Jose Rizal is one of the noteworthy heroes in the Philippines.

Though, his life story and written novels are at old

aged; however it was still present as of these days in libraries, bookstore, and journals. That proves how Dr.
Jose Rizal is meaningful to our lives. What if he did not fight for the Philippines right against Spaniards? The
Philippines without him is nothing or worthless. Spaniards are stupid people who never want Filipino exceeds
their level of intelligence. Thats why they killed Dr. Jose Rizal, because Rizal was against to Spanish absolute
rule towards Filipino. Rizal is bright and intelligent hero and this is the great cause he was killed by Spanish.
Spanish people dont want Rizal to beat them.
Like any country everywhere in the world has there own prehistoric records. It could be in countrys culture,
national heroes, emblem, tradition, different kinds of people either ordinary or celebrated who contributed
great honor to their country and etc. Those treasured recollections in the past will be noted as generations
passed by and will be bring into play in schools as source of vast informations for the students. Yes, they are
now part of the set of courses in primary, secondary or even college schools.
One of the most renowned national heroes in Philippines is Dr. Jose Rizal. His life and works are now widely
published in all parts in the Philippines. You can find them at national bookstore or educational supplies. Dr.
Jose Rizals life and history can be found in books, journals as well as booklet nationwide. However, because of
his over all achievements, he is famous not only in Philippines but in most part of the world. Why Dr. Jose Rizal
was one of the most renowned national heroes in the Philippines? What are his accomplishments to the country
Philippines? Despite the fact that he was gone for a very long period of years, why he was still part of every
peoples lives as well as to the students?
The Philippines without Jose Rizal is not complete. He did contributed a lot to make Philippines overpower a
success on the way to change the Philippines dictatorship against Spanish people with no grabbing a gun or
else a sword that justly marked as impressive heritage to all people in Philippines or to other countries of the
world like United States, Czech Republic as well as Singapore.
He was died unfortunately at the young age of 35(June 19 1861-- December 30 1896). Even though, he died at
35 years old, he did much contribution in Philippine Revolution against Spanish Colonial Era; he also published
novels like Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. This two novels are now use in high school students
from third year to fourth year.
The Philippines without Jose Rizal appears to be unclear. Without the leadership of Rizal against Spanish,
Philippines will remains unsettled. Because Jose Rizal has great love to his country Philippines as well as the
people, he defend his country no matter he died just for the country.

the greatest contribution of Dr.jose rizal in our country is the two novel he written; the noli me tangere
and el filibusterismo, by this many filipinos awaken by the slavery of spaniards to the filipinos.. he
used these two writings instead of holding a sword against the spaniards.. he proved to everybody
that pen is mightier than a sword.

Dr. Jose Rizal as the Illuminator and Philippine history as

incomplete

Three days from now, and we will be celebrating the birth of Jose Rizal. Do you know that Rizal is not
officially our national hero? There is still no law that really establishes Rizal as our national hero.

And understandably so. Would you allow this present bunch of nincoompoops in Congress to specifically
give you the standards for national heroes? Besides, we always say that we are a nation of heroes.

Dr. Jose Rizal gave his greatest contribution by being the literary force that illuminated the minds of
Filipinos and led to the masses' fight for freedom. Rizal was the first to break the slavish system which
ingrained itself in the psyche of the Filipino, among other things.

Rizal, to my mind, was a sly revolutionary who figured that weapons and modern arms were useless
against a petty mob of rulers who think themselves as lords over a mass of dishevelled slavish-thinking
people. When emissaries of Bonifacio went to Rizal for counselling and the doctor reportedly disagreed
with them, Rizal did so because for him, the illumination process was still in its infancy. For Rizal, shoring
arms against the Spaniards was an easy task, but nation-building wasn't.

Rizal was thinking ahead. He saw that the nation was still unprepared. Yes, the might of arms gave way to
revolutionary victory, but without breaking the sociological chains that bind both the Lord and the Slave,
the Slave would find it extremely hard to make his will a reality.

This explains why, for a century, we tried to give flesh to our theoretical constructs, trying to determine
the true Pinoy, and attempted several times to deconstruct History and glean from the mass of
disproportionate parts, lessons which we tried to fit into a boxed up reality of sorts.

Limited knowledge of the world, that was the problem of decades past.

Now that knowledge has broken from its prison, and its rays bursting from every single direction, the
Filipino now has the great opportunity to construct his own model for progress without reconstructing
someone's Idea.

The Filipino, himself, is the Idea.

CHAPTER Nine: THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF DR. JOSE RIZAL

24/7/2014
1 Comment

THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF DR.JOSE RIZAL

Martyrs are rare stars in the vast firmament of humanity. Every
Instance of martyrdom is distinct in magnitude and direction.
Indeed martyrs are the meteors of history, they flash across the
sky and light the world and in the process consume themselves .
They are the person who is put to death or made suffer greatly or
other beliefs because of religion. Other elements of martyrdom
are usefulness of life and dedication to a high purpose.
Rizals death was an emotional event in our history as it produced
A martyr and resulted in some form of social change or transformation in our lives as a
people. Rizal was put to death for
subversion by the dominant political forces. He presented a sector
Of society which had begun to trouble and therefore constituted a real
Threat to the existing social order.
THE TRIAL OF DR. JOSE RIZAL
The spanish colonial government accused Rizal of three crimes:
(a) The founding of La Liga Filipina, an illegal organization
Whose single aim was to Perpetrate the crime of rebellion.
(b) Rebellion which he promoted through his previous activities.
(c)ILLegal association

-The penalty for for those accusation is life imprisonment to death

And correctional imprisonment and a charge of 325 to 3,250 Pesetas.

The prosecution drew information from the dossier on Rizal which

Detailed his subervise activities some of which are the following:
1.The writing and publication of Noli me Tangere, the Annotations
to Morgas History of the Philippines, El Filibusterismo, and the
various articles which criticized the friars and suggested their
expulsion in order to win independence. The El Filibusterismo was
dedicated to the three martyr priests who were executed as traitors
to the Fatherland in 1872 because they were the moving spirit of the
uprising of that year.
2.The establishment of masonic lodges which became the propaganda
and fund raising center to support subvervise activities and the
establishment of centers in Madrithe ,Hongkong and Manila to propagate his ideas.
After finishing as much evidence as possible on November 20, 1896
the preliminary on Rizal began. During the five-day investigation,Rizal
was informed of the charges against him before Judge advocate Colonel Francisco Olive.
Two kinds of Evidences Endorsed By Colonel Olive to Governor
Ramon Blanco:
1.Documentary
-fifteen exhibits
2.Testimonial
-Provide by Martin Constantino, Aguedo del Rosario, Jose Reyes,
Moises Salvador, Jose Dizon,Domingo Franco, Deodato Arellano,
Pio Valenzuela , Antonio Salazar, Francisco Quison, and Timoteo Paez.
The Judge Rafael Dominguez advocate assigned with the task of deciding what
corresponding action should be done.After a brief
Review transmitted the records to Don Nicolas de la Pena.
Penas recommendations were as follows:
- Rizal must be immediately sent to trial
He must be held in prison under necessary security
His properties must be issued with order of attachment
And as indemnity,Rizal had to pay one million pesos
Instead of a civilian lawyer,only an army officer is allowed
To defend Rizal.
The lawyer of Rizal is Lt. Luis Taviel de Andrade Brother of Lt. Jose
Traviel de Andrade who worked as Rizals personal body guard in
Calamba in 1887.In the presence of his Spanish Counsel on December
11, 1896, charges against Rizal were read in the presence of his Spanish counsel.
When they asked regarding his sentiments or reaction on the charges,
Rizal replied that in his defense.

-He does not question the jurisdiction of the court.

-He has nothing to amend except that during his exile in Dapitan in
1892, he had not dealt in political matters.
-He has nothing to admit on the charges against him.
-He had nothing to admit on the declarations of the witnesses,he had
knew,against him.

not met nor

The Execution Of Dr.Jose Rizal

Despite all valid pleadings the military court,vindictive as it was
Unanimous voted for the sentence of death. Polavieja affirmed
The decision of the court martial and ordered to be shot at
7:00 in the morning of December 30 1896 at Bagumbayan field.
Rizal was heavily guarded and was accompanied by the Jesuits as
He walked from Fort Santiago to Bagumbayan. He wore a black woolen suit and a derby hat
and his arms were tied behind him.
During the walked, he recalled his youth and his student days
At the Ateneo. And in Bagumbayan itself, the Spanish troops held
Back the crowd while the artillery group stood on alert to prevent any attempt to rescue
Rizal. His brother Paciano who had joined the
Revolution forces was said to have discouraged groups who might
Want to save Rizal since thay would not be able to match Spanish
Firepower. The captain in charge of the execution instructed Rizal
Were to position himself, to turn his back against the squad and the
Face the sea. However, Rizal requested to face the firing squad, as such position instructed
was only taken by traitors and he was not one of them. The captain could not do anything
for he was only following orders.Hence, failing to have his request granted, he asked to be
shot at the back instead of the head so that he may, at the end , turn his head and body
sidewise and fall with his face upward.The captain agreed,he also asked if he would like to
kneek but Rizal refused nor did he agree to be blindfolded. A Jesuit priest now came running
and
Asked Rizal to kiss the cruffix that he held.Rizal turned his back on the cruffix and
thus,against the firing squad. He was ready for the execution.
DR.JOSE RIZAL LAST DAY AND HIS EXECUTION
Rizal spent his 24 hours in his death cell where he received members
Of his family and writes his letter,the first one to his second brother
Ferdinand Blumentritt. He gave his sisters,Trinidad and old petroleum
lamp and whispered to her in English that there is something inside
The lamp .Thus is Rizals famous Farewell poem. Ultimo Adios, (Last Farewell was found.
Rizal was said to have married his Irish girlfriend
according to Catholic rited in the very last hours of his life, after living
with her for sometime in Dapitan. They were previously married civilly. On the morning of
December 30,1896.Rizal set on his walk from
Fort Santiago to the Bagumbayan square, the same place where the three priest had been
killed in 1872, now Luneta Park, in the center of
Manila at 6:30 Oclock. And when the time to march to Bagumbayan Rizal he was ready to
face his ultimate death came, he was seen as
A man of peace and bravery. At exactly 7:03 am RIZAL shouted Consummatum Est before

the shot run out. The heros life ended. In

In the background could be heard, Viva Espna! Death to traitors!.
Rizals Family was not able to take old of his body. The military had
secretly buried the body of Rizal at the Paco cemetery. Her sister
Narcisa looked for the cadaver everywhere but could not find it.
She passed by the unused Paco cemetery and saw through the open
Gate some civil guards. Finding this uncommon, she entered the cemetery and searched the
place. She saw a grave with freshly turned
earth and knew at once his was her brothers body. With a little money,she asked the
gravedigger to place a plaque on it with her
brothers initial reverse.That is R.P.J. for Protacio Jose.That afternoon the books, letter, and
alcohol burner were delivered
To Rizals family. At the base of the alcohol burner they found Rizals
last masterpiece the MI ULTIMO ADIOS. The copies were given to each family member and
some are to the Cavite insurgents.
After the Americans had taken Manila, Narcisa requested the new government to grant her
permission to exhume the body of his brother.
They found out that the body was never placed in a coffin, nor even
Wrapped by anything. Rizals family had possession of the body the remains were instituted
at the base of the Rizal monument which was
erected at the center of the Luneta.

MANILA, Philippines - The trial of Dr. Jose Rizal by a Spanish military court for sedition, rebellion
and conspiracy, which would lead to his execution and martyrdom, began on December 6, 1896.
Rizal, who was first imprisoned in Barcelona and later in Fort Santiago, was implicated in the revolt
launched in August 1896 by the Katipunan led by Andres Bonifacio, and which aimed to liberate the
Philippine islands from Spanish colonization.
At the time of his arrest, Rizal was supposed to leave for Cuba, after gaining permission from
Spanish Governor-General Ramon Blanco, who was sympathetic to him. Rizal had proposed to
serve as a military surgeon in Cuba, where there was also a revolt against Spain.
Before he left from his exile in Dapitan for Manila and then for Spain, Rizal had issued a manifesto
disavowing the revolution, ostensibly subscribing to the argument that the education of Filipinos and
their achievement of a national identity were prerequisites to freedom.
Rizal was arrested while enroute to Spain, imprisoned in Barcelona, and sent back to Manila to
stand trial. He was charged with being a traitor to Spain and the mastermind of the revolution.
He pleaded his innocence but he was still convicted on all three charges of rebellion, sedition, and
conspiracy and sentenced to death.

Earlier, Rizal was already considered an enemy of the state by the Spanish authorities, following the
publication of his two novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo.
Rizal was executed on December 30, 1896 in Bagumbayan (Luneta), which was eventually known
as Rizal Park.

Sorry, something has gone wrong.

Answers
Relevance

Best Answer: Most remember Rizal for his writings, his determination, and of course his love for the
Philippines. He didn't just write and speak of Spanish injustice in a non violent manner like Ghandi or
Martin Luther King. Rizal was a major organizer and leader in the Katipunan Revolt of 1896. WHile he
was arrested and exectuted on the Luneta after trial, he was first sent to Dapitan and agreed to agreed to
his word to live out the revoluation. Keeping in mind he was place in a prison but was sent "hous arrest"
under his honor.
Rizal probably wasn't a true organizer of the revolt, as he had already been granted permission to travel to
Cub (they revolted in 1895), and he wanted to serve as a physician there. But somehow he managed to
get involved in the Revolt during the time he prepared to leave for Cuba.
There are two version to what happened:
1. Rizal was framed for his involvement in the revolution by a new Governor sent to restore order...
2. Rizal was an active insurectionist who was executed for treason against the crown of Spain...
I suspect the 1st, most widely accepted, hypothesis is untrue because Rizal is referred to as a patriot by
Filipino's so that would make him a traitor to Spain. Just like it would be wrong to say that George
Washington was framed by the British and then call him the father of America.
Rizal was tried, and he was executed by a court under the laws of the nation in that period. While his
death seems unfathomable by today's standards of democracy and free speech, in that time many a man
was killed for speaking his mind. In fact, Rizal had been granted tremendous lieniency by the Spanish
Goveror and given freedom for his treason (keep in mind I think of him as a patriot). In that time the
Spanish rarely even tried a native Pinoy for revolting. But Rizal was considered a member of the elite, he
was literally considered a Filipino (a citizen of the Philippines and a citizen of Spain) by the Spanish. THe

spanish did not recognize natives of the Philippines as Citizens except a small aristocratic circle of elite
persons.
Rizal's exection was fair by the circumstances of the time for these reasons. But it was an unjust
execution because we belive the Spanish were unjust to the Philippines.

rcado y Alonzo, was accused of being the leader of the revolution, I came to ask myself, were there really two leaders of th

cost.

hich contains his sentiments of the deportations to be vital in the encouragement of the people to hate tyrann

and friars had treated the Filipinos like sub-human species of the animal kingdom. Thus depriving them of their rights as
, I, you, and Rizal knows that being a Filipino experiencing all those Spanish injustices at that time, you would say " this is
onialization but he only requests through his connection to the Filipino Reform movement in Spain that Filipinos, as
ng informed by Rizal what is really going on inside the Philippines as a colony of Spain. Nothing more and nothing less. How
Filipino colony here. I was against it" And with this letter, we could furthermore prove that Rizal no longer had any conne

mmittee, which could be the Masons, for his patriotic works. And the last was the recommendation of the establishment of
eded is a special organ designed specifically for the Philippine cause. Its members, or some of them, may be Masons, but

untry.

o could back him up in his cause. He knew that this committee could help him in his undertakings in whatever way they ca

t here in the Philippines, they were wrong. This was true for most of the members of the Freemasonry in Spain were Span

was attached in this plot was that because the only person the Spanish government could only pinpoint someone who was

taining verses and lines emphasizing of the liberty and the liberator of the motherland and teaching the Dapita

le were tortured as well as treated like lower classes of mammals in the genus Mamalia. It was true that in everything he

anish friars and government officials, thinking that they were more superior to the natives, let their pride rise to the heave

n give her liberty!"Spaniards who may read this may think of this as another writing that would instigate the revolution. O
out in all of Rizals writing that the Philippines would be set free once all her children would be educated and could find a pe

ldren, yes, but nothing daunts us, neither wave nor storm nor thunder. With strong right arm and unclouded brow we sha

out the prudence of the Filipinos, "The Filipinos are all very prudent, and that is why our country is going on the way she is
nothing very revolutionary about it, unless you as a reader have a malicious interpretation of it in your mind.

n!" It only shows that these people have finally realized and that they have finally opened their eyes to the truth of what w
er of the revolutionary group. It is obvious that they cry out his name in pure devotion, that is because it is the only way th

shment of Doroteo Cortes and Ambrosio Salvador.

"New Calamba". Although there were some who objected to this idea like Hidalgo, one of Rizals brothers-in-law.

rder to avoid anymore trouble with the government.

portation to the friars who see as the two mentioned latter as "friends" of Rizal. Does this also imply to the brothers-in-law

here in the accusations published against the customs of the religious orders were found? That the novel, El Filibusterismo

u think it would be against his own principles if he was anti-Spain but dont want to separate from it?

beauty of the Catholic religion. This would only help the people synthesize what they really see if these are really for God

s. And he also dedicated this novel to them because it was his promise to avenge their unlawful execution. He didnt aveng

ds name in order to have the power and the finances, " the treasures from the Filipino breasts in which Rizals writings and

e cultures of multiple nations including Spain. And he would have known in his numerous travels the best war strategy tha

GUILTY. The defense rests.

RIZAL AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

by
MW Bro. Reynato S. Puno, PGM

I have been asked to deliver a paper on Rizal and the Justice System. I accepted the task as
a true Mason and as a true Knight of Rizal. Little did I realize the immensity of the job and
the efforts required to research on the topic. Our history has been written and rewritten
from different perspectives but it appears that our scholars have not sufficiently plumbed
the legal aspects of our history during the 300 years we were under the political dominion of
Spain. The scarcity of legal materials on our judicial system under the Spanish rule thus
impairs the exhaustiveness or the intellectual breadth of this paper. With this caveat and
with your dispensation, allow me to proceed.
The family members of Rizal contended with the faulty system of justice at their time. The
confrontation was destined to happen considering their unique social, economic and political
chemistry. The Rizals were never awed by the arrogance of the powers that be who ruled
with near absolute despotism. In a land where illiteracy reigned, they refused to submit to
the darkness of ignorance. The Rizals were highly educated and they never felt any sense of
inferiority from the Spanlards as did the multitude of indios. Francisco, Rizal's father,
attended Latin school at Bian and the College of San Jose in Manila. Francisco's father and
grandfather had served as chief town officials -- captain -- of Bian.1
Teodora Alonzo, Rizal's mother, was more than a bearer of children. She attended the
Dominican College of Santa Rosa in Manila. Rizal spoke of her mother as "...acquianted with
literature and speaks better Spamish than I do; she used to correct my poems and give me
wise advice when I was studying rhetoric; she is a mathematician and has read a great
many books.2 For a Filipina to be extremely literate in the mid-1800's is a phenomenon for

in many parts of the world, women's rights yet unheard of. Teodora Alonzo was likewise no
stranger to political power. Her father was a municipal captain.3
From the start, Rizal's parents demonstrated their courage to stand and stand steadfastly
for what is right and righteous. In his biography of Rizal, Palma relates how Francisco
incurred the ire of the powerful alferez (or lieutenant) of the Spanish civil guards.
The alferez was typical of the abusive guardia civil of the time. He used to demand fodder
for his horse from Francisco as a matter of right. The kind man that he was, Francisco
always accomodated the alferez. One day, however, Francisco's ration of fodder failed to
come and did not have enough for his own horses. Francisco was caught in a dilemma when
a civil guard came and demanded fodder to feed the horses of the alferez. Francisco refused
the request and explained his predicament. The alferez would not listen to his explanation.
The alferez thought that in the heat of the confrontation Francisco would melt like a
marshmallow. He was mistaken about the bent of Francisco's backbone. Bristling with
righteous indignation, Francisco thundered to the guard : "Tell the alferez that I voluntarily
give when I have more than I need, but I cannot give when I need for myself what I have.
He can go and buy his fodder anywhere." 4The blood pressure of the aiferez shot to
stratospheric height for he had never received a rebuff from an indio. He swore to get even
at the proper time. Thus, Francisco demonstrated that a Rizal would not allow himself to be
a doormat even of powerful foreigners in his own land. As perceptively observed by Palma,
"The officer of the civil guard was a little sovereign within each town and his power was
feared by the residents. He not only could catch and apprehend criminals but could also
give confidential reports on any person suspected of being opposed to the Spaniards. To
qurrel with him was equivalent to being on bad terms with the Spanish regime." 5
The harassments of the Rizals were not long to come. The first victim was Rizal's mother
herself, courtesy of the secular authorities. It appears that her first cousin, Jose Alberto,
was ahandoned by his wife. He decided to divorce her but Rizal's mother would not hear of
it. She exerted efforts to patch up their quarrel. Her good intention proved to be her
undoing. Her cousin's wife resented her intervention. She alleged to the authorities that her
husband was trying to poison her. And worse, she implicated Rizal's mother as an
accomplice.
The charge against Rizal's mother was clearly the result of an imagination running riot. But
the alcalde received the accusation as the incarnation of truth. He did not bother to hear the
side of Rizal's mother. With inordinate speed, he adjudged her guilty. He ordered her to be
imprisoned. The order was carried out by the alferez whose power had been previously
defied by Francisco. The alferez forced Rizal's mother to walk all the way to the prison
house, a distance of 20 miles. 6 Undeniably, the incarceration of his mother without any
tinge of due process and the cruelty with which her order of arrest was carried out left an
indelible imprint on the mind of Rizal.If secular injustice was bad, sectarian injustice was worse. The Rizals were Catholics but
they were not of the see-no-evil, speak-no-evil variety. While in Spain, Rizal realized that
the friars were the problem and not the solution to the problem in the Philippines. He wrote
the Noli Me Tangere exposing the abuses of the friars. The shaft of Noli shattered the once
sacred halo of the friars. Noli provided the powerful friars the casus belliagainst Rizal. Their
rage escalated to an inferno when Rizal again denounced the corruption of the Dominicans
in the Calamba estate affair. The Calamba estate originally belonged to the Jesuits. Initially,

it covered only a small part of the town. Its ownership passed to the Dominicans. Soon, the
Dominicans expanded its area and the estate covered almost the whole of Calamba. But
while the estate was growing more and more in size, the Dominicans were paying less and
less in taxes. The stink was picked up by the nose of the authorities and the civil governor
of Laguna was instructed by Governor-General Terrero to start an inquiry. The tenants of the
estate, which included the Rizal clan, sought the assistance of Rizal. Rizal painstakingly
investigated the facts about the hacienda and revealed the misdeeds of the Dominicans in a
public meeting. Some 60 families were emboldened by the courage of Rizal and they
petitioned the Governor-General to draw up more equitable lease agreement between them
and the Dominicans.7 Historian 0.D. Corpuz observed that this was the "...first agrarian
reform proposal in Filipinas.8 But Coates observed that it was the beginning of the end for
Rizal for "he was attacking the friars on their most sensitive point --- money. 9 Predictably,
the Dominicans struck back hard. They castigated the alcalde for not placing the town under
martial law. In response, the alcalde sought permission to arm the militia. He used the
dreaded guardia civil to monit6r the movements of the people. The people were also warned
by the Dominicans that "if they were not obedient, the dire chastisement of God would fall
upon them within not many days." 10
The show and use of force did not break the will of the tenants. The wily Dorninicans then
shifted their strategy. They decided to use the courts of law to eject the tenants. They filed
ejectment cases in the court of Laguna. They won as expected. Rizal's brother, Paciano, and
his brother-in-law, Manuel Hidalgo, did not easily give up the fight. They led the tenants
appeal to the Real Audiencia in Manila. Again, they lost their appeal but they continued
knocking at the door of justice. Paciano prepared the final appeal to the Tribunal Supremo in
Madrid. He requested Rizal to fly to Madrid to assist in the appeal. They expected the
highest court of Spain to be less biased against the Filipino tenants.
The Dominicans shattered their last remaining hope. They jumped the gun on the high
tribunal. They forced the eviction of the tenants before their appeal could be decided.
Governor-General Weyler sent a detachment of artillery to Calamba. The tenants were given
24 hours to leave or their houses would be either destroyed or burned. The Dominicans
themselves chose which house to destroy and which house to burn. The quick wrecking
operation rendered some 300 families landless and homeless.
Among the victims, the family of Rizal was hardest hit. Rizal's parents had to take refuge in
the house of their daughter Narcisa. Paciano was forcibly deported to Mindoro. Manuel
Hidalgo was arrested as a filibustero and then deported to Bohol. Other brothers-in-law
were hunted and driven to live the lives of outlaws. Rizal's mother bore the ire of the friars.
She was arrested and for the second time was slapped a false charge. The charge was for
improperly using the surname Alonzo.11 She was ordered to be imprisoned at Santa Cruz,
which could be reached more convenienfly by boat via Laguna de Bay. She offered to pay
her boat fare and that of her escort. She was refused. They compelled her to walk the long
distance. She did though she was then 64 years old and almost blind. It took her four days
to complete her journey to jail. Upon seeing her pitiable state, the civil governor of Sta.
Cruz immediately ordered her release. She then fled to Hongkong where her husband
Francisco and son Paciano had earlier escaped. The experience shattered the faith of Rizal's
mother. In a letter to Bluementritt, Rizal wrote: "It is a lamentable consequence of
Dominican hatred that my aged mother, who was so pious and religious, now herself says

that she can believe no more. She says everything is a fraud."

failed the Rizals.

12

Again, the justice system

The legal rigmarole did not dampen the indomitable spirit of Rizal for justice. He fastracked
his efforts to secure reforms from Spain though his views were undergoing radicalization.
The volume of his criticisms against frailocracy reached a new decibel. He rushed the writing
of El Filibusterismo, the sequel toNoli Me Tangere. He also joined Freemasonry by affiliating
with Acasia Lodge No. 9 of the Gran Orientede Espaa.13 His affiliation with Freemasons was
not without significance. As accurately observed by Coates, "...in the light of the bitter
opposition of the Spanish Church to Freemasonry, this move on his part cannot but suggest
the adoption of more extreme position in respect of the church; and remembering that the
political problem of the Philippines was predominantly an ecclesiastical one, the move may
in part reflect his diminished faith in the policy of assimilation." 14
Rizal's alliance with freemasons and freemasonry which was then growing by leaps and
bounds15 in the Philippines influenced his future course of action. In a radical move, he
wrote the By-Laws of La Liga Flilpina while in Hongkong. He patterned its structure after
masonic lodges. lts aim was to organize Filipinos as one, viz, to unite the whole archipelago
into a compact body, vigorous and homogeneous. 16 He returned to the Philippines and
among his first acts was to formally organize the Liga Filipina at a house in Tondo on July 3,
l892.17 Rizal appeared to have metamorphosed from a theorist to action man. GovernorGeneral Despujol saw the danger sign and ordered Rizal's arrest on July 6, 1892, or three
days after he inaugurated Liga Filipina. Several untenable grounds were used to justify his
arrest. Essentially, he was arrested for smuggling anti-clerical leaflets which were allegedly
discovered at his hotel in Binondo. Rizal was whisked to Fort Santiago and held
incommunicado for eight days. He was later transferred secrefly to the warship Alba and
deported to Dapitan. Palma viewed Rizal's arrest as "another proof of how despotic and
arbitrary the Spanish regime was." 18
It was a foretaste of the worst injustice to come.
The news of Rizal's deportation spread like fire and it raised the revolutionary temperature
of the people. In August of 1896, the Katipunan was discovered and the premature
discovery forced Bonifacio et al. to start the uprising. Initially, Gov. General Blanco did not
suspect any involvement of Rizal in the uprising. In his August 3 letter to Manuel de
Azcarraga, Minister of War and for Overseas Territories in Madrid, he vouchsafed the
conduct of Rizal thus:
His conduct during the four years he remained in Dapitan as a deportee has been
exemplary; and he is, in my opinion, the more worthy of pardon and benevolence in that he
is in no way involved in the ill-advised action which these days we are deploring neither in
any of the secret socities that have been formed. 19
On the basis of this certification of good conduct issued by no less than the GovernorGeneral, Rizal was issued a safe conduct pass to go to Cuba as a volunteer physician to help
Spain put down the Cuban revolution. He sailed to Manila on boatr Espaa but he had to
wait for a month for the next boat going to Europe. In the meanwhile, he was transferred to
the cruiser Castilla stationed at Cavite where he was detained but not as a prisoner. Finally,
he got on board Isla de Panay going to Barcelona. The Filipino rebels initially scored

stunning successes against the Spaniards. The Spanish authorities, however, resorted to
mass arbitrary arrests as panic swept them. Prominent Filipinos were arrested at the
slightest of suspicion. With Rizal in the boat Isla de Panay was Don Pedro Roxas, a
filibustero suspect. Fearful of an arrest, Roxas got off in Singapore. The friends of Rizal
advised him to follow Roxas. He refused saying: "No, a fugitive, no. They would consider me
an accomplice in the uprising. 20 His show of innocence was of no help to Rizal. On September 27,
when the boat left Port Said going to the Mediterranean, the captain of the ship received a
telegraphic order to arrest Rizal. He arrived in Barcelona on October 3 and was brought to
the Castle of Montjuich. Irony of ironies, he was welcomed there by General Despujol, the
man who deported him to Dapitan. On October 6, he was shipped back to the Philippines on
board the SS Colon. He reached Manila on November 3.
The secular and sectarian authorities were ready to inflict the supreme injustice on Rizal.
They were prepared to charge him as leader of the rebellion then spreading in the country.
They had rounded up suspects and extracted confessions from them by force and fraud.
Rizal's brother, Paciano, was one of their worst victims. Coates narrates the barbaric means
employed to break the will of Paciano:
"He was submitted to torture. First, pins were driven between his nail and fingers, while
seated before him the investigators repeated their demands. He kept silent. Next, irons
were placed between his fingers and the clamp tightened repeatedly. He remained silent.
After this, he was flogged by Spaniards with one inch rattan till he became unconscious. He
was revived, and was then, with his hands behind his back, suspended by his wrists from
the ceiling by a rope which, adjusted to leave him hanging, a foot or so above the ground,
could be suddenly released causing him to drop defenseless upon the stone floor. The
intervals at which he was dropped varied; there was no means of knowing when the rope
would next be released. Still he kept silent. The prisoner was released and delivered home
on a stretcher. He left Fort Santiago totally paralyzed from head to foot, only a faint
movement of the pulse showin that there was still life. He remained incapable of movement
for several days. 21
The worst of his torturers did not destroy the best of Paciano. He resisted the crudest
attempts to extract lies from his lips. Unfortunately, others were not so faithful to the altar
of truth. Their spirit succumbed to the punishment of their physical part. They signed
documents which the authorities fraudulently used to link Rizal with the ongoing rebellion.
The preliminary investigation of Rizal started. It was conducted by a Colonel Francisco Olive,
Judge Advocate. The procedure was totally inquisitorial. He was informed of the accusation
against him but had no right to confront and cross-examine his accusers and the witnesses
against him. He was able to give a statement but without the assistance of counsel. Col.
Olive interrogated Rizal for five continuous days. He then transmitted the proceedings to
Governor Blanco so the latter could appoint a special judge to file the charge against Rizal.
Blanco appointed Rafael Dominguez, a captain of the infantry. Dominguez concluded that
Rizal "... is the principal organizer and living soul of the insurrection ... the principal chief of
the filibusterismo of the country." 22 The opinion was concurred by Nicolas Pea, the Judge
Advocate General.23 He recommended that Rizal be immediately tried; that he be kept
behind bars (without bail) while on trial; that his properties be atttached up to one million
pesos; and that his defense counsel be an army officer. In a critical move the Dominicans
were able to instigate the replacenent of Governor-Bianco by Governor General Polavieja.

Governor Polavieja at once ordeted a court martial to try Rizal. 24 The charge was founding
illegal associations 25 and promoting and inciting rebellion, the first being a necessary means
of committing the second. 26 The fact that it was committed by a native was considered as
an aggravating circumstance. The penalty for the crirnes as charged was mandatory death.
The prosecutor, Enrique de Alcocer, asked for its imposition. Rizal was defended by 1st Lt.
Luis Taviel de Andrade.27 On Christmas day, December 25, Rizal was gifted with the
information that he would be tried the next day.
At 10 o'clock in the morning of December 26, 1896, the court martial convened in the
building called Cuartel de Espaa. Alcocer read the Brief for the Prosecution. Retana
described the Brief as "rich in rhetoric, poor in logic ... excessive in impetuoisity and ...
empty of reason." After him, 1st Lt. Luis Taviel de Andrade read the Brief of Rizal. Retana
described it as "a reasoned and in spite of its simplicity, a brilitant defense." Then Rizal read
the "Supplement to My Defense" which he himself prepared and where he rebutted point by
point the factual bases of the charges against him. No member of the court martial dared
contradict him. The case was considered submitted for decision without any question from
the members of the court martial. The court martial made a short deliberation and
condemned Rizal as guilty. He was sentenced to death. It further ordered: "... in case of
pardon the penalty, unless specifically remitted, shall carry with it the accessories of
absolute, perpetual disqualification and subjection of the accused to the surveillance of
authorities during his whole life, to pay as imdemnity to the State the sum of P1,000,000.oo
with the obligation of transmitting the satisfaction of its indemnity to his heirs. 28
There was to be no pardon for Rizal. Within two days or on December 28, 1896, GovernorGeneral Polavieja approved the sentence and ordered that the sentence be carried out by
"means of execution by a firing squad at seven o'clock in the morning of the 30th of the
present month in Bagumbayan Field..." 29 Rizal was transferred to his solitary cell and awaited the
footsteps of death with the peace that passeth understanding.
The question has been asked whether Rizal was given justice in his trial. Commentators
have ventured the view that his trial was unfair and unjust. I humbly join this view for
various reasons.
First. The hostility at the time precluded an impartial trial. The Spanish colonial authorities
would not tolerate a successful rebellion of the Filipinos. Cuba had already revolted and they
could not lose two colonies. The Philippine revolution had to be smashed and we know that
when the guns sound, the laws are silent.
Second. Rizal had to be eliminated at all costs. His educational credentials were impressive.
His love for the Philippines was unadultered. Of all Filipinos, he had the potential to unite
the people against the Spaniards. He led the movement for reforms in the Philippines and
he was relentless in his efforts. He was fast metamorphosing to a revolutionary. He posed a
real danger.
Third. There was an extra special reason to destroy Rizal. He was anti-clerical. His
novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismoand his numerous critical essays irreparably
damaged the Catholic priests in the Philippines. Undeniably, they co-ruled the Philippines
and they could not continue their reign with Rizal disputing their authority. Rizal was too

much of a heretic and he did not show any indication he would go soft or slow with his
attacks against the religious. They marked him as enemy number one.
Fourth. Rizal was charged and tried as the leader of the revolution. At the time of his trial,
the revolution was succeeding to the consternation of the Spaniards who thought it could be
stumped out with ease. If the revolution succeeded, the Spanish authorities knew they
would be dead. It was their neck or Rizal's neck. They had to save their own neck.
Fifth. The preliminary investigation of Rizal was a mere show. It was an inquisition. A nonlawyer, Rizal defended himself and he defended himself against accusers whom he could not
confront nor cross-examine. The investigation was held only to comply with the formality
required by law. As soon as it was finished, the charges against Rizal were readied as
preconceived by the authorities.
Sixth. The records do not show how the members of the court martial were chosen by
Governor Polavieja. Polavieja was not a symphatizer of Rizal. Indeed, the Dominicans
exerted their influence to replace Blanco with Polavieja. The Dominicans did not trust BIanco
whom they thought was using velvet gloves against Rizal. Blanco was a known
Freemason.30 Blanco is quoted as having informed Retana that had he continued as governor
he would have never condemned Rizal to death. 31
Seventh. The records do not show the background or the personality profile of the members
of the court martial. They were all Spaniards. It does not appear that Rizal was given any
opportunity to study their impartiality. In court martial proceedings, an accused is usually accorded the
right to challenge and disqualify a prospective juror. Rizal was denied that fundamental right.
Eight. The records do not show that the members of the court martial actively participated
in the proceedings. They merely listened to the prosecutor and the defense counsel read
their respective Briefs. Despite the fugitive facts, not one asked any question to the
prosecutor or to the defense counsel. Not one challenged Rizal when he read his
Supplemental Defense. They were all as silent as a sphinx during the trial.
Ninth. The records do not show how the members of the court martial deliberated on the
case. After the arguments closed, they retired and after a short while returned a verdict of
guilty. There was no way to find out how they appreciated the evidence against Rizal.
Tenth. The various pieces of evidence against Rizal were not only weak but were also not
admissible under the law of evidence at that time. The counsel of Rizal correctly invoked
Rule 52. Pursuant to this rule, the testimonies of those with participation in the rebellion is
inadmissible. The documentary evidence were out and out hearsay. Others were extracted
by force. Even if they were adniissible, these testimonies and documentary evidence lacked
reliability. Worthy to note, the members of the court did not rule on the admissibility of the
prosecution evidence. Indeed, they were all admitted and given weight and their weight
crushed Rizal. In addition, the counsel of Rizal raised the issue that the atmosphere against
Rizal was so poisoned with prejudice he could not be judged with fairness. His plea did not
even raise any quizzical eyebrow.
Elevent. Rizal adequately explained why the factual evidence against him cannot result in
his conviction. The judges completely brushed him aside. Worse, there were acts within

their notice providing the innocence of Rizal but on which they turned a blind eye. Among
them are:
a. In May 1895, Rizai wrote a letter to Governor Blanco to be able to go to Spain to recover
his health.32 Rizal was in Dapitan as a deportee at that time. The rebellion then was starting
to percolate and it was obvious Rizal was not its active leader.
b. Rizal left Dapitan and arrived in Manila Bay on August 6, 1896, the day after the boat
which would take him to Spain had left. He had to wait for the next boat which was
scheduled to arrive September 3. He spent the days on board the Spanish cruiser "Castilla"
and he sent words to Governor Blanco that he did not want to communicate with anybody
except his family. 33 By that time the Katipuneros had openly attacked the Spaniards. Rizal
avoided any contact with them. He could not have been their leader.
c. On August 30, 1896, Governor Blanco wrote letters to the Minister of War and the
Overseas in favor of Rizal. The letter to the Minister of War categorically cleared Rizal from
any involvement in the rebellion. It stated that Rizal is ... "in no way involved in the
chimerical attempt we are now deploring neither in the conspiracy nor in any of the secret
socities that have been fromed." The letter to the Minister of the Overseas had the same
tenor.34
d. When Rizal's boat arrived in Singapore, he could have disembarked and escaped. This
was easily done by Don Pedro Roxas who was also suspected as a rebel. Rizal refused to do
a Roxas. He said : "No, a fligitive, no! They would consider an accomplice in the
uprising." 35 At that time, the rebels were winning pitch battles in Cavite.
e. The inquisitive press knew before hand that Rizal would be convicted. They were aware
that his trial was a farce. Before the court martial came out with its guilty verdict the
correspondent of El Heraldo cabled the following story to Madrid, viz:
xxxxxxxxxxxx
The deliberation that followed the trial are still not known to the public. Neverthereless, it is
considered that the sentence of death against the accused is certain. 36 Rizal never had any
chance to be acquitted. Indeed up to the end, Governor Polavieja flaunted his bias against
Rizal. He received the reconmendati6n of the Judge Advocate General to confirm the death
sentence of Rizal on December 27, a Sunday. The next day, a Monday, the day of Innocents,
he approved the killing of Rizal. He did not think twice about the execution of Rizal. Looking
back, the manuever of the Dominicans to replace Governor Blanco with Polavieja was a
masterstroke. They foresaw the possibility that Blanco, a mason, would pardon Rizal. They
foreclosed that possibility by eliminating Blanco and installing Polavieja as Governor
General.
The tragedy of the Spanish authorities is that they thought by giving his execution a legal
veneer the people would forget and foresake Rizal but murder does not cease to be murder
simply because it is ordered by a court of justice. Indeed, the worse kind of murder is
murder by the government, the worst kind of injustice is injustice by the judiciary.

Rizal knew the mystical quality of injusjice that the last act that brings down tyrants from
their pedestals of power is injustice. History tells us that tyrants can commit political abuses
and for a time get away with them; they can engage in economic exploitations, and for a
time succeed; but they can neither trample the liberties or take the lives of innocent people
for long without tumbling down from their pedestals in a short time. The Spaniards forgot
that immutable lesson. For threehundred years, the friars and guardia civil abused the
Filipinos. They immensely succeeded until they committed the mistake of misusing the laws
and the courts to crush the liberty and the lives of Filipinos. They who use law for
lawlessness will never last. Rizal's life validated this all-time truism. The authorities who
condemned Rizal before their courts of justice also convicted themselves before the tribunal
of the people. Within two years after decreeing that Rizal should die, their reign was ended
by the people who exercised their right of revolution.
This is one of the enduring lessons in the life of Rizal which we ought to memorialize. We
forgot it in the 1970's and our amnesia compelled Benigno Aquino and others to walk the
path of Rizal and the EDSA revolution became an inevitability. There will still be more Cries
of Balintawak, more EDSAs as long as we perpetuate and remain unconcerned with
injustices in the country. Today, our system of justice is again under hostile examination and
cross-examamination by concerned sectors of society. Rizal showed us how important a
pillar is our system of justice. After a hundred years, Rizal continues to be relevant to
Filipinos. Our finest tribute to Rizal is to make him "irrelevant" by fulfilling his dreams about
the Filipino.

Would you Die for your Country?

Posted on November 5, 2011 73 Comments

Im not a particularly unpatriotic person. I love India not just because

Im born into it, but because it has so much potential. There are plenty
of flaws, but I believe that things will get better. I love its
democracyand I more or less like the direction its taking.

Can you Blindly Obey?

But would I give up my life for it? After some thought, Ive decided the
answer isNo.
A nation is too vague an idea for me sacrifice something so precious.
I can imagine giving my life to protect someone close to me
someone, or some people I love. Such as a family for instance if the
threat is serious enough. But I cant imagine dying to protect man
made borders to which I have no real close connection.
In short, I would make a poor soldier.
Its because Im unable to blindly follow anything. I can never fully
submerge myself in a larger entity, a larger cause, and will myself to
shut my eyes to everything else. My core individualism simply doesnt
allow that to happen. Im glad there are some people who can do that
put their lives at risk in unquestioning obedience to their superior
officers. But there shouldnt be too many. After all, thats what fanatics
are made of.

Just Following Orders?

I view my life as too precious a gift to squander away without a

tangible benefit. I get one shot at living and will dissolve into
nothingness when I die. Its so brief a spark after all. Were all born
alone, essentially die alone and thats the end.
Sometimes tactical sacrifices are needed in war. Maybe a contingent to
delay the enemy for a while. Theyre expected to fail. And often, only
the superior officers know the expected outcome. Only they know the

overall strategy. The rest of the soldiers are pawns. Pawns who dont
question why theyre asked to do whatever theyre asked to do. I could
never be that pawn. To relinquish my grip on life just to serve a higher
cause under someone else for purposes I dont fully understandnot
for me.
What does this mean as an Indian? I know its patriotic to say that
youll give your life for your country. I know theres no law saying that
you must want to give up your life. And thats one of the reasons why I
love India. But how much is it expected informally? Are Indians
expected to lay down their lives to protect their borders?
How many people are like me? Would you give up your life for your
country in the manner outlined above?

I'm not sure if it's fair to ask this question as broadly and as plainly as it is asked.
I mean, one could say that every last person in the armed forces is willing to "die for their
country", even if the likelihood of that happening is debatable. I am not in the armed forces.
My willingness to die for my country would have to be highly situationally specific. There are
causes and outcomes that I believe are worth my life, and causes that I believe are not. I
would also extend that there are many causes and outcomes worth my life that have no
effect on my country...a little like saying, "would you die to cure cancer?" or some other such
hypothetical.
I'm not in as much of a hurry to die for my country as others, but I'm willing to identify that
there are things out there that are more important than me.

thevenerablerob
Jul 29, 2009

1 convinced
Rebuttal
I think, as DKTurner put it, I'd fight for what is right and thus against what is wrong possibly
faster than I would 'for my country'. However, I would be much more pleased if I could fight
with my flag waving proudly behind me. If it were behind me, I would 'die for my country'
and, ultimately, for my family, friends and what is right. But if my country fights for the
wrong reasons, similar to the German Army in WWII, it would grieve me, but I would fight for
another country.

As stated, propagandic hype puts a spin on who is right and wrong. In WWII, the Allies did
some things that they later regretted. Frankly, it's too bad, but the greater evil would have
to have been Hitler and the Nazi Party. I'd fight for Canada in a second if a situation where
my homeland is threatened arose, or if a similar evil tyrant rose up in a similar situation,
against us.
If the country takes a wrong turn, I may fight in a rebellion 'for my country', its old beliefs,
morals and rights.
I care for the country and the people in it, so I would support it as long as it retains the
apparent 'right'. If it doesn't, I would fight to make it right again, and this could be said that
that's fighting for the country, as well - it's greater good.

thoughtprocess
Jul 29, 2009

1 convinced
Rebuttal
Like the others are saying, it would depend on the situation. It would take a very specific
situation to get me to die for a cause. I certainly wouldn't do it for "my country". The word
country reminds me of government and I pretty much hate the f**king government. I just
think about all the soldiers that have been lied into wars by my government and it makes
me sick. It would take a miracle for me to fight with a machine like that.

frankiej4189
Jul 29, 2009

1 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

accipiter Show

Show some respect. Millions of men and women have died fighting for their country, they
didn't feel it was so "ridiculous".

wwwdontpushmenet
Jul 29, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
of course i would if it meant to keep my children and my childrens children and so on safe! i
would definatly without a doubt in my mind!

blackkodiak
Jul 29, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

dkturner Show

That's a much better way of putting it than I did.

frankiej4189
Jul 29, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

accipiter Show

You become disrespectful when you presume to know the intentions of the people who
fought and died while in uniform, more so when you, with your presumptions, call it
ridiculous.

thevenerablerob
Jul 30, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

andre2552 Show

What wars are you referring to? :P I'd like to know. I can think of a couple, perhaps, but in
many wars, the soldiers fight and die willingly with little or no delusions as to the situation.
Which wars should a country have maintained a neutrality when it actually deemed
necessary to invade? I dearly hope you're not referring to either World War, or even the War
in Afghanistan.

frankiej4189
Jul 31, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

accipiter Show

Well for myself, and i'd imagine most other people, the most important principle in my life is
that family is the most important thing in the world and for you to be willing to sacrifice
(allegedly) your family's lives simply to fullfill your desire to "stick to your guns" seems like
one of the most selfish things i can imagine.
I guess you'd be right, letting your family die just so you can say to yourself "I stuck by what
i believed in" is something so selfish and so brutal that it must be the most ultimate
sacrifice. While a person dying for a loved one or a total stranger carries a sense of nobility
that goes along with it, your "sacrifice" is just a pathetic attempt to feel good about yourself
and it borders on sociopathical insanity IMO.
I'm very curious to know atleast SOME of the principles you'd be willing to let your family die

for. If you wouldn't mind sharing a few, seeing as how i've never heard anyone say what you
have.

jkgamz
Aug 01, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
The government and land and states and such are not a worthy price for anyone's life.
However, to die for your country is more than that. When a soldier fights, he doesn't fight for
the cause. Of course some do, but not most. They fight for the man next to them, each man
fallen a son, a grandson, a brother, a father, a friend. If I had the opportunity to give my life
for just one of them I would do it in a heartbeat. America isn't a government or a "patch of
dirt". America is the soldiers, men and women, who fight to protect what they have come to
love: the people of the United States of America.

processing
Aug 01, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

accipiter Show

You're right that is a sick and twisted scenario.I would have to sacrifice my family in that
case. There is no way I could torture and kill a child.
So in this case the ultimate sacrifice for principles would be to let my family die for my
principles.

thevenerablerob
Aug 01, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

andre2552 Show

At the time of World War I, Australia was a distinct part of the Commonwealth. Its
Government was not really independant and it relied on Great Britain for trade etcetera. As
one of the colonies, it, as well as any other, was relied upon to come to aid the home
country if such problems arose. In return, England would protect Australia and perform many
services for the commonwelath country. Australians, being patriotic and deeming that the
Kaizer was evil, fought for their motherland and their country.
In WWII, Japan controlled most of the Pacific. Japan would have invaded Australia no matter
what, simply because it was in the way and a Commonwealth nation. As it was, it touched
the shores of Australia before the United States managed to halt japanese progress.

whateverx245
Aug 06, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
yes, if any country decides to declare war on America, and attacks us, I will fight to defend
my country, and if i die, so be it. I like to think that I am patriotic.

whateverx245
Aug 13, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

akulakhan Show

whatever american may be, it is the best country to live in. You have a chance to become a

better person, to rise in society. People from China and India come here and become
doctors, lawyers, highly successful people due to hard work and an education. They couldn't
do that in their society. America is the most free country to live in. You have a chance even if
you are not white, as long as you work hard, conform, and have an education, the sky is the
limit. literally. In India, only Indians or Indian decent will have a chance. English, at heart are
racist. French? you need to have all french grandparents and parents in order to become a
citizen. i doubt they are pro-others. China? I like my freedom. Japan? same as france. No
other country is like America. America is great if you are willing to work hard, conform, and
get an education. It is not the same elsewhere. If this is not worth protecting, what is? Your
money? It'll be worthless if the enemy wins, and you will be opressed. The battle my great
great great grandfather fought in the revolutionary war would have been for nothing. He did
to give freedom for all, to give all an opportunity. These ideals still are the basis for american
society. These ideals are still true, and if i have to fight to keep these ideals, and i died, so be
it. If i died to ensure that the freedom my great great great grandfather died for remains
true, so be it. It is a cause worth dying for.

shaykh
Aug 16, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to:

hydar Show

Your country = your identity, your race, your history, how you were brought about on this
planet, how your ancestors gave up their lives for your freedom.
Dying for your country might even make you live forever.
That is how heroes are born, and are remembered until man walks this earth.
Oh, and is not your family a part of your country ?

melonchollylife
Oct 01, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
I wouldn't die for my COUNTRY, I would die for my country's PEOPLE though. Even though I
don't even particularly like the average US person. Patriotism is just (in my opinion) BS, but
to use my life for a real purpose - to save someone else's - then that would have real value.

Even if it took generations, the product they made, weather it be a child that becomes an
influential and important world leader, or even a great-great-grandchild that finds a cure to a
disease, than it would be infinitely worth it.
Life is a temporary thing. If my death were to help the future in any way, then I would gladly
die.

+ Add Argument
16
no

accipiter
Jul 28, 2009

6 convinced
Rebuttal
Die for a piece of dirt? Don't be ridiculous. If you were talking about people of personal
interest to me is a different question.
I have no patriotism in me at all. It's over hyped crap.

accipiter
Jul 29, 2009

4 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

That is the beauty of freedom of choice. The simple fact that they made the choice they
made really has nothing to do with me. They did what they did for their own reasons. Don't
you think some soldiers went to war for the glory or the fame or whatever other reasons
they had? Somehow dying with a uniform on doesn't make it a better decision.
The standard line from the government is that they died for their country or the cause. That

doesn't make it true. Most government decisions to get involved in a war are ridiculous and
have nothing to do with my life.

dkturner
Jul 28, 2009

3 convinced
Rebuttal
There's a difference between patriotism and jingoism. The former is pride in one's country,
and is generally a good thing (otherwise you're probably living in the wrong country).
Jingoism, on the other hand, is "my country, right or wrong". That's just stupid. Wrong is
wrong. I'd have fought against Hitler in WW2, but the point is that it would be *against*
Hitler rather than *for* Britain. I would die in service to my principles, but not in service to
my country. Since the two generally go hand in hand, it's an easy but horrific mistake to
make.

accipiter
Jul 29, 2009

2 convinced
Rebuttal
If there is an expectation for me to risk my life, it would only happen for something I thought
was important.

accipiter
Jul 30, 2009

2 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

While I have no intention of discussing my personal principles in public and what they

happen to be is irrelevant to the discussion. Principles are what you hold most precious in
your life and are very personal.
It has been said in here and echoed by others that laying down your life is the ultimate
sacrifice but judging by your reaction to the statement that you could sacrifice your family
speaks volumes to the power of the statement.
People seem to speak rather casually about laying down their lives in defense of what they
believe but when it comes to sacrificing your family; it takes the conversation to a new level.
This is a decision you live with after the deed. So between the two, which is the Ultimate
Sacrifice?

accipiter
Jul 30, 2009

2 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

How is it any more disrespectful for me to presume the intentions of those who fought and
died in uniform than it is for you to also make a presumption on the opposite side? Since
neither of us have first hand experience our assumptions are equally valid.
My assumptions are based on the huge array of opinions within any group of people and yet
you want to apply the same virtues to them all. Dying for patriotism is a ridiculous concept.
If you feel the need to die for something, it should be for something real.

accipiter
Jul 31, 2009

2 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

People risk their own lives on a daily basis but balk at allowing their loved ones to engage in

the same behavior. Simply by engaging in such behavior is by definition, diminishing the
importance of your own life.
Your principles are never truly tested in real life until the ultimate sacrifice is made. Judging
by your response and that of other people this has really struck a nerve; and so it should.
You are proving that the ultimate sacrifice is not giving your own life but that of your family.
It is shocking and disgusting to even imagine that anyone would do it. Sociopathic insanity is
an interesting term you used to attack without even hearing the scenario. Your revulsion was
both expected and understood. If you were not repulsed by this notion then there would
truly be a problem.
The following scenario is sick and twisted but it does put the example before you and I would
love to hear your honest response.
Your family is about to be killed. The ONLY WAY you can prevent their deaths is to torture
and kill a child that you have never met and do not know.
Would you torture and kill that child? (Taking your own life is not an option)
I invite everyone who is truly repulsed by this notion to think about and answer the
question.

jonjax71
Jul 29, 2009

1 convinced
Rebuttal
Back in the late 1960s when I was a revolutionary and radical activitist I was willing to die for
a cause, now although I have matured beyond the perspective of thinking a molotov cocktail
or shooting of an official of the oppostion is the way to make change, I am still willing to die
for a cause, a belief-however that cause and belief is a lot of differetn now then it used to be.
I will not lay my life down for a country or nation, here, there or anwyhere, yet I would not
hesitate to fight to the death protecting my family, my ideals, my property, civil rights and
for the greater good of humanity

akulakhan
Jul 29, 2009

1 convinced
Rebuttal
Everyone wants something good to die for, as opposed to dying for nothing. However, I am
strongly opposed to nationalism. I do not think that one should hope for their own country to
prosper, but instead hope that all people from any division, whether it be land or whatever,
would prosper simultaneously. I definetly wouldn't die for an isolated group, that would then
benefit them only.

teachme
Aug 01, 2009

1 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

It's true, Frankie...but Accipiter has the right to his feelings and opinions too...regardless of
the choices others have made.

akulakhan
Jul 29, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
Keep in mind that the strongest form of nationalism to date was the Nazi party.

marcopolo
Jul 29, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
I wouldnt even fight for the my country let alone die for it. Politicians have their own power
grab going on and it doesnt have anything to do with right or wrong or justice.
My battles are my own. Not some flag.

andre2552
Jul 30, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

frankiej4189 Show

This is often a lie. Where the country could have just stayed neutral in wars their country
had nothing to do with, many of them chose to join in. Many of those millions died for the
idiocy of their government.

slasheron
Jul 30, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
I would not die for my country(Philippines) at thsi current state. Our country as of now looks
like it is dead right now. Unless there's a reason to die for it in this current time I am not
willing to die for my country.

akulakhan
Jul 30, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
I took last years data in America for poverty rates per capita and military enrollment rates
per capita, plotted them, and got an r value of .6, which is respectfully correlated. This
means that poor people, whom don't own land, are dying for rich people, whom do own the
land.
I wouldn't exactly call that dying for ones country.

andre2552
Jul 31, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

thevenerablerob Show

For one thing, Australia in both World Wars. We were under no direct threat in WWI, and in
WWII, we were under threat only because we participated in the war. We went to war in WWI
as a slave to Britain. Was there a reason to let our citizens die? For freedoms that were
under threat from...who? No, there was none.
The US, though perhaps as a superpower they should've helped out anyway, acted well
keeping neutral, and wouldn't have gone to war unless they were attacked, which is
reasonable, unlike Australia's reaction. In Vietnam, Australia and USA acted wrongly, many
would not disagree. There are many examples.

mrphilosophy
Aug 02, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
i choose to live for my country

akulakhan
Aug 07, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to:

whateverx245 Show

May I ask why you would fight for your country?

hydar
Aug 15, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
die for your country this is the most insane thing ive heard to die for your family that is
anather when i hear on the t.v that anather british troop has died i think to my self that man
or woman has just given up his life so that many more innocent iraqi or afgahn civilion can
die

akulakhan
Aug 17, 2009

0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to:

shaykh Show

Didnt that one guy, (oh what's his face), say something once about defining someone not by
their tan, or something similar to it, or where they come from, but instead by "the context of
their character."?
Oh yeah, his name was MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR; the greatest American martyr to grace
the world with his presence.
Please note that my sarcasm is not intended to belittle the message of MLK Jr., for I've lived
my life by such wise words as his.

praachijatar
Mar 27, 2010

0 convinced
Rebuttal
In a time like today, no. Simply because it's not worth it.
Today, people are killing eachother everyday. Soldiers are dying for the country at war
everyday. Does anybody benefit? Does anybody even care? It's a viscious circle. Why die for
a country where nobody cares. Whichever country it may be, the patriotism that we used to
see in the previous centuries has definitely dminished, if not faded away. It may be an act of
heroism, but the entire country is way to busy in their daily life, to realize that you just died
for them.