Our colonial education has reduced the study of José Rizal into memorizing dates and names—failing to critically look into the historical context of his time which shaped his ideas, and the various contradictory articulations of his legacy on national identity and consciousness.

This uncritical study of José Rizal and his works has led to erroneous notions such as describing Maria Clara as the "ideal Filipina" when Jose Rizal's novels are satirical stories filled with caricatures for characters; he was, in fact, criticizing the very idea of Maria Clara.

Moreover, the uncriticality bred by decades of neoliberal and neocolonial education has repeatedly and wrongfully upheld José Rizal as non-violent reformist—a so-called paragon of "peaceful" resistance—to discredit various armed rebellions throughout Philippine history.

This debate about José Rizal and the 1896 Revolution also reflects the reality that José Rizal's legacy on the continuing construction of national identity is not monolithic; rather, it is a constant field of struggle between contradicting articulations of national identity.

Pío Valenzuela would later assert that José Rizal did not oppose armed revolt and believed it was necessary with the right timing but was merely hesitant to be its figurehead, let alone lead it—an assertion that would be corroborated by José Rizal's letter to José Alejandrino.

Jose Rizal's articulation of national consciousness and support for the revolution, however, has been distorted by American colonialists to put forward the idea that José Rizal rejected the revolution to discredit the continuing unrest and resistance to American colonial rule.

This false idea of a counterrevolutionary José Rizal has been and is still being used to articulate a "national" consciousness of peaceful capitulation to neocolonial and fascist rule—highlighting the class contradictions that undergird the construction of "national" identity.