AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Urban Myth - Jose Rizal, National :
Ek-ek
post Dec 8 2006, 03:16 PM
Post #1


AF Supreme
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 15,271
Joined: 28-October 02
From: Universe




Jose the Rizal - Jack the Ripper?

http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.p...d=66981&col=80
By Ambeth Ocampo
Inquirer

URBAN legends in Philippine history fascinate me. While some people search for the "White Lady" of Balete Drive or Robina Gokongwei's "snake twin" lurking in department store dressing rooms, I try to find the elusive "kapre" that lives in an ancient mango tree near the Emilio Aguinaldo house in Kawit town or Andres Bonifacio's love child from a place aptly named Libog (now Santo Domingo) in Albay province. It was thus stupid of me to presume that the most incredible Jose Rizal urban legend was that he was the father of Adolf Hitler, the result of an indiscretion with a prostitute in Vienna. The most current urban legend is that Rizal was Jack the Ripper!

Textbook history tells us that Rizal was in London from May 1888 to January 1889, in the British Library copying "Sucesos de las islas Filipinas" by hand because there were no photocopying machines at the time. Jack the Ripper was active around this time, and since we do now know what Rizal did at night or on the days he was not in the library, some people would like to believe Rizal is suspect. They argue that when Rizal left London, the Ripper murders stopped. They say that Jack the Ripper must have had some medical training, based on the way his victims were mutilated. Rizal, of course, was a doctor. Jack the Ripper liked women, and so did our own Rizal. And -- this is so obvious that many overlooked it -- Jose Rizal's initials match those of Jack the Ripper!

For someone who wrote a great deal on the most ordinary things, Rizal only made passing reference to Jack the Ripper in an essay on the Guardia Civil he wrote in the April 30, 1890 issue of La Solidaridad. Can this be added to the flimsy but growing list of circumstantial evidence to make Rizal a suspect?

If you open the Jack the Ripper website, you will find Rizal's name on the long list of suspects. There is even a forum dedicated to Rizal, (*http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=199*) begun by a certain "Amateursleuth" who signs in allegedly from Canada and signs the postings "Karen." Her first posting lists the following data:

"In 1888, he was staying with the Beckett family at 37 Chalcot Crescent in Camden [London]; He was a doctor (ophthalmologist); He was good with weapons (was called 'the swordsman'); He was a Malay; He was proficient in the martial arts; He would have been 27 at the time of the Ripper killings; He was short, had dark skin, dark hair, and dark eyes; He came from a well to do family, was well dressed and looked respectable; He came to London on May 24, 1888 on the ship City of Rome; He left London in January of 1889, and the Ripper killings stopped; He was multi-talented (could speak many languages, was a writer, poet, author, sculptor, artist); He was executed in the Philippines on December 30, 1896 at the age of 35; Had a romantic relationship with Gertrude Beckett-the daughter of Charles Beckett; He wrote letters to his friend Blumentritt from London, however there were no letters written to his family or friends from July 1888-Nov. 14, 1888; After he died, his mother tried to procure his assets which consisted of some pretty nice jewelry, including gold cuff links and other baubles of diamonds and amethysts (gold chain with a red stone seal?); I think this man warrants further investigation, which I intend to do."

She provided a photo of Rizal from an Argentine website leading a certain Glenn Andersson, writer and historian, to remark:

"An interesting character; good luck with the research and come back with more when you can. With such South American features, I doubt that he fits in well with the possible sightings, but then on the other hand, we can't be sure that any of those witnesses saw the Ripper anyway. After all, foreign suspects from those parts were under investigation by the police at the time."

Then somebody remarked that Rizal was in Paris at the time one of the victims, Annie Chapman, was cut up leading "Karen" to reply:

"OK, maybe he didn't kill Annie Chapman, but he had a friend called Dr. Antonio Regidor who could have killed her. Rizal stayed with him in London prior to moving in with the Becketts. Dr. Regidor was also from Manila. They were quite close."

It was also noted that one of the Ripper victims was buried in the same cemetery where Regidor and his family presently lie in peace. Karen later added:

"Since Dr. Rizal was in Paris between Sept. 4 and Sept. 10, 1888, it is therefore impossible for him to have killed Annie Chapman. However, after some digging, I discovered that Rizal had a good friend named Dr. Reinhold Rost who lived approximately 1 block from the Becketts' at 1 Elsworthy Terrace, Camden."

The most incredible piece of information-and absolutely untrustworthy-is that some time in January 1986, the present owners of the London apartment Rizal stayed in discovered a trunk in their attic that contained a diary where Rizal confesses to the Whitechapel murders and a glass jar with half a human kidney preserved in alcohol!

All these tales are ridiculous, but in life and death Rizal continues to fascinate, and tales continue to be spun around him, keeping him current and interesting a century after his execution.
"He might be Gay"


Was Rizal Gay?


From that link:

First, Rizal was a bakla because he was afraid of committing himself to the revolutionary cause. Second, Rizal’s kabaklaan made itself apparent in his periodic “failings” in his relationships with the women to whom he was supposed to have been romantically linked. Third, Rizal, unlike his compatriots, didn’t go “wenching” in the brothels of Barcelona and Madrid (at least, not very often). Fourth, Rizal might not have even been the father of Josephine’s benighted baby boy, since—paraphrasing noted Rizalist historian Ambeth Ocampo’s feelings on the matter of Rizal’s “disputable paternity”—Josephine would seem to have been routinely sexually abused and consequently impregnated by her stepfather.

Of course, these four “conjectures” hardly qualify as proof. They are more likely the end-results of what I can only describe as a largely catty evidential procedure that begs now to be challenged, if only for its underlying assumptions concerning what being a bakla means: one, a bakla cannot ever be a revolutionary because he is essentially spineless and a coward; two, failing in your relationships with women makes you a bakla; three, a bakla cannot possibly have sex with women, not even when they are wenches; and four, to be a bakla is to be impotent or at least incapable of getting a woman pregnant.

The dubiousness—and utter stupidity—of these assumptions hardly needs to be emphasized: according to them, basically, kabaklaan is the negation of everything good and desirable in masculinity and is hence, devoid of its own inner substance and worth. Indeed, even if I were to champion the cause of the bakla and would like to win someone as “big” and popular as Rizal over to my side, I would nonetheless balk at Cruz’s way of going about such a task. His “biographical evidence” demonstrates nothing, other than the unflattering and sadly naive opinion he holds of who (or what) a bakla is.

In saying that I do not find Cruz’s method credible in the very least, I am of course also saying that there is a better way of making the project of ascertaining Rizal’s “gender and sexuality” work. And this method involves, first and foremost, asking if the question itself is sensible, given the historical period in which I would wish it to make sense.

Examining the categories one is using in one’s study of such slippery “realities” as sexuality and gender is the necessary first step, then. This is because the categories we use are always culture-bound and historically specific, and as such are never quite neutral and “scientific,” let alone universally reliable and insightful. To ask if Rizal was a bakla, one has, first and foremost, to be clear about what the concept bakla meant at the time and in the place that Rizal lived. In other words, the way we understand bakla today most probably was not the way people in these islands a century ago understood it. This alone makes one’s project more difficult than it might have originally appeared, for it requires one to undertake a comprehensive study of the “sex/gender system” of mid-nineteenth-century Philippines—in particular, the sexual and gender categories that operated in the lives of the Tagalog ilustrados, whom Rizal most certainly was.

My own tentative findings about the “social semantics” of bakla—in other words, the career this concept has enjoyed in Philippine social history—would seem to indicate that, until recently, it didn’t even connote an identity that is distinguished by its sexuality, but merely a quality of emotional wavering, indecision or uncertainty—something that anyone unlucky enough can suffer from at any point in his or her life. Until early in this century, in fact, bakla wasn’t so much a noun as a verb: one was nababakla if he or she was not sure of his or her choices, or if one was suddenly afraid or confounded by the unexpected turn of events. (2) In contrast, nowadays, a bakla is an effeminate male who wishes to have sex with “real men” or tunay na lalake. Thus, the bakla in our midst is a variety of male homosexual who can easily be recognized because of his swishy ways, and whose sexual desire defines his innermost and most authentic sense of self.
Obviously, during Rizal’s time, there was no bakla or effeminate homosexual: there may have been effeminate men (called, among others, binabae/yi, bayoguin, asog and bido), but they were not defined as such by virtue of the desire they possessed, but only by their choice of occupations (feminine ones, like weaving, pottery-making, and the like), and their womanlike appearance and behavior. In fact, the idea that people were different on account of the gender of the object of their sexual desire (in other words, that people were either heterosexual or homosexual) was alien to our turn-of-the-nineteenth-century ancestors, who most probably desired and had sex with whomever they wanted at whatever point in their lives, without thinking of what such desires or acts had to say about their identities, their conceptions of who they essentially were.








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mofo
post Dec 9 2006, 03:48 PM
Post #2


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,736
Joined: 7-August 04




very interesting stuff hehe
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Digital Insanity
post Dec 9 2006, 03:50 PM
Post #3


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,342
Joined: 14-October 03
From: Los Angeles area




embarassedlaugh.gif Tabloid shit, anyone?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
azrach187
post Dec 10 2006, 12:21 AM
Post #4


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,127
Joined: 7-June 06
From: Mini Apple-lis, MN




Hey! Dammit! Who made this guy national hero anyhow?

I vote for Paquiao to replace this guy!

Kidding!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Reilynx
post Dec 10 2006, 04:39 AM
Post #5


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 2-May 06




QUOTE(azrach187 @ Dec 9 2006, 09:21 PM) [snapback]2556420[/snapback]

Hey! Dammit! Who made this guy national hero anyhow?

I vote for Paquiao to replace this guy!

Kidding!

Pacquiao already is a national hero.

Lookie here. biggthumpup.gif

IPB Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
philippines
post Dec 10 2006, 09:44 AM
Post #6


AF Addict
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 561
Joined: 4-November 06
From: San Diego




why is there a trend to link him to the criminals of history? he's a legend in his own right imo.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ek-ek
post Dec 10 2006, 09:49 AM
Post #7


AF Supreme
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 15,271
Joined: 28-October 02
From: Universe




QUOTE(Reilynx @ Dec 10 2006, 05:39 PM) [snapback]2557086[/snapback]

Pacquiao already is a national hero.

Lookie here. biggthumpup.gif

IPB Image


biggthumpup.gif biggrin.gif Nakakatawa naman iyan!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
azrach187
post Dec 10 2006, 02:32 PM
Post #8


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,127
Joined: 7-June 06
From: Mini Apple-lis, MN




QUOTE(Reilynx @ Dec 10 2006, 05:39 AM) [snapback]2557086[/snapback]

Pacquiao already is a national hero.

Lookie here. biggthumpup.gif

IPB Image

Rotfl!

Pacquiao for president in 2010 or is it 2011...

Or 2020 is we become parliamentary! biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
santoloco
post Dec 10 2006, 02:40 PM
Post #9


AF Elite
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,221
Joined: 23-February 06
From: GTA Ontario Canada




icon_confused.gif interesting! pero a bunch of bull IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fil-Ger
post Dec 10 2006, 03:04 PM
Post #10


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 177
Joined: 24-July 06




Pacquiao is the worst national hero a nation could have... It's like comparing Mike Tyson to Thomas Jefferson.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sonofvisayas
post Dec 10 2006, 03:11 PM
Post #11


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,458
Joined: 26-July 06
From: Uptown




QUOTE(Fil-Ger @ Dec 10 2006, 03:04 PM) [snapback]2558120[/snapback]

Pacquiao is the worst national hero a nation could have... It's like comparing Mike Tyson to Thomas Jefferson.

I dont think you could compare Pac to Mike Tyson, Pacquiao fights for the Philippines while Tyson fought for noone but himself. Manny shoulders all the filipino's expectations and gives his all. He gives the poor filipinos that hope and idea "if you work hard and put your heart into whatever you do, you will suceed" I think hes a hero in his own way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Reilynx
post Dec 10 2006, 04:02 PM
Post #12


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,421
Joined: 2-May 06




QUOTE(Fil-Ger @ Dec 10 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]2558120[/snapback]

Pacquiao is the worst national hero a nation could have... It's like comparing Mike Tyson to Thomas Jefferson.

Come on, man. You take us way too seriously. embarassedlaugh.gif

SonofVisayas is right. Pacquiao is a hero in his own way, since he serves as an inspiration and as a role model to a certain extent for Filipinos.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 05:06 AM