In our opinion, the national hero should be the one with the greatest influence. For this reason, we believe that Rizal is the worthy one, since he himself influenced Bonifacio to act up. A hero should exude an aura which is definitely hard to avoid and be influenced by. This is what Jose Rizal was all about. (Vengeful Spirit, 11:16 AM)
Another reason why not much is known about Andres compared to Rizal that is not addressed in the article is that Rizal was a sort of genius who stood out early in life and caught the attention of everyone. He was also a prolific writer. And his contemporaries all considered him the leader of the revolution. So his life is well documented.
On the other hand, Andres was the young man who answered Rizal's call for a revolution. He came out of nowhere, from obscurity into instant fame. And he disappeared just as fast. While his military campaign was a failure and there is little known of his life, and there have been questions as to the accuracy of some historians' portrayal of him, he is well loved.
In fact, I think to most Filipinos, Andres is at least as big as Rizal. Their contribution to the Filipino was just different. Rizal was the vision and Andres symbolizes the will. And one cannot be a hero without the other, and without the
The UP oblation does appear to symbolize Andres Bonifacio. It was inspired by 2 stanzas in Rizal's Mi Ultimo Adios (My Last Farewell) which calls for militant and selfless sacrifice and service to the country. The verses particularly mention fighting in battlefields... And Andres was the young man who answered Rizal's call.
It is possible that there was some intentional obfuscation as to who the statue really was and its inspiration as it was built during the American colonial period. The colonizers, of course, wanted to bury the militant Andres and would have censored same, if they had known. And the wiki's description of Rizal's poem is inaccurate. It omits the militancy that Rizal called for. It only mentions selfless sacrifice and devotion to the motherland portion. And this may be the line that was officially given to the American authorities then.
I did not do any research though on this. So I could be completely wrong. It's just something to think about or for someone else to research and write about other revolutionaries as well. (JULIO NAKPIL, 1925)
If Rizal were alive today, no doubt he would have been gravely concerned with the state of our environment brought about by reckless and unsustainable development strategies and imperatives.
In seeking to develop a comprehensive response to the challenge of environment, Rizal's thoroughness would have directed him to the address the technological, financial, and regulatory dimensions of specific problems. Yet I feel he would not have stopped at that.
Rizal would have pushed for consensus-building at a more profound level: through dialogue and exchange, sharing and examining our respective views on nature, on the relation between humanity and nature, on our values.
Through such dialogue, we can develop a shared vision of a society that will truly meet human needs and enable us to realize our most cherished aspirations. As we develop such consensus it will become possible through the creative application of science and technology, and drawing on the traditional wisdom nurtured in our respective lands to realize the goal of sustainable development.
It is here that the idea of creative symbiosis emerges as a key concept. Science and technology development and for that matter all human activity must be conducted in such a way that neither the way we relate to each other as human beings nor our interactions with nature should be married by conflict and destructive competition.
Rather, we must honor and support one another in relations of creative coexistence and mutual flourishing, which was what Rizal actively promoted as a nationalist and a universalist. This, I feel, represents the world view and bedrock values on which the successful human society of the 21st century may be constructed.
Symbiosis is of course scientific, more specifically an ecological concept, and it was through these principles that the word entered our modern lexicon. Yet in Asian culture the culture of the Philippines and of Southeast Asia as well as China, Japan and East Asia this idea has deep historical roots that many ultimately be traced it to what has been termed the region's forest culture.
By this we mean an ecologically harmonious culture where human beings coexist with nature within the context manifold life of the forest. In such a culture, humans, plants, and animals indeed, all forms of life are sustained through their mutual interactions.
It is based on the understanding that harming or killing one life harms all life; that pain of one is experienced and felt by all. This kind of empathy is deeply related to idea of compassion, which Simone Weil held to be humankind's most universal value.
In sum, I have long held profound admiration for Dr. Jose Rizal's struggles against injustice and persecution through which he was able to lead the Philippines to freedom and independence. Dr. Rizal expressed the same spiritual outlook with these words: He who wants to help himself should help others, because if he neglects others, he too will be neglected by them. (Alan C. Taule, October - December 2004)