Adding a Flavor of True Nationalism

"The Philippines one day will declare herself inevitably and unmistakably independent." This is a prediction in his Las Filipinas Dentro de Cien Años after thinking the possibility that Spain would not introduce unbiased laws and genuine reforms to assimilate Filipinos. He was right.

This man has emphasized the importance and advantage of a real fledging nation. This man is no other than the most revered hero who is said to be the primary cause of the dramatic and theatrical independence which we commemorate with pride and joy every 12th day of June. He is the ever-famous, Dr. Jose Rizal.

“What on earth has produced a man like him? At 35, he was a novelist, a poet, an anthropologist, a sculptor, a medical doctor, a teacher and a martyr.” (Jose, 1999) More than all of what he contributed to our curtailed yet rich history, his novels entitled “Noli Me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo” had the most impact. It is because of these, they say, that the revolt against the Spanish supremacy broke out. These novels are products of his young mind that is capable enough for critical thinking. His vision transpired into writing which in turn emerged as the igniter of the whole revolution.

“Rizal’s choice of means were words” (Trillana III, 2007); words that came out not simply because he was uptight or because he eagerly wanted freedom. But it is a reflection of how education works. How powerful it is to do things beyond what is expected. In the revolution, education paved way as the grounds of the revolution and the latter as the foundation where Filipinos could build-in a truly independent Filipino nation.

As F. Sionil Jose (1999) once said, “The Revolution was our moment of truth; in that shining episode we defined ourselves and confirmed, not just our heroic and revolutionary tradition but also our continuous struggle for freedom. Our revolution laid down the foundation of a nation.”

On one hand, this is not the case in all events. Education during the American occupation was more of a colonizing tactic rather than an act of showing real friendship between the two countries. But, this is not what is needed to be talked about now. Instead, we should move the spotlight on the kind of education that is offered and received by the Filipino people these days. Leticia Constantino (1985) said that the youth of today “are being educated for neocolonialism, to accept our country’s assigned role within the global capitalist system as a source of cheap raw materials and cheap labor, and as a profitable market for foreign goods within an economy dominated by foreign investments.”

Though the so-called sovereign United States formally granted us our independence, we remain tied with them as if nothing happened in the past. The use of the English language as the primary medium of instruction fostered a colonial mentality in us which is still evident today. Elementary pupils and high school students are taught to be grateful that they were colonized, that they have this responsibility to regard the Americans as partners for peace and progress.

The kind of education we have now somewhat lacks the flavor of true nationalism. “Educating for nationalism means consciously educating Filipinos to BE Filipinos – Filipinos who will work for the Philippines and the Filipino people. To be pro-Philippines and pro-Filipino one must have national pride and a sense of national identity. Our present educational system promotes pride in our beautiful land, our tinikling and sampaguita, our Mayon and Banawe, our smiling people. It promotes national identity or nationhood, but nationalism is more than nationhood.” (Constantino, 1985)

“We are poor because our nationalism is inward looking. To repeat, neither education nor revolution can succeed if we do not internalize new attitudes, new ways of thinking.” (Jose, 1999) The situation calls us to do what Rizal did: use education as a tool in promoting nationalism more than loyalty and nationhood. Education has proven its role in Rizal’s time. Today, it is high time for us to do the same and finally end this unfinished struggle for independence.

What then?

“No rebellion fails. Each is a step in the right direction,” said Sakdal General Salud Algabre in 1935. This is true not only because we have been enjoying what our ancestors harvested after every revolution but also because their vision of a free nation was, for many, finally achieved.

Two uprisings happened in the same place in different times. In the well-known Highway 54 now named Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue or EDSA, did the Filipinos stage their detestation to a dictator and later to the leader of the “masa”.

The 1896 Revolution was a “rejection not just of tyranny but of colonialism” (Jose, 1999). Marcos was undeniably protected by the Americans. He was their prime instrument to continuously work with their colonial tactics beneath the ground in a way wherein the Filipinos would not recognize. Marcos, himself, never knew that he was betrayed by the Americans.

Change, which is what the Filipinos desired during those days, can be attained with a minimum of bloodshed. F. Sionil Jose stressed out that a “revolution need not even to have be bloody.” Many lives were lost in EDSA 1. And here comes the late President Cory Aquino who pompously spread throughout the entire world that she restored democracy in the country. What democracy is this? What were restored were mere rights that were prohibited during the Marcos regime: the right to vote, the right to make assemblies and the freedom of expression. Jose (1999) called these rights as the “empty shells of democratic institutions because the real essence of democracy does not exist here.” The real essence of democracy is equality.

“True to her oligarchic class, she declared a revolutionary government without doing anything revolutionary; instead, she turned EDSA 1 into a restoration of the old oligarchy” (Jose, 1999). This is why until today, we suffer the consequences of her negligence and folly rather than benefitting what initially seemed to be a victory.

Ninety years later, the luckiest man who sat as the 13th President of the Republic faced the angry firing squad. What made EDSA 2 different from the first is that the former was a peaceful movement. Blood did not paint the avenue red for the second time.

The second EDSA revolt was a rhetoric expression of the people’s hunger for genuine Filipino leadership. Estrada created an image of his own self as the President of and for the “masa”. As a result, many were persuaded by this political mask believing that he is the answer to their unending struggle against poverty and at the same time a struggle for equality.

Just like EDSA 1, nothing worth noticing changed after the drama. The system still works debasing millions of Filipinos from that day onwards. After what happened in EDSA in 1986, there was a regained hope for a new construction of a better democratic and republic government ran by a scrupulous leader.

However, years had passed and still, we cannot decipher the essence of these two revolutions. It is never enough for a person to know what happened. What we need is a full understanding of why they happened. As F. Sionil Jose (1999) said, “In our celebration of this Revolution, it is perhaps necessary to remind ourselves that beyond the festival tinsel; we should ask why we should remember at all, and what. If the past means something to us, it is because it reminds us of the good old days - their comfort, the wonderful times enshrined in memory. This is pure and simple nostalgia which does not have any more meaning than would a gargantuan feast, or some orgiastic experience that will forever haunt us with its magic. But beyond this, what then?” Exactly, what then?