Zeus Salazar Bayani – A Take On His Definitions Of Heroism
ZEUS SALAZAR – Dr. Zeus Salazar was a historian that had his own take on Philippines history and had his own definition of what a “Bayani” should be.
In this article, we are going to give our reaction to his thoughts on the subject.
In Zeus Salazars narrative, he paints a clear difference between the definition of a “bayani” and a “hero”. However, for me, this distinction fails to acknowledge that both terms are broad in and of itself. Salazar describes a “bayani” as somebody who’s fearless and thinks about the people and his nation rather than his self-interest. Meanwhile, he describes “heroes” as a western concept of the elite. But, I could not disagree more with his statement.
READ: Jose Rizal & Seiko Usui: Our Hero’s Love With A Samurai’s Daughter
The ideology behind his description of what a “bayani” and a “hero” should be can be considered as “gatekeeping”. Furthermore, this creates a divide between the social classes within the Filipino revolution.
He tags the people that are “maka-baya, maka-sama, maka-hirap, o kasama ng mahirap” like Andres Bonifacio and Macario Sakay, and the ordinary katipuneros as the “true” bayanis. However, Illustrados, the Filipino elite, were portrayed by Salazar as the westernized concept of heroes.
Admittedly, I share the sentiment that there may be an argument that Rizal shouldn’t be called the Philippines’ National Hero. This was because Rizal wasn’t chosen by the Filipino people but by the Americans who wanted a role-model for the Filipino.
In fact, one could argue that Rizal was the perfect effigy for what a hero should be – a well mannered and educated pacifist that wants reform over revolution.
For the Americans, Rizal was the perfect candidate for the Filipino people during their occupation of the Philippines. They wanted the Filipino to look up to someone that was filled with nationalistic ideals but at the same time, wasn’t that “dangerous” for the state.
For me, this was mainly the reason why Rizal was chosen as a national hero instead of Bonifacio, who fought in the war and whose ideals leaned on the side of revolution. If the Filipinos worshipped his ideals instead of Rizal’s during the American occupation, things would have ended in another bloody conflict.
Still, even though Rizal was “chosen” by the Americans, it still does not diminish the fact that Rizal, for the entirety of his life, had a vision of a Philippines free from oppression. This is where my argument against Salazar’s statement begins.
There should not be a distinct separation between a “bayani” and the western ideology of a “hero”. There should not be a class divide between who should be a hero based on their upbringing. And finally, “hero” is not a western concept but a universal one, similar to a bayani.
For me, one of Salazar’s misconceptions of what a “hero” is that heroes cared more about their “personas” rather than the interests and ideology of the people. Additionally, he proceeded to state that the actions of a “bayani” shows humility and would rather be “katulad lamang ng ibang kasama”.
However, this was not the case for the Filipino Bayani that Salazar himself described. Bonifacio was seen as “maka-baya, maka-sama, maka-hirap” but he still wanted revolution so his people could be free from opression. If he wanted to be “katulad lamang ng ibang kasama” then he would have remained complacent during the Spanish occupation, much like the rest of the Filipino.
Instead, through the works of Rizal and the inspirations he got from reading stories of revolution such as “Les Miserable”, Bonifacio’s ideals of a free nation was born. For me, that’s what a hero and a bayani is. Somebody who inspires others to do what’s best for the country and somebody who is not afraid to do fight for it.
READ ALSO: Issues And Interests On Rizal Law In The Context Of 1950s