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 disagreeOut 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 reformsMany 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 KatipunanAccording 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.

*