What are Jose Rizal controversies?

 

National hero status

The confusion over Rizal's real stance on the Philippine Revolution leads to the sometimes bitter question of his ranking as the nation's premier hero. But then again, according to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) Section Chief Teodoro Atienza, and Filipino historian Ambeth Ocampo, there is no Filipino historical figure, including Rizal, that was officially declared as national hero through law or executive order. Although, there were laws and proclamations honoring Filipino heroes.

Made national hero by colonial Americans

Some suggest that Jose Rizal was made a legislated national hero by the American forces occupying Philippines. In 1901, the American Governor General William Howard Taft suggested that the U.S. sponsored Philippine Commission name Rizal a national hero for Filipinos. Jose Rizal was an ideal candidate, favourable to the American occupiers since he was dead, and non-violent, a favourable quality which, if emulated by Filipinos, would not threaten the American rule or change the status quo of the occupiers of Philippine islands. Rizal did not advocate freedom for Philippines either. Subsequently, the US-sponsored commission passed Act No. 346 which set the anniversary of Rizal’s death as a “day of observance.”
Renato Constantino writes Rizal is a "United States-sponsored hero" who was promoted as the greatest Filipino hero during the American colonial period of the Philippines – after Aguinaldo lost the Philippine–American War. The United States promoted Rizal, who represented peaceful political advocacy (in fact, repudiation of violent means in general) instead of more radical figures whose ideas could inspire resistance against American rule. Rizal was selected over Andrés Bonifacio who was viewed "too radical" and Apolinario Mabini who was considered "unregenerate."

Made national hero by Emilio Aguinaldo

On the other hand, numerous sources quote that it was General Emilio Aguinaldo, and not the second Philippine Commission, who first recognized December 30 as "national day of mourning in memory of Rizal and other victims of Spanish tyranny. As per them, the first celebration of Rizal Day was held in Manila on December 30, 1898, under the sponsorship of the Club Filipino.
The veracity of both claims seems to be justified and hence difficult to ascertain. However, most historians agree that a majority of Filipinos were unaware of Rizal during his lifetime, as he was a member of the richer elite classes (he was born in an affluent family, had lived abroad for nearly as long as he had lived in the Philippines) and wrote primarily in an elite language (at that time, Tagalog and Cebuano were the languages of the masses) about ideals as lofty as freedom (the masses were more concerned about day to day issues like earning money and making a living, something which has not changed much today).
Teodoro Agoncillo opines that the Philippine national hero, unlike those of other countries, is not "the leader of its liberation forces". He gives the opinion that Andrés Bonifacio not replace Rizal as national hero, like some have suggested, but that be honored alongside him.
Constantino's analysis has been criticised for its polemicism and inaccuracies.The historian Rafael Palma, contends that the revolution of Bonifacio is a consequence wrought by the writings of Rizal and that although the Bonifacio's revolver produced an immediate outcome, the pen of Rizal generated a more lasting achievement.

References to the Catholic Church

In one recorded fall from grace he succumbed to the temptation of a 'lady of the camellias'. The writer, Maximo Viola, a friend of Rizal's, was alluding to Dumas's 1848 novel, La dame aux camelias, about a man who fell in love with a courtesan. While the affair was on record, there was no account in Viola's letter whether it was more than one-night and if it was more a business transaction than an amorous affair.

Critiques of books

Others present him as a man of contradictions. Miguel de Unamuno in "Rizal: the Tagalog Hamlet", said of him, “a soul that dreads the revolution although deep down desires it. He pivots between fear and hope, between faith and despair.” His critics assert this character flaw is translated into his two novels where he opposes violence in Noli and appears to advocate it in Fili, contrasting Ibarra's idealism to Simoun's cynicism. His defenders insist this ambivalence is trounced when Simoun is struck down in the sequel's final chapters, reaffirming the author's resolute stance, Pure and spotless must the victim be if the sacrifice is to be acceptable.
Many thinkers tend to find the characters of María Clara and Ibarra (Noli Me Tángere) poor role models, María Clara being too frail, and young Ibarra being too accepting of circumstances, rather than being courageous and bold.
In El Filibusterismo, Rizal had Father Florentino say: “...our liberty will (not) be secured at the sword's point...we must secure it by making ourselves worthy of it. And when a people reaches that height God will provide a weapon, the idols will be shattered, tyranny will crumble like a house of cards and liberty will shine out like the first dawn.” Rizal's attitude to the Philippine Revolution is also debated, not only based on his own writings, but also due to the varying eyewitness accounts of Pío Valenzuela, a doctor who in 1895 had consulted Rizal in Dapitan on behalf of Bonifacio and the Katipunan.

Role in the Philippine revolution

Upon the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution in 1896, Valenzuela surrendered to the Spanish authorities and testified in military court that Rizal had strongly condemned an armed struggle for independence when Valenzuela asked for his support. Rizal had even refused him entry to his house. Bonifacio, in turn, had openly denounced him as a coward for his refusal.
But years later, Valenzuela testified that Rizal had been favorable to an uprising as long as the Filipinos were well-prepared, and well-supplied with arms. Rizal had suggested that the Katipunan get wealthy and influential Filipino members of society on their side, or at least ensure they would stay neutral. Rizal had even suggested his friend Antonio Luna to lead the revolutionary forces since he had studied military science. In the event that the Katipunan was discovered prematurely, they should fight rather than allow themselves to be killed. Valenzuela said to historian Teodoro Agoncillo that he had lied to the Spanish military authorities about Rizal's true stance toward a revolution in an attempt to exculpate him.
Before his execution, Rizal wrote a proclamation denouncing the revolution. But as noted by historian Floro Quibuyen, his final poem Mi ultimo adios contains a stanza which equates his coming execution and the rebels then dying in battle as fundamentally the same, as both are dying for their country