Espiritu, Taryn Graziel A.

11812443
GERIZAL A-52

Reflection on the Movie : Bayaning 3rd World

It is important to question facts in all its aspects but it must not discredit pre-existing
facts that were already proven. Questioning Rizal's heroism does give a deeper
understanding but in this questioning, we must not perceive him not only as a glorified
hero but also one who is vulnerable to the imperfections that make a human. On the
retraction controversy of Jose Rizal, the debate may seem unproductive due to an
indefinite outcome that inevitably has loopholes. However, maybe a conclusion on
whether the letter was factual or not isn't the most important thing rather it is the
reasoning and understanding formed behind the answers. A definitive conclusion may
only simplify a broad discussion that branches out to more topics which can tweak the
conclusion.

If Rizal did retract his words that were in opposition to Catholic teachings it seems
like he only wanted to relive his faith on the essence of the goodness of the upbringing
which was beyond the corruption it was used for governing the people. In the first place,
Rizal believed in the teachings, it was how the institution used this to manipulate people
that he was against. The face of death may have clarified that to him therefore having
written the letter. Even so, it doesn't take away the fact that he was a molder of the
nationalism that was needed back then in order to promote the common good. He still
wrote the books that attacked religion due to its disturbance with the government, a
truth that had to be rendered to spark a revolution. The revolution was the sole reason
he was gratified as a hero. On the other hand, the letter could be questioned through
investigation of motives of the propagators of opening the letter to the public. This can
help further understand how religious authorities thrived to rule over the country for
centuries.

In conclusion, debates cannot settle the truth to this retraction letter. It has come to
the point that only pure logic like science can make definitive conclusions. This does not
stop the debate because there's more to realize in its process than its outcome. The
process shouldn't eradicate Rizal's human vulnerability, he isn't a God. Displaying him
as a hero was only significant at a time nationalism was starting therefore it was critical
for him to be glorified. This might have led to dismissive arguments of him not writing
the letter. Although questioning Rizal's heroism is still a need to deeply understand what
he stood for.