In an article written in 1970, titled “Veneration Without Understanding,” the historian

Renato Constantino referred to Rizal as an “American-sponsored hero.”

This viewpoint was expressed during the period of social and political activism led by
students, workers and peasants against the brewing Marcos dictatorship and against
the American war on Vietnam as an expression of resurgent US imperialism.
Constantino claimed that US Governor General Howard Taft set up Rizal as a national
hero because Rizal was considered a “reformist” and a “pacifist,” while Bonifacio was
a revolutionary who resorted to violence to gain national independence.
Since the US colonial rulers naturally wanted to discourage revolution against their
regime, they chose Rizal over Bonifacio as the Philippines’ national hero.

Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/332557/rizal-planted-seed-of-revolution-
bonifacio-watered-it#ixzz6FYfOTjJo
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

izal consciously planted and nourished the seed of nationalism.  In his novels, essays
and proclamations he promoted the idea of freedom and the eventuality of national
independence.
At first Rizal advocated reforms. But when the plea for reforms failed, he advocated
independence, even through revolution. This is evident in his novel “Noli Me
Tangere,” which emphasized reforms, and its sequel, “El Filibusterismo,” which
preached revolution.
Rizal’s principal essays, “The Indolence of the Filipinos,” and “The Philippines a
Century Hence,” argued for an end to colonialism, by reforms if possible, and, if not,
through revolution.
Bonifacio read the novels of Rizal and possibly his two nationalistic essays that were
published by La Solidaridad, the periodical of reformist Filipino emigres in Madrid,
which Rizal had joined but which he later left when he finally realized that their
agitation for reforms were falling on the deaf ears. It was then that Rizal wrote the
“Fili.”

Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/332557/rizal-planted-seed-of-revolution-
bonifacio-watered-it#ixzz6FYgatJ4N
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
The late former Sen. Claro M. Recto, the greatest Filipino nationalist of our time, in a
speech in 1960 to a civic convention in Baguio City, identified “Rizal, the poet,
thinker, realist; Bonifacio, the idealist man of action; and Mabini, the statesman,” as
“three of the greatest nationalists this country has produced.”

Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/332557/rizal-planted-seed-of-revolution-
bonifacio-watered-it#ixzz6FYhSE5J7
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Revisionist views
But since the 1960s, there has arisen a revisionist historical trend questioning the
standing of both Rizal and Bonifacio in the vanguard of that parade of heroes.
One school of thought contends that Rizal was not worthy to be considered our
foremost national hero because he was “made in USA.”
In an article written in 1970, titled “Veneration Without Understanding,” the historian
Renato Constantino referred to Rizal as an “American-sponsored hero.”
This viewpoint was expressed during the period of social and political activism led by
students, workers and peasants against the brewing Marcos dictatorship and against
the American war on Vietnam as an expression of resurgent US imperialism.
Constantino claimed that US Governor General Howard Taft set up Rizal as a national
hero because Rizal was considered a “reformist” and a “pacifist,” while Bonifacio was
a revolutionary who resorted to violence to gain national independence.
Since the US colonial rulers naturally wanted to discourage revolution against their
regime, they chose Rizal over Bonifacio as the Philippines’ national hero.
ADVERTISEMENT

The message was interpreted by the activists as reflecting their view that it was
Bonifacio who most deserved the title of No. 1 Filipino hero.
The Taft Commission, which functioned as the US colonial administration in the
Philippines from 1900 to 1904, passed Act No. 37, creating the Province of Rizal out
of the military district of Morong in honor of Dr. Rizal.
The act did not formally declare Rizal a national hero, nor proclaim a national holiday
in his honor. Besides, the Taft Commission represented a foreign government that had
gained power through force and could not speak for the Filipino people.
Popular sentiment
General Aguinaldo, acknowledged leader of the de facto Philippine Republic,
proclaimed Rizal a national hero ahead of the American colonial administration.
In compliance with his decree of Dec. 20, 1898, the people of Daet, Camarines Norte,
immediately started a subscription for the building of a monument for Dr. Rizal at the
town’s plaza.
The monument was inaugurated in February 1899, shortly after the outbreak of the
Philippine-American War on Feb. 1.
Hence, the proclamation of Rizal as a national hero was an authentic act of the
Filipino people even before the United States officially consolidated its rule.  By no
means can it be said that he was an “American-sponsored” hero.
If at all, in supposedly choosing Rizal as our national hero, Taft was only abiding by
the popular sentiment of the Filipino people as already expressed through General
Aguinaldo, whose government was then sovereign throughout the entire nation,
except in Manila.

The proclamation of Bonifacio as a national hero was made by the Philippine

Legislature, composed of duly elected Filipino representatives of the Philippine
Legislature, then enjoying self-rule under the American colonial regime. 
He, too, should be considered a genuine choice of the Filipinos as a national hero
despite the objection of the American administration that he was too much of a
revolutionary.
 
Bonifacio revised
Bonifacio, like Rizal, has also suffered from historical revisionism.  The most recent
revisionist writing about Bonifacio was that by Bryan C. Paraiso, a senior historical
sites development officer of the National Historical Commission.
In Paraiso’s article published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer on Nov. 30, 2012, on
the occasion of Bonifacio’s 149th birth anniversary, the hero reveals fervor in his
writings. Paraiso described Bonifacio as an “elusive” historical character.
Paraiso went so far as to favorably quote an American historian, Glenn Anthony May,
that “the Bonifacio celebrated in history textbooks and memorialized in statues around
the Philippines is in reality something closer to a national myth.”
May, who has written a number of controversial books on Philippine history
emphasizing the role of the elite in the Philippine revolution and in the armed
resistance against American occupation, is a history professor at the University of
Oregon.
Paraiso rejected the judgment of Filipino historians like Epifanio de los Santos, who
had tried to vindicate the image of Bonifacio against his detractors.
Paraiso considered the writings of De los Santos and other Filipino historians
“subjective” interpretation, implying that the foreigners’ interpretation of Philippine
history is “objective.”
In fact, the observations of the American historians on our anticolonial struggles could
just as well carry bias to justify the colonial conquests of our country. 
But is it necessary and helpful for Filipinos to pit their heroes against each other,
endlessly debating who are more deserving of popular adoration?
Unique role
Every hero plays his own unique role in history, which is that to defend and promote
the interests of the nation at any particular time of national crisis, sacrificing his or her
own life and self-interest.
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are both American primary heroes
performing different roles at different times in their country’s historical development.
They, too, had their critics.
Rizal consciously planted and nourished the seed of nationalism.  In his novels, essays
and proclamations he promoted the idea of freedom and the eventuality of national
independence.
At first Rizal advocated reforms. But when the plea for reforms failed, he advocated
independence, even through revolution. This is evident in his novel “Noli Me
Tangere,” which emphasized reforms, and its sequel, “El Filibusterismo,” which
preached revolution.
Rizal’s principal essays, “The Indolence of the Filipinos,” and “The Philippines a
Century Hence,” argued for an end to colonialism, by reforms if possible, and, if not,
through revolution.
Bonifacio read the novels of Rizal and possibly his two nationalistic essays that were
published by La Solidaridad, the periodical of reformist Filipino emigres in Madrid,
which Rizal had joined but which he later left when he finally realized that their
agitation for reforms were falling on the deaf ears. It was then that Rizal wrote the
“Fili.”
La Liga Filipina
It was Rizal’s writings and his growing reputation as a leader of Filipino nationalism
that led Bonifacio in 1892 to join Rizal’s La Liga Filpina, an organization that was in
essence a shadow government for an independent nation. 
The organization of the Liga by Rizal was cited in the indictment against him as one
of the acts of treason he allegedly had committed against the Spanish regime.
The stated aims of the Liga, including, “To unite the whole archipelago into one
compact, vigorous and homogenous body,” were correctly interpreted by the Spanish
authorities as an attempt at separatism.  This led the Spanish government to exile
Rizal to the fastnesses of Mindanao.  He was eventually executed upon conviction of
treason.
In his memoirs of the Philippine Revolution, Apolinario Mabini recalled that he met
Bonifacio at the organization of the Liga.  After Rizal’s banishment on July 6, 1892,
Bonifacio and a handful of other members of the Liga tried to keep it alive by
continuing to solicit contributions for La Solidaridad.
Mabini, was elected secretary of the Supreme Council of the Liga after Rizal’s arrest. 
He later became president of the Cabinet of President Aguinaldo and secretary of
foreign affairs in the first Philippine Republic that fought the United States for
independence.
The late former Sen. Claro M. Recto, the greatest Filipino nationalist of our time, in a
speech in 1960 to a civic convention in Baguio City, identified “Rizal, the poet,
thinker, realist; Bonifacio, the idealist man of action; and Mabini, the statesman,” as
“three of the greatest nationalists this country has produced.”
Katipunan
When the Liga finally dissolved because of disagreements among its officers,
Bonifacio formed the Katipunan, which was totally dedicated to the objective of
overthrowing the Spanish colonial government through armed revolution.
Bonifacio had come to the conclusion that the period for petitions had ended, and that
revolution had become an imperative.
The Katipunan was therefore a direct outgrowth of the Liga Filipina.  Bonifacio used
the name of “Jose Rizal” as one of the passwords for the members of the secret
society. It was an acknowledgment by Bonifacio that Rizal was his mentor and
inspiration, if not his leader.
All revolutions start out with petitions for reforms. Thus it was with the French,
Russian and American revolutions. The US Declaration of Independence states: “In
every state of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble
terms:  Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” 
The rejection of the petitions for reforms by the La Solidaridad propagandists,
including representation in the Spanish parliament, paved the way for the bloody
Katipunan revolution for separatism.
In his seminal essay, “The Philippines A Century Hence,” published by La
Solidaridad from Sept. 30, 1898, to Feb. 1, 1890, Rizal wrote that if the reforms were
not granted, “the Philippines one day will declare herself inevitably and unmistakably
independent …. Necessity is the strongest god the world knows, and necessity is the
result of physical laws put into action by moral forces.”
Rizal planted the seed of revolution, and Bonifacio watered it. They were the twins of
historical necessity.  The dynamic of history brought them together, each to fulfill
fated roles in the struggle of our people for nation-building and independence.
That their legacies should be made to compete against each other goes against the law
of history, which mandates that each historical figure, like every generation, has a
definite role to play in the destiny of a nation.

Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/332557/rizal-planted-seed-of-revolution-
bonifacio-watered-it#ixzz6FYiD6ffN
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
It is true that Bonifacio was executed by an order of Aguinaldo in a struggle for power
within the revolutionary movement. But Bonifacio faced his fate bravely, with the
same invincible courage that he had mustered in building the revolutionary movement
from a handful of patriots to thousands of poorly armed zealous partisans eager to lay
down their lives for freedom and independence.
Bonifacio did this through four long years of painstaking recruitment in secret rites in
darkened rooms under the very noses of the increasingly nervous colonial and clerical
authorities, with every moment fraught with the danger of discovery, torture and
death.
And finally, when the movement was inadvertently discovered, he launched the
revolution armed only with a revolver, assaulting a military arsenal, igniting the
revolutionary war that vindicated and upheld the honor and manhood of generations
of Filipinos who had been chained in colonial thrall for three and a half centuries.
Following disagreements in the ranks of the revolutionaries, Bonifacio was shot and
wounded as he resisted capture by soldiers he considered renegades to the revolution.
His captor, Col. Lazaro Makapagal, claimed that Bonifacio shed “bitter tears” when,
together with his brother, he faced certain death, but he did not beg for his life, and the
tears he shed were certainly due to his frustration that the revolutionary movement
that he led to fruition was in danger of disaster.
Bonifacio’s background showed that whatever his faults, lack of courage was not one
of them.
As the quintessential revolutionary, Mao Zedong said, “A revolution is not a dinner
party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; …. A revolution
is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”  It is not
so orderly like romantic fiction.

Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/332557/rizal-planted-seed-of-revolution-
bonifacio-watered-it#ixzz6FYjeg4f1
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Without the revolution, which the Katipunan espoused, there would be no red

sun with eight shining yellow rays in the Philippine national flag. Many
revolts had transpired during the colonial period in many localities. In the
past, the Pampangos and the Nueva Ecijanos were always on the side of Spain.
What was different with Bonifacio’s revolutionary effort through the
Katipunan was that eight provinces joined the revolt of the Tondo masses. It
was the Katipunan that united the provinces and made the message of
independence and freedom resound clear over Batangas, Laguna, Cavite,
Manila, Bulacan, Tarlac, Pampanga and Nueva Ecija (eight rays in the
Philippine sun.)

In early dawn on December 30, 1896, Rizal received his mother, sisters and his
wife Josephine Bracken in his cell to say their final good-byes. He gave
Josephine a book, Kemper’s The Imitation of Christ. Then he handed her an
alcohol burner. Turning to sister Trining, he said in English: “There is
something inside.” It was his last poem now known as Mi Ultimo Adios.

Immediately, Trinidad had the poem copied and sent safely to Jose Basa in
Hongkong where it could be published and circulated. Bonifacio obtained a
copy and was the first one to translate the whole poem into Tagalog. It was
distributed to all the members of the Katipunan. At that time, in 1898, the
Katipuneros numbered around five million. The Katipuneros recited that
poem in the battlefield. It was Bonifacio’s translation that made Mi Ultimo
Adios accessible to the common masses.

Rizal wrote,and Bonifacio fought.

Rizal thought and talked, and Bonifacio listened and acted. 
Rizal wanted change thru peaceful means, Bonifacio believed change possible only through war.
And it was through war that the Spanish gave up.
Bonifacio should be our hero, and Rizal may be credited for helping.” – John Gaisano Jr.,
DavaoRizal wrote,and Bonifacio fought.
Rizal thought and talked, and Bonifacio listened and acted. 
Rizal wanted change thru peaceful means, Bonifacio believed change possible only through war.
And it was through war that the Spanish gave up.
Bonifacio should be our hero, and Rizal may be credited for helping.” – John Gaisano Jr., Davao

Naging subjective si Rizal sa kanyang mga sinulat actually. How can someone say na naiintindihan nya
ang nararamdaman ng isang tao kung wala naman siya sa lugar ng taong nakakaramdam nun?
Parang ganyan rin kay Rzal. Paano niya nasabing naiintindihan niya ang mga naranasan ng mga
kababayan niyang Filipino noong mga panahon ng pananakop ng mga Kastila kung wala naman siya
sa aktuwal na pinangyayarihan ng dahas. He was in other countries for how many years and only the
letters of his brother, Paciano, narrated what was happening in the Philippines at that time. Thus, he
was actually narrating from their own family (well, particularly HIS very own tragedy) misfortunes and
not the Filipino's tragedy as a whole.
Yes, he was compassionate about the series of unfortunate events of the Filipino before and his novels
were said to be "the spark of revolution in every Filipino's hearts". YET, the fact that Rizal was in a
different country, was basing his novels from Paciano's letters, and was just incorporating those
narrations in his own novels under fictional characters, he never fought for the country's independence
from tyranny. He was in fact pro to having the Philippines as a part of one of Spain's colonies. In
addition, he died not because of fighting (through the use of his pen xD ) for the Filipino's freedom but
because he was alleged to be the head of the Katipunan and the revolution per se--which he, in fact,
denounced of being a part of.

Thus, I believe that there are more people who deserved to be labeled as the country's national
hero..and one of them is Andres Bonifacio.

Bonifacio wanted freedom unlike Rizal who only wanted reform.

Bayan Muna said the difference between Bonifacio and Rizal “lies in the ability
of Bonifacio to translate Rizal’s writings into a language understandable to the
Filipino masses and to transform and develop them into practice. Because of
his actual participation in the KKK, Bonifacio was able to organize and
mobilize thousands of Katipuneros in a revolution that ended the regime of
Spanish Colonization and led towards a Filipino nation’s independence.”

As a lot of you know, until know, historians are still arguing on who was correct,
Bonifacio or Rizal. Some people side on Bonifacio, some people side on Rizal. In my
opinion, Bonifacio should be the National Hero. Why? Both died for their country,
that's true. Do not think it's because Rizal fought with a pen and Bonifacio fought
with a sword. No, it is not that. For me, to be a National Hero, yes, you have to look
at what they did, but more importantly, you have to look at their goal.
          Rizal only wanted reform. He established La Liga Filipina to ask for reforms. 
They wanted to make the Filipinos and Spanish equal in the eyes of the law, to make
the Philippines a province of Spain and make Filipinos citizens of Spain, and for the
Spanish friars to be sent back to Spain and make the Filipino friars the parish priests
of the churches. Rizal's goal was not to liberate the Filipinos from Spain, but to make
a better life for Filipinos. I am not saying that I despise Rizal or anything. Everybody
has to admit the fact that he is a doctor, painter, sculptor, linguist, and a lot more. I
very much admire Rizal, I totally do. Even Bonifacio extremely admired him, but I
think Rizal should have gotten the National Model title.
          Andres Bonifacio's goal was total separation from the Spaniards. He believed
that we should have total independence and our own government. A government
run by Filipinos.