Reading No.

57
NOTES ON PHILIPPINE LOCAL HISTORY
An excerpt from "Kasaysayan, Studies on Local and Oral History" by Marcelino A.
Foronda
***
Dr. Marcelino A. Foronda was an avid advocate of local history writing. He started
his local history Gurney with his researches on lloco history in Vigan in 1942. He
started his local history project in 1972 and so far, his local history collection is
considered as the most comprehensive in the Philippines. Dr. Leslie Bauzon,
former President of the Philippine National Historical Society referred to him as
the Philippines "Apostle of Local and Oral History.”
*****
Love of a country or a nation does not obviate nor obliterate love of a town, province or
region. On the contrary, one who does not love his own town, province, or region - or
the traditions intimately intertwined with the historical development of that town,
province or region - will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to love a larger and
even more mythical body politic known as a nation.

Indeed, if one is to have a more perceptive, a more complete, and therefore, a much
more genuine love of the Philippine nation, it is inevitable that he should first of all love
his own town, province or region. One complements the other. Far from fostering
regionalism, we may say that if one is to understand and consequently to appreciate,
the complex entity that is Philippine history, tradition, and culture, it is inevitable that he
should first of all know the history, tradition, and culture of his own town, province, or
region, that form part, as it were, of the much larger mosaic that we now call the
Philippine experience.

In truth, we may never achieve fuller understanding of the Philippines and of the
Filipinos if we fail to study the history of our own towns and our provinces. And it is this
history that we call local history, to distinguish it from general, national, or universal
history.

Father Horacio V. de la Costa once remarked that Philippine history is relatively poor in
regional and municipal histories and that this lack leaves notable gaps in our knowledge
which more pretentious accounts are unable to fill.

In a sense, Father De La Costa was right for in the past local history has not merited the
attention-not to say the dedication and efforts of our more notable historians, relegated
as it was to souvenir programs of town fiestas and athletic meets, or to volumes
commemorating the anniversaries of some city, town or province.

As may be expected, such accounts are uneven in quality, and if they do share one
thing in common, is that they seem to have been written with a minimum notion of
historical methodology and scholarship.
This is not, of course, to minimize the importance of such efforts; the scholar may
indeed use them but with caution, in his reconstruction of some aspects of Philippine
history.

Yet, the writing of local history in the Philippines is not actually new. Towards the late
1500s, records of the establishment of some of our towns have already existed and, by
the early 1600s, Spanish friars writing reports of their missionary activities have
included accounts of towns and settlements which they had founded within their
jurisdiction. In a few instances, like the accounts of Juan de la Concepcion, Pedro
Chirino, and Francisco Colin, not only the establishment of these early towns but also of
pre-colonial religion, customs and traditions are narrated. These accounts were written
by non-Filipinos, who had, however, different cultural orientations and contexts, and
therefore, were not always lacking in biases and prejudices.

It was only in 1890, towards the end of Spanish colonial rule, however, that the first
book published. But de los Reyes who had many interests other than local history was
not always exacting in his scholarship. Therefore, this book, while it definitely paved the
way for Filipino scholarship in local history, must be used with caution.

Other works on the history of our towns and provinces have been written, some of them
before the Second World War, as a result of the resurgence of nationalism, later
volumes were written during these past few years. But almost all of these works were
written by individuals who called themselves aficionados of history, and this possibly be
one of the reasons why these works never had an impact on Philippine historical
scholarship.

Indeed, our professional historians, for their part, have chosen to write "general”
Philippine history, which has been taken to mean the political, social, and cultural
history of the country. It was only after the war that some scholars - Filipino and foreign,
many of whom were graduate students writing doctorate dissertations - veered away
from "general Philippine history, and have written and consequently published
diplomatic, political, military, administrative, and ecclesiastical history.

On the other hand, some continued to write on topics, for instance, on Jose Rizal, which
had been reworked again and again to threadbare proportions in seemingly unending
articles and monographs. Others have published textbooks which are nothing but cut
and face versions of other authors' work, as critics not too kindly, have accurately, have
pointed out.

These observations, though, are not meant to cast aspersions on our historians, they
are merely mentioned to emphasize the fact that local history in the Philippines
deserves greater dedication from first-rate historians.

Local history must be explored if there is to be a flowering and fruition in the writing of
our national history and if attempts to write more comprehensive historical accounts of
our country are to prosper.