RIZAL AS A SEPARATIST

Perhaps, prior to his death, Dr. Rizal should had been asked with the question, "Dr Rizal are you a pacifist or a revolutionary? ".

The fact remains. There is confusion among the readers of Rizal. One group believes Rizal was for peaceful means and the other group believes he was for radical means.

A good point in the readings of his correspondences would be that of taking into consideration the element of time-- the date they were written and the circumstances surrounding them.

His writings reflected his thoughts. But his thoughts reflected his environment, his relationships with a wide gamut of people and his feelings or emotions towards them. Therefore, his writings reflected his feelings or emotions towards a wide range of people and his environment- both here and abroad.

As such, I came up with the idea of Rizal as a coin, with both the sides of it -head and tail understood depending on the reference one is reading.

Rizal had both sides. Reformist on one side and Revolutionary on the other side.

Reformism is assimilism-- -reforms in all aspects under the present colonial system while revolution is figthing for freedom---outright annihilation of the colonial system-a complete change.

The end justifies the means. So he said. The goal defines the methods.

If denouncing the radical means would avoid bloodshed and instead gradually achieve the desired goal, (which is of course, freedom---- from slavery, to study, to believe whatever one wanted to believe in,,,etc etc) through peaceful means, then why not denounce them?

But if absconding the propaganda (the peaceful means? and declaring the venue for the fight right here in the islands---planning for shipment of armaments to support the revolution, writing subversive ideas, writing poems and songs that ignite the fires and the love of country and of one's own culture, exposing the sad plight of the people and the abuses of the friars and the colonial government, declaring the intent to establish nationhood or a Filipino colony as against the wishes or direct orders of the colonial government, establishing the Liga for protection against these abuses, and gain economic cooperation, then why not abscond them?

Rizal was caught in both conditions: as a pacifier and at the same time as a provocateur. And the fact is clear: we could not separate one side from the other side of Rizal.

But he was shot BECAUSE of this: for in choosing both ways--- be it through peaceful means or radical means only one thing is ever dreamed of:

To achieve the betterment of the conditions of life in the Philippines and to achieve moral and intellectual upliftment of her inhabitants.

We all know that nobody wanted this then for the islands and its people. NOBODY CARES.

Betterment? which is until today, unrealized. WHO CARES?

Who would then do it for this country if each desired only what is good for himself? His neighbors?

BDL