Article Critique: Dr. Quibuyen’s reply to
“Rizal and Filipino Nationalism: A New Approach”
It is a rare opportunity to be given the chance to summarize, judge, and and
make a critique about the ideas and arguments of two amazing veterans when it
comes to the Philippine history. As per reading the article, I did a quick background
check on both professionals. The author, Dr. Floro Quibuyen has a Degree in BA
Philosophy, a Masters degree holder in Anthropology, and a Doctorates Degree in
Political Science. A great mind and very broad background about Philippine history.
Dr. Quibuyen is replying to a prominent historian who made a review on his work,
Rev. John N. Schumacher.
In making a critique, especially on an article about a reply to a previous work
that’s been questioned by a second person, It is up to me to make a third person take
on the topic. As mentioned this is a counter argument for Rev. Schumacher’s view on
Dr. Quibuyen’s work, and to make an unbiased evaluation on the topic It took a lot of
hours to delicately consider a stand between these two prominent professionals. I have
to be open on ideas from both sides and balance judgement on each sides take on the
topics.
Both have strikingly impressive background and expertise which made the article
more intriguing, to know which side would lean towards a much logical, systematic,
and reasonable approach. As I went through the article it is obvious to see that they
both had their respective ideas which contradicts each other’s stand and views. When
I finished reviewing this very informative and eye opening article, and after a careful
evaluation, I have observed that Dr. Quibuyen has respectfully and effectively
defended the contents of his work through providing reasonable explanations, similar
events, and relevant ideas.
The article focuses mainly on Rizal’s life and correspondence to the
Philippine nationalism, important figure, their influence and contributions, events
during pre-spanish , colonial and post-colonial period, the Philippine revolution and
why it failed, and the Genocidal American Conquest. Dr. Floro Quibuyen many times
mentioned
assumptions
Rev.
John
Schomacher
having
certain
biases
and
inaccurate
while reviewing his book. Dr. Quibuyen addressed Rev. John
schumacher’s disagreements to most of his main arguments about Rizal and Filipino
Nationalism in the following order: first, the sources and interpretations of the
arguments, second, the political vision of Burgos, Rizal, Del Pilar and Bonifacio, third,
the nationalist movements in the 19th century, and lastly, the failure of the revolution
and the American’s role and impact.
Following Dr. Quibuyen’s sequence of disagreement
with Rev. John
Schumacher, frist would be sources and interpritaions, I gree with Dr. Quibuyn when
he cited that Rev. Schumacher’s assumptions is irrelivent if not untrue. This is after
Dr. Quibuyen disproved Rev. Schumarcher’s two premises regarding the reason
behind the wealth of the towns owned or occupied by the friars was due to their
influence and power they have acquired and not of their management. Dr. Quibuyen
mentioned in his counter argument the chronicles of Fr. Chirino was impressed when
he saw the wide variety of palay being planted in the irrigated fields of Laguna, the
irrigation system in tubigan made possible to harvest in both summer and rainy
season. Second, the political vision of Burgos, Rizal, Del Pilar and Bonifacio. In this
argument Rev. Schumacher assumption implies that even at the time of upheaval,
intermingling of ideological perspectives is impossible. But Dr. Quibuyen had a
different perspective, he stated that the “liberal party” was different from a formal
constitution like katipunan and the liga. He asserted that the liberal movement had a
broader scope, because for him it aimed a secure equality for the Filipinos in the three
sectors of the colonial regime: the church, the military and the government. As for the
influnce of Burgos towards dr. Jose Rizal, Dr. Quibuyen found it doubtful when Rev.
Schumacher stresses that it was ideals of Burgas that influenced that national
consciousness of Dr. Rizal. I do agree with Dr. Quibuyen when he disagrees with
what Rev. Schumacher has stressed, because it is indeed impossible to safely assume
that Burgos could have been the only source of his said ideas, and lumping Burgos,
Dr. Rizal and Del Pilar as propagandist having one ideological perspective is illogical.
Third, the nationalist movements in the 19th century, bi-nationalist. In this
disagreement of the two about Del Pilar being a separtist or a assimilationist, I tend to
lean in agreement with Dr. Quibuyen. Unlike Dr. Jose Rizal, Del Pilar had a different
opinion towards the constitutional framework of Spain, he believed that Filipinos can
attain progress within it. Lastly, the failure of the revolution and the American’s role
and impact. Regarding the disagreement in the failure of revolution was about Rev.
Schumacher’s opposed Dr. Quibuyen’s take on Aguinaldo’s decision in the Pact of
Biak-na-Bato. According to Dr. Quibuyen, if Aguinaldo had not agreed to the Pact of
Biak-na-Bato, the revolution could have succeeded and
establishment of a
government before the Americans came could have been possible. After reading Dr.
Quibuyan’s reasoning, his explanation showed careful evaluation and analysis in
arguments. He reasoned out that unlike Rev. Schumacher he does not oppose the “hit
and run” guerrilla action and conventional warfare, it is that the occupying power has
both logistics and firepower advantage and the only way to counter this is through
such action “guerrilla warfare” until the revolutionary efforts gains momentum and
enough strength to do full scale frontal assaults. Dr. Quibuyen then added
that Aguinaldo should have adopted the “hit and run” guerrilla tactic right from the
beginning against the Spanish forces and even if he didn’t at the beginning, he should
have resorted to “hit and run” when they started to suffer setbacks, because the
Spaniards would soon get involved in a war against U.S. and time was I Aguinaldo’s
hands. The disagreement in American’s role and impact, in this part of the article Rev.
Schumacher rejects the idea of the “ Genocidal American Conquest” of Dr. Quibuyen.
Rev. Schumacher addressed “Genocidal American Conquest” as a gross exaggeration.
In Dr. Quibuyen’s reply, he stated numerous data regarding the number of deaths
during the “American intervention in the Revolution” of Rev. Schumacher, and then
using a much lower death estimate (57,289 deaths) than Rev. Schumachers source
(127,000-360,000 deaths) John Gates as the base of his explanation. He then
compared the several events which cause deaths below 10,000 and was already
branded as genocidal and questioned is the of death almost 58,000 is not considered
genocidal? He even gave the stipulation of the Article II of the 1948 Genocidal
Convention.
After pondering on my scrutinies towards “Rizal and Filipino Nationalism”, it can be
seen that Dr. Floro Quibuyen has poured great effort into writing his book. Taking
careful consideration to the information he is writing, including all possible
explanations that might be needed to prevent confusion and doubt, putting his
multidisciplinary background and professional experience into action. His sharp and
precise choice of words makes it easy to identify the message he is trying to convey
through his article, he never misses any point and never fails to provide explanations
to back up all his arguments, a proof showing his passion and well-versed skill in
writing this Article. To finish my critique, I can say that I strongly agree with Dr.
Floro Quibuyen’s profound arguments regarding “Rizal and Filipino Nationalism:
Critical Issues”.