Jose Rizal Was Against Armed Revolution

As today is Rizal Day, I was thinking about how it's easy to mock him for what he did. Some say he should've just left the country and never returned. Some people tell me, "If you want to become a hero, why not get shot?" I always said, "Well, if Rizal didn't get shot then our predecessors will not get their freedom!"

The Filipinas Heritage Library shares this information about Rizal:

While awaiting trial in 1896, Rizal wrote a manifesto that expressed his disapproval of the armed revolution against Spain. He cleared his name, which he said was being used by some revolutionaries to espouse certain ideals. He said that he has always opposed, fought, and made clear that armed revolution was impossible, absurd, and disastrous. He explained that reforms must “also come from above,” because reforms that “come from below are upheavals both violent and transitory.”

He emphasized, however, that like any Filipino, he desired our country’s freedom; and that education and hard work might make the Filipino people worthy of that freedom. Elsewhere, Rizal wrote: “What is the use of independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And no doubt they will, because whoever submits to tyranny loves it!” For Rizal, “The gift of reason with which we are endowed must be brightened and utilized” in order to overcome ignorance which causes slavery.”

What Rizal did to Simoun feels significant as to why he did it. Rather than make Simoun a hero, Rizal killed his very own character by drinking poison. Simoun, who was really Crisostomo Ibarra, was someone who was trying to get his revenge on the villains. Simoun's final plan was to let the lamp explode and start a revolution. There are times I wish that the lamp exploded to make a point. However, what Rizal did was kill Simoun instead of making the character a hero. Simoun died a miserable death after living his life in hatred. 

Rizal's statement, "What is the use of independence if the slaves today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?" also rings true. It can be shown in Chinese history, for example. Mao Zedong was espousing the ideals of freedom. Mao was one who frequently used the ideals of freedom. However, Mao, like other Communists before him, had only worsened the situation. Joseph Stalin was a brutal tyrant. Mao was a man who passed through the Second World War. Mao was one who helped fight abusive landlords. However, Mao became China's evil overlord. The same can be said when Adolf Hitler started out as that poor boy who'd soon become the tyrant of Germany as well. 

It's not easy to keep one's cool. Sometimes, armed revolution is the easiest way to do things. However, there's a saying that says, "The shortest path often leads nowhere." Armed revolution might be best seen as the shortest path that leads nowhere. Fighting for reforms like the way Rizal and Mahatma Gandhi did may be difficult but it might lead to better results in the long run.