution. The article essentially is designed to make readers pause for a
moment, think twice to the stories that we are sold every day and think twice about the heroism
of those historical icons. In this way, it helps to advance a deeper understanding of nationalism
with respect to the role of revolutionary action in attaining genuine independence. Through
Constantino’s work is a reminder to people that in applying history they should be able to step
past hagiography that commonly characterizes studying of history. Rizal is against armed
revolution and this brings out the issues of Allegiance and nationalism into contention. Some
people may call him a traitor for not supporting the violent revolt led by Andrés Bonifacio;
however, he asserted that Filipinos require education and social reform, first, to build a strong
nation identity before the demand of independence. From this point of view, Rizal is inclined to
preserve order progress at the cost of revolution which in his opinion can be disastrous because
of lack of material and people for revolutions. What Rizal wanted was freedom – a thing that
would mark a new phase in their struggle it was a long range plan unlike the immediacy of
armed struggle. His death did serve as a trigger and spark for the nationalist movement hence
validating the notion that Gibbons work belonged to the Filipino people. Therefore, it is injustice
to find betrayal in Rizal’s acts for the actions he made has showed a different form of patriotism,
of informing the society, the people, the preparation and enlightenment should come before
liberty. This reflection extends the notion of heroism beyond the figure of the revolutionary
fighter for the liberation of the nation by including reformist struggles, together with the
revolutionary ones. When Constantino says ‘we can’t depend on Rizal alone’ this means we
should be enlightened on the affairs of our country and not just focus on Rizal. Even though
Rizal played a crucial role in the processes, he is only one of the linkers of the Filipino people’s
fight for independence. The nonviolent liberation and armed revolution stand against Kropotkin’s
belief that change may be stopped and the staying on his ideals eliminates the Davidson’s
Filipino’s revolution capability. Constantino encouraged the selves to rethink their history and
move away from hero-worship and acknowledge other heroes like Andres Bonifacio who offered
militant concept of freedom. This reflection calls for more inclusive historical discourse that can
recognize multiple forms of freedom narratives that populations in the nation have embodied. In
this way, recognition of multiple heroes and ideologies would allow Filipinos for better
understanding of the war for independence; and empowers the nation to continue their fight
against suppression. Finally, Constantino’s claim is a challenge to Filipinos to embrace history
as a lesson more than a hero-worshipping country. The knowledge raised from the reading of
Constantino’s “Veneration Without Understanding” made me realize a lot more about José Rizal
and his role as a Philippine national hero. At first, Rizal was my nationally-oriented, literary, and,
a martyr icon of the Philippines. But Constantino did put into question this kind of understanding
since the latter tends to simplistically portray Rizal’s rheological formation and actions especially
his anti-revolution stance.
Now I know that what Rizal had in mind for the Philippines was revolution through
enlightenment and education and not through violence. Although this line of reasoning is
reasonable this raises question to its applicability in the time of colonial subjugation. Despite
Rizal’s achievements as an intellectual and a reformist and despite my political modesty as an
American student asserting that Rizal should be revered as a national hero, I realize that the
patriotic icon should not eclipse other revolutionaries who sought independence for the country.
This point of view does not in any way belittle the importance of Rizal, in fact, it deepens my
appreciation of the complex fight for liberty. Because it stays with the idea of multiple voices and
strategies that should be an essential part of our national story. Hence, although I still have a lot
of respect for Rizal, that has now made me understand the need to see him as being part and
parcel of several heroes, each giving out his or her efforts towards the attainment of Filipino
independence. This reflection contributes to a better critical perspective on history and
increases an understanding of the processes of nation construction.
