(The Guide Questions were given by my Professor way back in College for our History 15 Class.)
1. One of the important claims of Renato Constantino, which supports his negative thesis of Rizal, was the refusal of the latter to align with the Philippine Revolution. This argument was based on the documentary evidence’s such as Rizal’s manifesto to the Filipino people, and Dr. Pio Valenzuela’s 1896 testimonial. Quibuyen’s article, "Rizal and the Revolution" the same core Constantino evidences were used to debunk the anti-Rizal thesis and further prove Rizal’s participation of the Revolution. Discuss thoroughly each evidences used by Floro Quibuyen to further his resolved on Rizal’s participation on the Philippine Revolution.
Rizal's 15 December Manifesto,as what Constantino have said, that this manifesto was the definitive proof that Rizal repudiated the Revolution. This was said so because its content was that, Rizal condemned the revolution and he doesn't want to be part of it. What he wants is that the Filipino people will go forth on such education because in education, they will be free from the people who'll colonize and enslave them, they will have the freedom to get to know their own identities and lastly, they will be fit for their liberties. That's why with these reasons, he wanted the people to return to their homes. Another thing, he condemned the revolution because of the belief that the Spaniards will give the Filipinos their freedom sooner or later. On the other hand, Valenzuela has 2 testimonials in the year 1896 which said that on the first testimony, he was told by Bonifacio to go in Dapitan and confer with Rizal about the use of armed weapons for the revolt against Spain. But again, he opposed to this suggestion and with this, Bonifacio was angry with Rizal and initiated him as a coward. On the Second testimony, it said that Rizal was part of the Revolution because he made a plan for it. What he did was...