Okay, kabayans, let’s talk about something that surfaces frequently in discussions about Philippine history: Did the Americans, specifically Governor-General William Howard Taft, essentially create Jose Rizal’s image as our national hero?
You’ve likely encountered this idea—perhaps in online discussions or casual conversations—portraying Taft as selecting Rizal, almost like choosing produce at the market, to serve American colonial interests.
But is there real substance to this historical interpretation? Let’s investigate.
Why This Narrative Persists
Let’s be honest, Filipinos appreciate a compelling story, especially one involving intrigue and perceived hidden truths. This particular narrative resonates for several reasons:
- Underdog Appeal: The Philippines was under American rule, and stories about questioning or outsmarting colonial powers are naturally engaging.
- “Hidden Knowledge” Factor: It feels like uncovering a secret, something potentially omitted from standard history lessons.
- Fuel for Skepticism: It aligns with a common and understandable distrust of former colonial powers and their motives.
However, much like cherished family stories that grow with each telling, it’s crucial to distinguish historical fact from compelling fiction.
Debunking the Myth: Why the “Taft Choice” Theory Falters
The notion that Taft orchestrated Rizal’s heroism rests on unstable ground:
- Rizal’s Pre-Existing Fame: Long before Taft arrived, Rizal was already a towering figure. His novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, acted as powerful indictments of Spanish colonial abuses. Filipinos were already discussing his ideas and recognizing him as a symbol of emerging national consciousness and resistance. His martyrdom in 1896 had already cemented his importance in the eyes of many Filipinos fighting for independence.
- Filipino Agency: The idea that Filipinos would passively accept a hero dictated by an American official underestimates the nation’s discernment and independent spirit. Filipinos were already actively identifying and celebrating their own heroes based on their contributions and sacrifices.
- Lack of Direct Evidence: Historians rely on evidence. There is no known official document, memo, or credible account from Taft or his administration explicitly stating a plan to “make Rizal famous” or select him over other potential figures solely for American purposes.
The Reality: Rizal’s Legacy Was Cultivated Natively
Rizal’s status as a hero wasn’t an American imposition; it was earned through his actions and deeply embraced by the Filipino people:
- He Challenged Oppression: His writings courageously exposed the corruption, injustice, and brutality of the Spanish regime, giving voice to the suffering of his people.
- He Championed Reform Through Education: Rizal primarily advocated for peaceful means, believing education and enlightenment were key tools for progress and achieving equal rights. This resonated with many Filipinos seeking change.
- His Martyrdom: His execution by the Spanish colonial government transformed him into a powerful symbol of sacrifice for the nation, further solidifying his heroic stature.
Understanding Taft’s Role: Recognition, Not Creation
Taft, as the head of the Philippine Commission and later Civil Governor, was a pragmatic administrator. He understood that pacifying the Philippines required more than military force; it involved gaining the Filipinos’ trust and cooperation. Recognizing Rizal’s existing immense popularity and influence was a strategic move:
- Leveraging Rizal’s Image: The American administration, under Taft, did take steps that highlighted Rizal. They established Rizal Province, approved funds for the Rizal Monument in Luneta, and declared December 30th (the anniversary of his execution) a national holiday. These actions acknowledged Rizal’s standing among Filipinos.
- Promoting a “Safe” Hero: From the American perspective, promoting Rizal, who advocated for reform rather than immediate armed revolution (unlike figures like Andres Bonifacio), was strategically advantageous. It presented a model of Filipino aspiration compatible with American aims for gradual self-governance and education. The emphasis on education aligned well with the American introduction of a public school system.
Essentially, Taft and the early American administration recognized the powerful wave of Rizal’s existing popularity and attempted to channel it, rather than creating it from nothing.
What’s the Takeaway?
History is complex and rarely fits into simple narratives. The myth surrounding Taft and Rizal underscores how historical accounts can be shaped and sometimes distorted. Key reminders include:
- Practice Critical Thinking: Question historical narratives, especially those that seem overly simplistic or sensational.
- Seek Evidence: Base understanding on verifiable facts and multiple sources rather than hearsay or unsupported claims.
- Consider Context: Understand historical figures and events within their specific time and circumstances.
Most importantly, let’s continue these conversations, engaging critically with our history to ensure the stories we share reflect the genuine complexities of the Filipino experience.