BRIDGING THE GAP
The importance of local history in Philippine history
It is unfortunate that a vast number of Filipino laymen lack interest or understanding of Philippine history. This may have been brought about by an inadequate background in history and a general tendency on the part of the people to be less conscious of the value of the past to their present life. Or, maybe, such ignorance or apathy may have resulted from the dearth of materials, especially on local history which is closer to the hearts and minds of the people.
The critical importance of local history in the understanding and the writing of a truly national history cannot just be ignored. The rationale behind the need to come up with local history is the realization of the unrepresentative and limited nature of Philippine history. What is generally considered to be the history of the Filipino people is essentially the history of Central Luzon, most especially the Tagalogs. Important events and developments, including personages, particularly in the Visayas and Mindanao, are, at best, mentioned in passing and, at worst, altogether left out. The consequence, in this respect, is the misrepresentation of Philippine history by not taking into full account the unique differential character of the historical and cultural experiences of the various ethnic groups in scattered geographical units of the country.
Historians -- both Filipino and foreign -- are not altogether to be blamed for the kind of Philippine histories they have come up with. The problem lies in the nature of Philippine historiography which was. for some time, tied up to the rigid limitations of Western criteria or standards; that is, historical writing has to be based on written sources. "No document, no history," as the saying goes. In fact, even in the use of written sources, primary materials were the only ones considered to be reliable. Because of this, the absence of written materials done by Filipinos in their own localities has largely been instrumental in limiting the tasks of national historians. Thus, whatever data have been incorporated by them in Philippine history have been derived from colonial sources which are, in the first place, regarded as biased sources. In short, national historians have been handicapped by this adherence to a generally accepted historical approach which offers very little information and undertaking for a people whose view of their history and struggles is, perhaps, mostly found in their oral literature.
It should be borne in mind that the nation is made up of its parts - the regions, provinces, cities, and municipalities - and the nation's history must be the sum total of the histories of its parts. No town or province exists independently of the nation, and vice-versa. And, just as the auto mechanic understands the entire machine only if he knew the specific parts, so also national history becomes intelligible only in the whole context of local history. Simply put, and ,naturally, of crucial importance is the realization that interest in the study and understanding of Philippine history mainly hinges on one's appreciation of his/her own town's history.
Local history is expectedly closest to the people's heart and consciousness because it reflects their own identity, experiences and aspirations. It is the interpretative recreation of the past of their locality, embracing its political, social, economic, and cultural life. This includes the development of the institutions in the geographical unit and the successes and failures of its people. Thus, in order to understand and, consequently, appreciate Philippine history, one should first know the history of his own locality and its contributions to regional development and over-all nation-building. One may never achieve a fuller understanding of the Filipinos and the Philippines if he failed to study the history of his/her town, city, province or region.
The solution, therefore, to the inadequacy of national history is in its revision and enrichment. And, this is a responsibility not so much of the national historian but of the local people. It is the basic obligation of every locality to provide a proper and an adequate account of the historical experience of its own people. If this can be done, this will certainly enrich national history and will correct the impression that Philippine history is mainly the history of Manila and its surrounding area. Far from fostering regionalism, local history will make the people understand better and appreciate more their total national experience and heritage as Filipinos.