Armando Malay

Si Armando J. Malay

ay isa sa mga
pinakatinitingalang
journalist sa bansa.
Maliban sa pagiging
isang peryodista,
isa din syang
propesor at
tagasulong ng press
freedom lalo na
nung Martial Law.

The wounds that

had been inflicted

by foreigners were
painful, but more
painful are the
wounds still being
inflicted on his
memory by his
own countrymen.

The main argument of

the home-grown
detractors of Rizal is
this:
Since Rizal did not lead
the revolution of 1896
he even discouraged
and disowned it he
could not be properly
the national hero of
the
Philippines.

Two minor themes have been put forward

by Rizals made-in-the Philippines critics:
*Rizals becoming the national hero was the
result of American sponsorship
*Rizals patriotic works, including his two
novels, reflected his mestizo or ilustrado
background and were taken precisely to
protect the interests of the ilustrado class.

Since Rizal, despite

the fact that he is a

false hero, continues
to be
venerated by
Filipinos, then that
veneration is
misplaced and that if
his countrymen only
understood Rizals
motivation, they
would drop him like a
hot potato.

I would like to develop

the opposite thesis:

Continued veneration of
Rizal by the country, and
even by the world, is not
only deserved but also
understood.

Almost always,
national heroes of
the world have
been revolutionary
heroes. If you do
not lead a
revolution, your
chance of
emerging a s a
national hero is nil
or very little.

I beg to disagree

Out of 125 nations [in

the roster of United
Nations},
Constantino could
only name seven
revolutionary heroes
who, in his opinion,
have become
national heroesVery
clearly, a mere seven
out of 125 is a very
small minority.

A man becomes a

hero, or a national
hero, not because he
leads a
revolution but
because he is admired
for his achievements
and noble
qualities, and
considered a model or
ideal.

I suppose he

{Constantino}
would rule out
Indias Mahatma
Gandhi. Gandhi led
no armies, but he
did more than all
the military leaders
of India put
together to achieve
nationhood for
India.

Constantino failed

to list Sukarno of
Indonesia.
Indonesians should
automatically
regard Sukarno as
the national hero.
But they dont
because some of his
actuations have
been placed under a
cloud.

I question

Constantinos
inclusion of
Washington as the
national hero of the
United States
Washington came
from the landed
gentry, owning vast
tracts of land and
keeping slaves.

One of Constantinos gripes against

Rizals being the national hero is that the

latter did not come from the masses
whose aspirations did not sympathize
with. We could say the same way with
regards to Washington (perhaps even
worse because Rizal did not hold slaves),
yet he made Constantinos list and Rizal
would not.

A man becomes a

hero, or a national
hero, if he
accomplishes
achievements that
his people would
admire so much
that they would
place him in higher
regard than any
other man in the
country

That

achievement may
be in the
revolutionary
field, the field of
statesmanship and
music, and in the
future, it might be
in the scientific or
economic fields.

The field is not

limited to the field

of revolution.
Maybe, in some new
African nation, the
national hero would
be one who invents
a vaccine that
would forever
banish a
debilitating
disease.

My quarrel with

Constantino is this: He
set-up the criterion of
revolutionary
leadership as the one
that would govern the
choice of a national hero
and since he did not
join the revolution of
1896 but even
repudiated it, he could
not qualify.

Since Rizal continues

to be venerated by
his people, despite
the shortcomings
described by
Constantino, then our
venerationof Rizal as
our national hero is
misplaced, a
veneration without
understanding.

The

achievements of
Rizal in all the
fields he chose
(culture,
history, sciences)
would be more,
much more, than
winning a battle
or
starting a
revolution.

I am not denigrating those who served

out country by starting the revolution or

winning battlesBut to reject one man
from the place that is rightfully his
because he did not believe that the
revolution was the right way for his
country this I cannot accept.

Men and heroes are

not like buttons that

can be classified as to
their size and color,
because they did this
and did not do that.
Totality of
achievements is a
better criterion and
by this, Rizal
stands above all
others.

Constantino: The

propagandists
chose Spain as the
arena of their
struggle instead of
working among their
own people,
educating them,
helping them realize
their own condition,
and in articulating
their own
aspirations.

Malay: Again, Constantino is setting up

another criterion of his own making: that

the national hero must work among his
own people.
They did so not to isolate themselves
from the masses of their country but to
get ideas, to work for reforms
Many great men and women got their
baptism of fire in foreign countries, but
returned home as soon as they thought
they were ready.

R. Constantino:

Reflecting the
interests of the
ilustrado class,
Rizal drew the
principal characters
of his two novels
from that class:
Ibarra, Fathers
Damaso and Salvi,
Maria Clara etc.

A. Malay: There is a difference between the

main characters in a novel and those whom

the author would set up as a model for
emulation.
The heroes in Rizals novels were not Ibarra,
Maria Clara or FrayDamaso and Fray Salvi.
In contradistinction, Rizal gave us Elias, a
man of the masses; Father Florentino, a
Filipino priest; Juli and Sisa, and many others,
who all sprang from the masses.

As to the contention

that Rizal as the

national hero was
created by the
Americans :
Two years after his
execution, Rizal was
already honored by
the Philippine
revolutionary
government when
Aguinaldo declared
December 30 1898 as a
day of mourning.

As early as 1892,

Rizal was already

regarded as a sort of
a national hero. He
was the honorary
president of
Katipunan
According to
Katipuneros
questioned by
Spanish authorities;
Rizals picture was
hung in their
meeting rooms.

 VENERATION OF RIZAL WAS A FACT EVEN

BEFORE HIS EXECUTION.

To say now that Rizal was a creation of the
Americans because they did want Filipinos to
choose Bonifacio as their national hero is to fly
in the
face of facts.
Worse, it is to insult the masses who, if they
are to believe the detractors of Rizal, have
allowed themselves TO BE DUPED FOR SO
LONG.