Republic of the Philippines

CEBU NORMAL UNIVERSITY

Osmeña Blvd., Cebu City, 6000 Philippines

COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Center of Training (COT) I Center of Excellence (COE) Level IV Accredited (AACCUP)
Telephone No.( 032) 231 8044
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.cnu.edu.ph

MIDTERM EXAM
in
GE 11: The Life and Works of Rizal

Names of Group Members:

Alibong, John Philip

Chiong, Lucina Mae
Canonigo, Gina Mae
Degamo, Wilmar
Famat, Angelo
Pabuaya, James Mathew

Questions:
1. (10 pts) Is it appropriate to call Rizal "the first Filipino"? Why? (Maximum of 600
words)

The word "Filipino" originally referred to the Spaniards born in the Philippines during the
colonization of the Spaniards. Later on, the term Filipino was used by revolutionaries like Andres
Bonifacio and Emilio Aguinaldo to unite various groups in the Philippines under a common
identity in their fight for independence. Moreover, according to Constantino (1972), a Filipino is
a person who would fight and sacrifice for the independence of our country - Philippines. In the
context of Rizal's life, he is a Filipino hero because he influenced other Filipinos to fight for our
country using his skills (writing). Rizal was deemed as our national hero for many reasons; he
awakened our national consciousness, he enlightened other revolutionaries that education would
help natives to understand their situations during Spanish colonization, and his writings in the later
part of his life were more separatist which suggests separation of the Philippines from the Spanish
tyrants.
For the question, of whether is it appropriate to call Rizal "the first Filipino", I believe that
it is appropriate for him to be called the first Filipino because he advocated for unity among the
diverse people during his time, his unwavering patriotism and willingness to sacrifice his life for
the betterment of his countrymen and it was during his time when the term Filipino was used.
Some people may argue that calling Rizal the first Filipino overlooks the contribution of the
indigenous leaders, early revolutionaries, and other Filipinos who also played crucial roles in
shaping our national identity and history before Rizal's time but during that time (before Rizal's
time) there was no unity and national consciousness, they were just identified as indigenous people
or natives who even fight with their fellow natives who live in the Philippines, in simpler term,
there was no clear definition of a Filipino before Rizal's time. Moreover, according to Guerrero
(1961) in his book "The First Filipino", Rizal was the first Filipino because he first called the
Philippines his fatherland. It was he who taught the Filipinos that they can help and contribute to
their own nation. Rizal was also the first to unite the Filipino nation into a compact body based on
common interests and mutual protection.
To put everything in capsule, Rizal should be called the first Filipino not only because he
awakened our national identity but he left a legacy for the next generation to have, he gave us the
freedom and the right to be educated in order to see for ourselves how the world works. We must
not be ignorant and we must value education because it is a key towards a better future for the
Philippines. Without Rizal, it is hard to imagine our country, the Philippines.

REFERENCES:
Constantino, R. (1972). Veneration Without Understanding. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 1:4,
3-18 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00472337185390141

Guerrero, L.M. (1961). The First Filipino. (n.p.).

2. (20 pts) Constantino is often referred to as the first decolonial scholar in the
Philippines. Does his critique SUCCESSFULLY contribute to the decolonization of
Filipino consciousness? (Maximum 600 words)

Renato Constantino was a prominent Filipino writer, historian, and nationalist recognized
for his critical examination of Philippine history, especially focusing on the colonial era. He is
often referred to as a decolonial scholar in the Philippines due to a few reasons. First, Constantino's
critique of the Filipino colonial mentality. Constantino criticized the "colonial mentality" of the
Filipinos, which for him was a product of centuries of colonization. Also, Constantino (1975)
argued that this mindset caused Filipinos to view themselves as lower than Westerners and made
them accept Western values and systems without question. This critique is highlighted in his book
"The Philippines: A Past Revisited," where he discusses how colonialism has influenced the
Filipino mind. Second, Constantino's revisionist approach to history. Constantino (1978)
questioned the storyline of history contending that it was narrated through a colonial lens. He
aimed to reshape this narrative by emphasizing the roles Filipinos played in shaping their history
and shedding light on the injustices and brutalities inflicted by forces. His writings, including "The
Philippines: A Past Revisited" and "Neocolonial Identity and Counter-Consciousness" embody
this perspective on history. These reasons illustrate why Renato Constantino is regarded as a
decolonial scholar in the Philippines, as his work challenged colonial narratives, upheld national
identity, and analyzed how colonization has affected Filipino society.
Aside from being referred to as a decolonial scholar in the Philippines, Renato Constantino
is also known for his critique of works such as "Veneration Without Understanding." This article
significantly contributes to the decolonization of Filipino consciousness. Constantino's critique
contests the conventional narrative of hero-worship and historical interpretation to unravel the
distortions of Philippine history. In his analysis of Jose Rizal, the national hero, Constantino (1972)
seeks to dismantle the colonial influences that have influenced Filipino consciousness. The main
thrust of Constantino's argument is the dismantling of the mythologized image of Rizal, who in
his view is not a true nationalist hero but rather the result of colonial manipulation. He argues that
by hiding the real character of Philippine history and developing a colonial mindset among
Filipinos, the celebration of Rizal advances the interests of the rich and powerful. Constantino
aims to enable Filipinos to critically connect with their history and recover control over their
identity by contesting the conventional story of hero worship. The potential of Constantino's
critique to provoke critical thought on the historical narratives that have molded Filipino
consciousness is one of its main advantages. Constantino challenges readers to consider the power
dynamics at work in the formation of national identity by highlighting the inconsistencies and
prejudices present in the veneration of individuals such as Rizal. Decolonization depends on
people having this critical consciousness because it makes it possible for them to see and reject the
ideologies that colonialism imposes. Furthermore, Constantino's focus on the socioeconomic
background of Philippine history helps to place the independence movement within larger
frameworks of exploitation and oppression. Constantino criticizes the idealized ideas of
nationhood that the ruling class promotes by emphasizing how colonialism contributes to poverty
and injustice. By highlighting the concrete consequences of colonial dominance and promoting
social justice, he thereby advances the larger goal of decolonization.
In conclusion, Renato Constantino's critique "Veneration Without Understanding"
successfully contributes to the decolonization of Filipino consciousness. He critically examines
historical figures, especially Jose Rizal, challenging the common view of them as heroes.
Constantino aims to uncover the distortions in how Philippine history is understood. By breaking
down the idealized images of heroes, he encourages Filipinos to develop a more nuanced and
critical understanding of historical figures. This fosters a more inclusive and decolonized
consciousness among the Filipino people.

REFERENCES:
Constantino, R. (1972). Veneration Without Understanding. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 1:4,
3-18 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00472337185390141

Constantino, R. (1975). The Philippines: A Past Revisited.

Constantino, R. (1978). Neocolonial Identity and Counter-Consciousness.

3. (20 pts) Does Rizal deserve the title national hero? If so, why not Bonifacio? Or
Aguinaldo? It not, why? (Maximum of 1000 words)

The Filipinos are still debating the thoughts that Rizal deserves to be our national hero.
Some people said that Andres Bonifacio was more deserving because he was the leader of the
revolution. According to Constantino (1972), he is insufficient to be called a national hero because
he repudiated the revolution. He prefers Andres Bonifacio to be our national hero because he
fought on the battlefield for our freedom. Despite the people saying Rizal is not deserving, many
people believe that he is our national hero.
Jose Rizal deserved the title of being the national hero in the Philippines for being a
revolutionary in spirit. Although he repudiated the revolution, his way of revolutionizing was to
reform. He spreads awareness and awakens the nationalism of Filipinos through his writings. His
works, particularly his novels "Noli Me Tangere" and "El Filibusterismo," served as catalysts for
social change and inspired many Filipinos to strive for independence from Spanish colonial rule.
The Philippine revolution led by Andres Bonifacio was fueled by the writings of Jose Rizal.
According to Palma (1959), a Filipino historian, he believed that Rizal deserved to be called our
national hero because of his significant intellectual contributions to the Filipino nationalist
movement. Palma admired Rizal's advocacy for peaceful reform through education and
enlightenment. In addition, his peaceful approach to reforms distinguishes him from other
revolutionary leaders like Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Aguinaldo. Rizal emphasized the
importance of addressing social and political issues through peaceful means rather than resorting
to violence. He appreciated Rizal's willingness to sacrifice his life for the cause of Philippine
independence. Another reason why Rizal deserves to be called a national hero is because Rizal
founded the La Liga Filipina, and it is a step forward in reformist thinking. Andres Bonifacio was
one of the members of La Liga Filipina. Without La Liga Filipina, Andres Bonifacio and his army
would have been non-existent. Additionally, the execution of Jose Rizal was a symbol of sacrifice
and heroism.
On the other hand, although Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Aguinaldo made significant
contributions to the Philippine Revolution, their contributions do not outweigh Jose Rizal’s legacy
as the national hero of our country. Speaking of Bonifacio, we know that he was considered the
Supremo of the Katipunan and was a revolutionary leader who advocated for armed revolution
against Spanish colonial rule (Constantino, 1972). His bravery and leadership encouraged
countless Filipinos to join the fight for their freedom. However, Bonifacio’s contributions were
solely focused on internal conflicts and power struggles within the revolutionary movement. Also,
he lacked the intellectual depth and breadth of Rizal’s contributions. Furthermore, the reason why
Rizal was more suitable to be called a national hero than Andres Bonifacio is that Bonifacio
achieved independence for his native land which required an armed approach. The Americans
deemed this approach to the independence of Andres Bonifacio to be unacceptable and may inspire
other Filipinos to rebel against American rule. This is why Jose Rizal was chosen over him as the
national hero. The Americans (through the American Governor William Howard Taft)
recommended to the Philippine Commission, which was sponsored by the US, to declare Jose
Rizal as a national hero for the Filipinos. The Americans recommended Rizal because he was
executed by the Spaniards and because of his peaceful way of achieving liberty. The approach of
Jose Rizal is for the long term. Violence is not always the answer to achieving freedom. We need
to be educated so we can fight without losing lives.
Similarly, Emilio Aguinaldo was the first president of the Philippine Republic and led the
revolutionary forces against both Spanish and American colonizers. He was one of the people who
played a vital role in our country’s struggle for independence. However, his leadership was also
connected with controversies and political rivalries, particularly the execution of Andres Bonifacio
and his collaboration with the American forces. Emilio Aguinaldo as a national hero is also
debatable. Although he made notable contributions to the fight for freedom, his legacy is tarnished
by political betrayal and controversies. Moreover, Renato Constantino (1972) questioned Emilio
Aguinaldo's suitability as a national hero due to his controversial decisions during the Philippine
Revolution. Constantino criticizes Aguinaldo's collaboration with American forces, which he
believes weakens Filipino independence. According to Constantino (1972), Aguinaldo's actions
during this critical period cast doubt on his commitment to the ideals of the revolution and may
disqualify him from being considered a national hero.
In conclusion, Jose Rizal deserves the title of national hero because of his advocacy for
education, intellectual leadership, and continued fight for our freedom. His literary ideas and works
inspired many Filipinos to aspire for freedom and education. Even though Andres Bonifacio and
Emilio Aguinaldo made substantial contributions and sacrifices for our country’s independence,
Rizal’s legacy as a visionary thinker, moral integrity, and selfless dedication makes him the most
deserving candidate for the title of national hero. As Filipinos, we honor Jose Rizal’s legacy and
make his legacy our guide and inspiration to uphold the values of freedom, education, and
solidarity.

REFERENCES:
Constantino, R. (1972). Veneration Without Understanding. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 1:4,
3-18 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00472337185390141

Palma, R. (1959). The Pride of the Malay Race: A Biography of Jose Rizal.