It’s easy to forgetespecially in the haze before the New Year’s festivitiesthat on a late December morning over a century agoJose Rizal walked to his execution with remarkable composure. It’s a striking scene: the man who did not believe in a violent uprising met a violent endsimply because he refused to betray his principles.

Stillit wasn’t the execution itselfbut his life and worksthat made a lasting impact on the course of the country’s history.

December 30Rizal Dayhas mostly become just another red-letter date on the calendarconveniently tucked between the nation’s favorite holidays of the year. The man himself has faded into a distant mythand many Filipinos have grown numb to what he actually represents. But thanks to himof coursefor somethat means another paid day off and a chance to sleep in and catch up on shows on the watchlist.

Must Read

‘Rizz in Rizal’: How freeyouth-driven tours make PH’s national hero relatable 

Besideswho has the energy to care about a 19th-century figure when daily life is already exhausting enough?

Ironicallythat might be exactly why Rizal’s life and death still matter today.

The man behind the moment

Rizal did not stumble into his death. Months before his executionthe Katipunan offered to rescue him from his exile in Dapitan. Andres Bonifacio even invited him to help lead the revolutionbut he declined the offers.

His reasoning might have been too pragmatic. He believed that due to lack of resourceshis countrymen were not prepared for a full-blown uprisingand the act could only lead to unnecessary bloodshed. 

Rizal and the Katipunan pursued freedom from different directions but were ultimately moving towards the same goal. Rizal sought liberation through reformwhile the Katipunan pursued independence through revolution.

Despite inspiring the revolutionRizal openly condemned it in his manifesto written on December 151896where he declared: “I do condemn this uprising — which dishonors us Filipinos and discredits those that could plead our cause. I abhor its criminal methods and disclaim all part in itpitying from the bottom of my heart the unwary that have been deceived into taking part in it.”

Yet even as Rizal committedly hoped for reform within the systemthe propaganda movement helped cultivate a national consciousness that made separation from Spain inevitable. 

As historian Renato Constantino observed in his 1972 essay Veneration Without Understanding“Instead of making the Filipino closer to Spainthe propaganda gave root to separation. The drive for Hispanization was transformed into the development of a distinct national consciousness.” 

Although Rizal understood oppression intimately through his own experiences and that of his familyConstantino described him as a “limited” Filipinoexplaining that he’s “the ilustrado Filipino who fought for national unity but feared the Revolution and loved his mother countryyesbut in his own ilustrado way.”

Rizal believed for a long time that assimilation with Spain was possible — and desirable. He admired European artcultureand liberal ideasbut his repeated encounters of racism and injustice did result in some erosion of that belief at some points in his life. During the pressures of the Calamba land dispute with Dominican friars to whom his family was renting their landRizal admitted the failure of assimilationwriting to Blumentritt in 1887 that“The Filipino has long wished for Hispanization and they were wrong in aspiring for it.”

Rizal may have beenin Constantino’s wordsa “consciousness without movement,” but that consciousness matteredand the revolution transformed that awakening into action.

“As a social commentatoras the exposer of oppressionhe performed a remarkable task. His writings were part of the tradition of protest which blossomed into revolutioninto a separatist movement. His original aim of elevating the indio to the level of Hispanization of the peninsular so that the country could be assimilatedcould become a province of Spainwas transformed into its opposite,” wrote Constantino.

Could the revolution have happened without Rizal?

Rizal fell when Spain pulled the trigger in 1896 in what’s now known as Luneta Park in Manilabut what rose was something larger than him. His execution intensified the people’s desire for separationunified disparate movementsand gave the revolution a sense of moral clarity. 

But without Rizalthe uprising might still have happenedin a likely more fragmentedless coherentand less anchored way.

His life and death led to systemic change. It’s not because he sought martyrdombut because he refused to betray his ideals.

Dyingafter allis not a prescription for patriotism.

Historian Ambeth Ocampo describes his unsettling calm in Rizal Without the Overcoat (1990)“Rizal was a quietpeaceful man who willfully and calmly walked to his death for his convictions. Before his executionhis pulse rate was reputedly normal. How many people do you know who would die for their convictions if they could avoid it?”

Ocampo refers to Rizal as a “conscious hero” because he was deliberate in his decisions and was fully aware of its consequences.

In a 1892 letter that he wroteRizal himself explained why he chose not to save himself: “Moreover I wish to show those who deny us patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and for our convictions. What matters death if one dies or what one lovesfor one’s country and for those whom he loves?”

What can we still learn from Rizal today?

Rizal is often remembered today as a saintlyAmerican-sponsored hero. After allhis present legacy was shaped in part by American colonial narratives. Theodore Friend noted in his bookBetween Two Empiresthat Rizal was favored because “Aguinaldo [was] too militantBonifacio too radicalMabini unregenerate.”

Constantino was even more blunt when he wrote that“They favored a hero who would not run against the grain of American colonial policy.”

Yet national hero is not an official constitutional titleand Rizal does not need one. His legacy stands on its own. But humanizing Rizalrather than sanctifying himallows Filipinos to ask better questions: Which parts of his example still apply? Which don’t?

Constantino puts it in Our Task: To Make Rizal Obsolete: “Rizal’s personal goals were always in accordance with what he considered to be in the best interest of the country.” What he meant in making Rizal obsolete was that as long as corruption and injustice persistsRizal’s example stays relevant. Once those ideals are truly realizedhis legacy has done its joband there is no need for a symbolic hero to inspire conscience.

Howeverthe country is clearly far from that situation. Just as Rizal refused to betray his idealsFilipinos today are called to stand firm against the temptations and pressures that corruption and injustice present. That may be the most enduring lesson. 

On December 30the nation remembers not just how Rizal died butmore importantlywhy he did not save himself.–Rappler.com