True Love or Contemporary Propaganda?

(This post is for the week of February 7)




I thought it was interesting that the people who commented on the article from "La Solidaridad" by Jose Rizal seem to agree that Jose was a great figure. I, too, do not doubt that he was a hero to many but I question his motives in writing this article. When I first read this article I thought he was promoting violence and I was shock to hear in class that he advocated non-violence. He is very dramatic, descriptive, and poetic in this article and I believe he uses these writing techniques to cover or even justify the violence used for the country. He starts the article by elaborately describing the beauty of the land, mesmerizing the readers. He writes: "Could we not dedicate to her something -- those of us whose only failing is that we were born later? Shall the nineteenth century have reason to call us ungrateful?" He is challenging the reader; he is telling the people that they are obligated to the land. Then the article becomes even more intriguing. Rizal sets up, in chronological order, a method that subliminaly reveals the importance of fighting for the country. He writes, "We are born thus; we grow up, we get old and we die with this pious sentiment. [...] as a father, we see the children die and time erases our grief like waves wash the shores when they recede. But in contrast, love of country is never erased once it gets to the heart, because it has a divine zeal which keeps it ternal and imperishable." I am assuming that children are dying for the counrty; such as fighting in a war or maybe starving because of impoverishment due to the war. Whatever the reasons, he writes that the memory of one's children dying can be replaced with one's love for the country. This is where I questioned why he would write that. First of all, a child's death can never be forgotten. Secondly, if Rizal is so adamant about non-violence shouldn't he say that children shouldnt be dying for the country? Furthermore, right after that paragraph he continues to write, "It has always been said taht love has veen the most powerful force behind the most sublime acts; well then, among all kinds of loves, that of country is what has produced the greatest, the most heroic, and most unselfish acts." These "unselfish acts" can be many things including killing (war) for the the country. He statements are ambiguous. He does not clearly say people should be non violent and because he is unclear I think he is leaving a way for people to intrepret the violence is okay.