When we speak of national history, it simply means the national narrative, or all the important events that contributed to what makes that nation what it is today. In other words, national history is the general history of a nation.
Local history, on the other hand, pertains strictly to the history of a particular region of a given nation. It often concentrates on a relatively small local community such as a municipality or even a barrio/barangay. Therefore, the history of, say, the Municipality of Bambán in Tárlac, or the history of Barrio Tabugón in Diñgle, Iloílo cannot be said to be national. Tarlaqueños wouldn't bother hearing about the story of Ilongos, and vice versa. Unless, perhaps, each has national significance to offer.
But what about Metro Manila, or the Tagálog-speaking provinces for that matter? How come their story is always placed at the core of our country's history? How come Graciano López Jaena and the Cantón de Negros always play second fiddle to José Rizal and the Katipunán? In the past few years, there have been derisive accusations in social media that our country's general history is actually Manila-centric or almost always centered on the Tagálog region. The accusations seem to be true if we are to review our history textbooks.
So here now lies the problem: how can local history be regarded as nationally significant to become part of the national narrative? What qualities should a local event or local historical figure have in order for them to be raised to the upper echelons of national history?
There are lots of factors to be considered. First of all, local history should have national impact. While Rizal's activities were mostly focused in the Tagálog region and in Europe, he may well be considered as the "anchor being" of Filipinas during the Spanish times due to his patriotic writings that embraced the entire country. Intramuros was located in Manila, but it has national impact for the simple reason that it was the nation's capital ("When Manila sneezes, the Philippines catches cold," wrote Nick Joaquín).
Take into consideration an 18th-century beachside fort in Ozámiz City called Fuerte de la Concepción y del Triunfo. It was built to ward off Muslim pirates from attacking the area. While it played a crucial part in the history of Ozámiz, it made no such impact to the general narrative of the country. That is why up to now, the fort's name doesn't ring a bell even to the most seasoned Filipino historians. We can argue the same thing with, say, Dr. Higinio Mendoza (1898–1944) of Palawan. He is considered a hero in the island province for having organized a guerrilla group there to fight Japanese invaders. While heroic, his activities were not enough to gain consideration among the chroniclers of our history.
But what about the Katipunán rebellion? Many will argue, most especially those outside Luzón, that it was not national in scope. Why was it included in the national narrative? How about Marcelo del Pilar, a Tagálog native? Why is he more renowned compared to Bicolano José María Pañganiban when both are of the Propaganda Movement? Pañganiban was as active as del Pilar, having written several articles for La Solidaridad. Yet his name is not common to the average student of history.
The final arbiter, or the Supreme Court of our history, is the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP). It is they who dictate how our history should be taught, what stories from different localities should be included, and how to weave them altogether. Together with the Department of Education and the Commission on Higher Education, they come up with measures and strategies on how best to teach history to the studentry. But we cannot simply blame the NHCP on what local histories should be considered canon in the Bible of our national history. It is difficult, if not impossible, to lump them all together for the sake of pleasing everyone (or conversely, of not offending all parties concerned). To its credit, the NHCP has been active in promoting research on local history, regularly conducting conferences and workshops all over the country.
While it may no longer be possible to teach the Filipino people of what had transpired in each part of our archipelago from the beginning of our history, what cannot be denied are the linkages, not to mention the significance or impact, between local and national. The history of Ozámiz, or even Mindanáo as a whole, would have been totally different had the Fuerte de la Concepción y del Triunfo not existed. La Solidaridad would not have reached its height without Panganiban's "Ang Lupang Tinubuan", "Noches en Mambuláo", and "Amor Mío". The history of a country is like an elaborate jigsaw puzzle. Each puzzle piece represents the history of a locality. Lose one piece, then the whole picture would be left incomplete.
No comments:
Post a Comment